Creation , Evolution and Science. (Christian, beliefs, belief, create)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And seeing he is an engineer and not astrophysicist, he may not understand all that he is describing.
Regardless, he does not work for NASA any longer and have been for some time. From what I could see he's discussing issues that were discussed back in 1991.
We now have 2015. Scientific knowledge advances. New discovery show that Mercury in fact does have a molten core, and as such a lot of the nonsense that he's talking about is out the window.
You don't get to say that if science doesn't know something, the default position is God done it.
This discovery forced scientists to come up with a entirely new theory on how the planets formed .
Totally throwing the old ones out the window as you said .
Which is somthing they are forced to do with every major discovery.
Every time they discover more they create more evidence for a young solar system .
None of you have given even a single scientific answer on this post .
You don't have to prove to me mercury has a molten core I already know .
What YOU Fail to realize is it can't have a molten core if it formed itself 400 billion years ago .
This discovery forced scientists to come up with a entirely new theory on how the planets formed .
Totally throwing the old ones out the window as you said .
Which is somthing they are forced to do with every major discovery.
Every time they discover more they create more evidence for a young solar system .
None of you have given even a single scientific answer on this post .
You don't have to prove to me mercury has a molten core I already know .
What YOU Fail to realize is it can't have a molten core if it formed itself 400 billion years ago .
Who claims it was created 400 billion years sgo? You made the clsim, it is about time you started to actually back one of your claims. Which scientifically backed theory claims that Mercury was formed 400 billion years ago? Citation needed. You can also provide the science behind your claim that a molten core could not be 400 billion years old. I do not need the equations just a detailed summary.
It seems the lot of you have no idea of your sides theorys on how planet
s formed themselves .
Yet it's me you call uneducated and illiterate.
You abviously have no idea what you believe because you are not capable of taking these discoverys / facts , and compairring them to your theory.
Go read how mercury supposedly formed itself .
Then move on to the next planets , try and figure our how the next can have the levels of certain gasses that they do with such a procces . Even stranger if we know the sun breaks these gasses down and they are long overdue.
Last edited by clickstack; 08-28-2015 at 07:42 AM..
Who claims it was created 400 billion years sgo? You made the clsim, it is about time you started to actually back one of your claims. Which scientifically backed theory claims that Mercury was formed 400 billion years ago? Citation needed. You can also provide the science behind your claim that a molten core could not be 400 billion years old. I do not need the equations just a detailed summary.
You can't have a molten core at 4.5 billion either . Google will give you the dates on the first search.
To understand why it shouldn't have a core you should first go read how scientists claim it was formed.
Messenger concluded that Mercurys magnitic strength has decreesed 8% in approx 35 years .
A feild that originally wasn't in existence.
If it was 4.5 billion years old somthing doesn't add up.
What messenger reported is known as science .
What you report is known as criticism.
Last edited by clickstack; 08-28-2015 at 07:22 AM..
Your link talks about the water / ice hypothesis. Do you have any idea what this is?
Sopposedly it have not have been possible for the planets to form themselves and contain water at the same time . So they needed a theory that supported a source of water later .
The theory that satisfied the other theory was that comets brought the water in . This same theory is still used for earth .
But science aside ,that's a lot of water to come in on comets.
The fact that recent discoverys thru new technologies show that water on comets contain elements not found on earth and vice versa make it even worse.
Last edited by clickstack; 08-28-2015 at 07:07 AM..
The bottom line is you are all hyped up stating that Christians should stay away from science .
Science is observing and learning from what we see.
Mixing your religion of assumption into this is not science .
Mixing genesis from the bible into this is not science.
Observing what we see is science .
As soon as someone misuses the term 'theory' in connection with science, I know the rest will be nonsensical.
Likewise when they talk about science as anything other than a process.
This is an absurd statement . If we observe our universe as a procces then we have to disregard all that we see and have learned now .
Because what we see would make no difference on what has been or what will be .
You can't have a molten core at 4.5 billion either . Google will give you the dates on the first search.
To understand why it shouldn't have a core you should first go read how scientists claim it was formed.
Messenger concluded that Mercurys magnitic strength has decreesed 8% in approx 35 years .
A feild that originally wasn't in existence.
If it was 4.5 billion years old somthing doesn't add up.
What messenger reported is known as science .
What you report is known as criticism.
You made a claim, I responed to your claim calling your out on it so yes I criticised your post. I never said that it was science asking you which scientist claims that Mercury is 400 billion years old. So instead of backing up your claim you are sending me out to the Google to discover for myself what exactly? If you wish to make claims that science says something that it has never said and then in defense ignore what you said, fine, end of converstation. I will not post again until you answer clearly which scientists claim that Mercury is 400 billion years old and cite it as well.
It is funny that you declare that scientists are wrong on a subject and yet refuse to even provide your evidence for dismissing main stream science and place the burden on us to prove you wrong. Maybe pathetic is a better word for it. It is little wonder that you use the so called science from proven fakes to back up your claims. The web is full of sites that systematically destroy the creationist's claims. I at least have in the past read books, articles and web sites by these fakes. Have you read an actual science book, like a first year college text in order to understand how science works? No do not bother answering that, I perfer to find out who claims that Mercury is 30 times older than the universe.
You made a claim, I responed to your claim calling your out on it so yes I criticised your post. I never said that it was science asking you which scientist claims that Mercury is 400 billion years old. So instead of backing up your claim you are sending me out to the Google to discover for myself what exactly? If you wish to make claims that science says something that it has never said and then in defense ignore what you said, fine, end of converstation. I will not post again until you answer clearly which scientists claim that Mercury is 400 billion years old and cite it as well.
It is funny that you declare that scientists are wrong on a subject and yet refuse to even provide your evidence for dismissing main stream science and place the burden on us to prove you wrong. Maybe pathetic is a better word for it. It is little wonder that you use the so called science from proven fakes to back up your claims. The web is full of sites that systematically destroy the creationist's claims. I at least have in the past read books, articles and web sites by these fakes. Have you read an actual science book, like a first year college text in order to understand how science works? No do not bother answering that, I perfer to find out who claims that Mercury is 30 times older than the universe.
The theory mentioned here has also been proved impossible by the same people that came up with it .
There own models proved it is not possible to create sizable astroids much less planets from this dust .
As for the science book question . I have apparently read more science then you have.
What I didn't do was tolerate a classroom that spent the mojority of its time harping why science proves there is no God and how it proves evolution
But never supplying evidence .
This is the same aproach you are attempting .
Last edited by clickstack; 08-28-2015 at 08:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
