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.
The reason it may be confusing is that toxic levels of radiation in space still exist. If a life form "evolved" coming out of water, the water which this life form came from, had to be clear of toxic levels of radiation.
Look, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Live didn't evolve in space, so I don't see the concern there. There's obviously not toxic levels of radiation here on earth (since we're still alive), so it's just not a problem.
Any matter which was radioactive due to stellar fusion has had billions of years to decay to stable isotopes before the earth formed, and another billion to decay even further before life started evolving. What sort of radioactive elements are you claiming were created that are so abundant that they would still cause widespread damage to life on a planetary scale after billions of years of decay. Please be specific - isotope names and half-lives, please.
Look, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Live didn't evolve in space, so I don't see the concern there. There's obviously not toxic levels of radiation here on earth (since we're still alive), so it's just not a problem.
Any matter which was radioactive due to stellar fusion has had billions of years to decay to stable isotopes before the earth formed, and another billion to decay even further before life started evolving. What sort of radioactive elements are you claiming were created that are so abundant that they would still cause widespread damage to life on a planetary scale after billions of years of decay. Please be specific - isotope names and half-lives, please.
i could be wrong, but what i think he is saying is that this wouldn't matter anyway, since most creationists believe that creation took place thousands, not billions of years ago. hence, the 40,000-year life cycle of matter.
i am not sold on that just yet.
troop. i have a question. back in post 20 you were speaking of entropy levels in ice. i had understood that kinetic energy (heat) in any form increased entropy, and that therefore ice would be at a more stable energy level than water. it is true in most other forms of matter, is it not? if so, why would ice be different?
haaziq: i could swear that there were plenty of scientists from aristotle's time all the way up to the 1500s that believed in the spontaneous generation theory. that said, i think that there is a difference between that and the philosophy of something from nothing. as far as i ever studied, i don't recall abiogenesis or spontaneous generation ever saying that something came from nothing. the rats maggots came from the dung. the flies came from the rotting meat. there was always something there to begin with. were there other schools of thought along the same line that said otherwise?
is there any way that the big bang could have been produced by fission rather than fusion, and that the fusion that we see nowadays is just the coalescing of the same separated matter?
my knowledge of the energy released in fission is very limited, but i am curious nonetheless.
i realize that this thread seems to have veered away from the religious forum, but i think that even though we are not arguing pro or con in every thread, this is still pertinent to the forum, and am glad alpha didn't move it to science. good call.
troop. i have a question. back in post 20 you were speaking of entropy levels in ice. i had understood that kinetic energy (heat) in any form increased entropy, and that therefore ice would be at a more stable energy level than water. it is true in most other forms of matter, is it not? if so, why would ice be different?
I was referring more to "phase shifting" and was trying to use ice and water as an example of that. Nevertheless, I hope that we are both under the same page that high entropy=low order and that low entropy=high order. The two are inverse of one another. The ice/water example is one used more to explain the symmetry of things in order to better explain the impartation of a Higgs' field. Because of that, it seems my example was a bit misleading. In essence, in order for us to talk about ice heating into water and then steam we are implying an outside source to increase the amount of entropy. Of course, that makes sense. Yet, what I wanted to envelop was a cooling universe that has no outside effects and as we both know, the universe is increasing into a higher state of entropy (even though it is cooling). Yet, it's important to recognize the symmetry of things in order to explain that, and that's why I used the water/ice example.
I think the confusion was on my behalf. If we're to talk about the symmetry of things we can talk about phase transitions (water, ice, and steam). We all know how that change takes place. While you might think that ice would be the most symmetrical of the three phases, that is actually quite untrue. In all actuality, since water, steam, and ice are all made up of the same H2O molecules, when water is frozen (ice) the molecules are formed into a crystalline hexagonal lattice and can only be changed by certain "alterations". Yet, when we melt the ice into a glass of water, the crystal structure is reduced to a jumble of molecules that can change shape and form very easily. Likewise, a gaseous state of water can do so even easier.
Look, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Live didn't evolve in space, so I don't see the concern there. There's obviously not toxic levels of radiation here on earth (since we're still alive), so it's just not a problem.
Any matter which was radioactive due to stellar fusion has had billions of years to decay to stable isotopes before the earth formed, and another billion to decay even further before life started evolving. What sort of radioactive elements are you claiming were created that are so abundant that they would still cause widespread damage to life on a planetary scale after billions of years of decay. Please be specific - isotope names and half-lives, please.
The fact there isn't toxic levels on this planet and still in space means that this planet had to be shielded.
Here's what the Big Bang theory wants me to accept:
1.that the "bang" happened in space, and somehow fragments formed galaxies.
2. One of those fragments from the "bang" did not get contaminated, (mathematically impossible) or even even plausible.
3. Now lets add into the distance of travel from the point of origin (the bang) to its current location. Going that distance at extreme speeds, not contacting any contaminated fragments, passing through radiation traveling in random paths or radiation colliding into the fragment path. (so mathematically impossible that its begining to get stupid)
4. After stoping its flight, the fragment entered into orbit around a comparatively small star that gives off radiation - while all this time dodging radiation from the original "bang" nor getting radiation exposure from the star, nor any radiation from space that the fragment now goes through during its orbit.
enough said.
Now about half life cycles. Ready?
1. Go to a room in your house and put your back to the wall. That is the beginning of a life cycle.
2. The wall directly opposite is the end of the life cycle.
3. Proceed to the middle of the room. Stop!
4. Congradulations! you just lost a half cycle
5. From the middle of the room, proceed half the distance to the wall. Stop!
6. Congradulations! another half life cycle lost.
Eventually by reducing the distance by half, you will be moving fractions of a centimeter at a time, but never reaching the other side.
This example shows that all moving things lose energy over the course of time. The greatest loss is at the begining, not at the end.
Another funny thing happens about half life cycles. When you near 20% at the end of life cycle, "it" is unsustainable".
2 examples:
1.Take a baseball - 2. "bang" Throw it as hard as you can 3. Observe what happens 4. Eventually the energy that it took to keep it in flight is lost and it falls to the ground. The time in flight was its "life cycle" When 80% of the energy is lost to keep it in flight, it falls.
Example #2 Attach youself to a heart monitor. When you're at 100%, that is a whole lot better than 20%. You know what happens at 20% or less, life is unsustainable.
All things have different life cycles. There is no known matter (physical or energy) that can sustain it self beyond 40,000 year.
Meaning for this planet to be in existance, for lethal radiation to exist in space, everything has to be less than 40,000 year old.
The fact there isn't toxic levels on this planet and still in space means that this planet had to be shielded.
Here's what the Big Bang theory wants me to accept:
1.that the "bang" happened in space, and somehow fragments formed galaxies.
2. One of those fragments from the "bang" did not get contaminated, (mathematically impossible) or even even plausible.
3. Now lets add into the distance of travel from the point of origin (the bang) to its current location. Going that distance at extreme speeds, not contacting any contaminated fragments, passing through radiation traveling in random paths or radiation colliding into the fragment path. (so mathematically impossible that its begining to get stupid)
4. After stoping its flight, the fragment entered into orbit around a comparatively small star that gives off radiation - while all this time dodging radiation from the original "bang" nor getting radiation exposure from the star, nor any radiation from space that the fragment now goes through during its orbit.
enough said.
Now about half life cycles. Ready?
1. Go to a room in your house and put your back to the wall. That is the beginning of a life cycle.
2. The wall directly opposite is the end of the life cycle.
3. Proceed to the middle of the room. Stop!
4. Congradulations! you just lost a half cycle
5. From the middle of the room, proceed half the distance to the wall. Stop!
6. Congradulations! another half life cycle lost.
Eventually by reducing the distance by half, you will be moving fractions of a centimeter at a time, but never reaching the other side.
This example shows that all moving things lose energy over the course of time. The greatest loss is at the begining, not at the end.
Another funny thing happens about half life cycles. When you near 20% at the end of life cycle, "it" is unsustainable".
2 examples:
1.Take a baseball - 2. "bang" Throw it as hard as you can 3. Observe what happens 4. Eventually the energy that it took to keep it in flight is lost and it falls to the ground. The time in flight was its "life cycle" When 80% of the energy is lost to keep it in flight, it falls.
Example #2 Attach youself to a heart monitor. When you're at 100%, that is a whole lot better than 20%. You know what happens at 20% or less, life is unsustainable.
All things have different life cycles. There is no known matter (physical or energy) that can sustain it self beyond 40,000 year.
Meaning for this planet to be in existance, for lethal radiation to exist in space, everything has to be less than 40,000 year old.
You lost any sort of credibility when you claimed that the Earth was created from the Big Bang.... Where in the world did you learn that ridiculously stupid canard?
Nevertheless, I hope that we are both under the same page that high entropy=low order and that low entropy=high order.
That's not always true. Entropy represents the dispersal of energy as well as the ordering of matter. So atoms can naturally assemble themselves into more complex molecules (as required for abiogenesis) without violating the second law, because energy is released thereby. Similarly, interstellar dust may become more compact and ordered, and eventually form a star, but in doing so it releases great amounts of energy.
That's not always true. Entropy represents the dispersal of energy as well as the ordering of matter. So atoms can naturally assemble themselves into more complex molecules (as required for abiogenesis) without violating the second law, because energy is released thereby. Similarly, interstellar dust may become more compact and ordered, and eventually form a star, but in doing so it releases great amounts of energy.
I'm more referring to the Big Bang and the creation of the universe (and its' subsequent entropical heightening) as regards a closed system. I'm well aware of the fact that entropy can decrease (become more ordered) on places like Earth where there is an outside source of energy like that big ball of fire in the sky.
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.
