An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[AAFitz]

But even so we are still only assuming star formations in the gaseous clouds. We really don't know what is happening inside of those clouds. What we perceive as potential "New" stars, could be the final flickers of sparkles of a sort of the effects of the dead star. In other words when the clouds finally dissipate there may be nothing there to see of what we believed to be "New" stars.

Or: Aliens.

[AAFitz]

It's possible!

I do not think that word means what you think it does.

[BigBallinStalin]

But even so we are still only assuming star formations in the gaseous clouds. We really don't know what is happening inside of those clouds. What we perceive as potential "New" stars, could be the final flickers of sparkles of a sort of the effects of the dead star. In other words when the clouds finally dissipate there may be nothing there to see of what we believed to be "New" stars.

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, we see several hundred supernovae per year recently.

Do you mean "we see several hundred supernovae per year which are already occurring*?
*(already occurring, as in our current image from the light of that star depicts a supernovae. In other words, the star we see is already exploding, so we missed the star ---> supernova transition).

Or do you mean "we see the very beginning of several hundred stars expanding/exploding "into" supernovae per year?
(i.e. we witness several hundred stars undergoing the transition from star into supernova).

The time-scale for a supernova explosion is actually quite short (astronomically speaking); most become completely undetectable after time scales of about a year. So what I meant is that we are witnessing several hundred new events per year; it would basically be impossible to find now supernovae that had happened many years ago, as the light from the explosion would have fallen below the levels that current telescopes can detect. For the best case scenarios, we typically first observe a supernova something like a day after the initial stellar explosion happens. So, in that sense, the original claim (that we see stars dying all the time) is actually correct; furthermore, the claim that we never see the entirety of the star formation process is also correct, as these happen on much longer time-scales (ten million years). This is just the way scales work in astronomy: it takes up to ten million years for a cloud of gas to collapse into a massive star, hundreds of millions of years to burn through all the hydrogen and other fuels, and about one second to collapse and violently explode.

It is fairly accurate to say that the state of knowledge regarding star formation is somewhat like that of macro-evolution; the time-scales are too long for us to directly observe either one, but by looking at many stars at various points in the star formation process, we have built up a fairly good idea of how the star formation process has to work.

[marpesia]

Just curious why there was no choice at the top to vote for Creationism....
Not quite the same as Santa Clause...
Were you afraid you would be outvoted?

I believe in God...That God created the Universe.
I do not live in a Third World Country, I am educated, working on my Masters...
And I am a Christian...
'Nuff Said!

[Just_essence]

I guess that it is implied somehow that the option against evolution means that the person most likely is a creationist.

[tzor]

But even so we are still only assuming star formations in the gaseous clouds. We really don't know what is happening inside of those clouds. What we perceive as potential "New" stars, could be the final flickers of sparkles of a sort of the effects of the dead star. In other words when the clouds finally dissipate there may be nothing there to see of what we believed to be "New" stars.

We know what is happening inside those clouds, because the clouds are not opaque at all frequencies. That was my astrophysics minor project for my BS Physics degree; mapping the infrared emissions in a gaseous cloud in the belt of the constellation Orion.

Key elements of star formation are only available by observing in wavelengths other than the optical. The protostellar stage of stellar existence is almost invariably hidden away deep inside dense clouds of gas and dust left over from the GMC. Often, these star-forming cocoons can be seen in silhouette against bright emission from surrounding gas; they are then known as Bok globules. Early stages of a star's life can be seen in infrared light, which penetrates the dust more easily than visible light.

The structure of the molecular cloud and the effects of the protostar can be observed in near-IR extinction maps (where the number of stars are counted per unit area and compared to a nearby zero extinction area of sky), continuum dust emission and rotational transitions of CO and other molecules; these last two are observed in the millimeter and submillimeter range. The radiation from the protostar and early star has to be observed in infrared astronomy wavelengths, as the extinction caused by the rest of the cloud in which the star is forming is usually too big to allow us to observe it in the visual part of the spectrum. This presents considerable difficulties as the atmosphere is almost entirely opaque from 20μm to 850μm, with narrow windows at 200μm and 450μm. Even outside this range atmospheric subtraction techniques must be used.

The formation of individual stars can only be directly observed in our Galaxy, but in distant galaxies star formation has been detected through its unique spectral signature.

[tzor]

I guess that it is implied somehow that the option against evolution means that the person most likely is a creationist.

I think it is generally implied that only creationists are generally arguing "against evolution." I haven't seen an anti-evolution argument from a non creationist on this board.

[jonesthecurl]

So a hundred years to build a huge Ark? Only a few people actually working on that huge dry dock?

It's possible!

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

[jonesthecurl]

I guess that it is implied somehow that the option against evolution means that the person most likely is a creationist.

I started a thread (two in fact) to try to get at that very question, but the anti-evolutionists mostly avoided it, and the pro-evolutionists came in and made mock before we could get anywhere.

[jonesthecurl]

So a hundred years to build a huge Ark? Only a few people actually working on that huge dry dock?

It's possible!

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

With 20th century technology.

[BigBallinStalin]

Noah works in mysterious dickish ways?

[Viceroy63]

So a hundred years to build a huge Ark? Only a few people actually working on that huge dry dock?

It's possible!

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

Uuuuhhh Yeah; Sure thing buddy.


[Note]
No need to provide any references here???

[Dukasaur]

So a hundred years to build a huge Ark? Only a few people actually working on that huge dry dock?

It's possible!

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

Uuuuhhh Yeah; Sure thing buddy.


[Note]
No need to provide any references here???

Do you EVER check anything for yourself before asking other people to do unpaid research for you?

<sigh>
http://www.titanicfacts.net/building-the-titanic.html

3 - the number of years it took to build the RMS Titanic.

$7,500,000 - the cost of building the Titanic (£1.5 million).

3,000 - the approximate number of men employed in the construction of the Titanic, around 20% of the Harland & Wolff workforce.

3 years X 3,000 men = 9,000 man-years. Or is arithmetic also a conspiracy by scientists to get more funding?

[chang50]

Just curious why there was no choice at the top to vote for Creationism....
Not quite the same as Santa Clause...
Were you afraid you would be outvoted?

I believe in God...That God created the Universe.
I do not live in a Third World Country, I am educated, working on my Masters...
And I am a Christian...
'Nuff Said!

But you do live in the only developed country where creationism is taken seriously,a paradox that has bemused me for decades.Santa is at least as plausible as that absurd worldview.

[jonesthecurl]

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

Uuuuhhh Yeah; Sure thing buddy.


[Note]
No need to provide any references here???

Do you EVER check anything for yourself before asking other people to do unpaid research for you?

<sigh>
http://www.titanicfacts.net/building-the-titanic.html

3 - the number of years it took to build the RMS Titanic.

$7,500,000 - the cost of building the Titanic (£1.5 million).

3,000 - the approximate number of men employed in the construction of the Titanic, around 20% of the Harland & Wolff workforce.

3 years X 3,000 men = 9,000 man-years. Or is arithmetic also a conspiracy by scientists to get more funding?

Thanks for saving me the bother.

[crispybits]

While we're touching on Noah...

Have you ever taken the time to read the Bible's story of Noah's flood? And have you ever pondered what this story's position in the Bible might actually mean? While there are many people who consider the Bible, and therefore Noah's story, to be literally true, most educated and intelligent people understand that the story of Noah's flood is a myth. They understand that Mt. Everest was never covered in flood water, they understand that the ark could not hold the millions of species that are now found on earth, and they understand that there is no DNA evidence to show that all animals on earth came from single breeding pairs just a few thousand years ago.

But there is one part of the story of Noah's Ark that deserves special recognition. It shows us something about God that is quite unsettling to any intelligent person who takes the time to consider his actions. That special section is this:

God senselessly murdered millions of humans and billions of animals in the flood

How do we know it was senseless? Because "God" is supposed to be "all-knowing" and "all-powerful." If God were to exist, God would know what was coming when he created Adam and Eve. Therefore, God knew he would be murdering millions of people.

This realization leads to an obvious question: Why didn't God simply speed up Jesus' arrival to avoid the atrocity that is the flood? Or why didn't God program Adam and Eve when he created them to completely circumvent the need for such a horrendous atrocity?

You may have never considered this question, but it is exquisitely important. Because the flood is an atrocity of the highest order. It is mass murder on a global scale.

The idea that Christians would accept a mass-murderer as their object of worship shows us something about Christians, does it not? Think about it - By (supposedly) murdering nearly every human on the planet, the Christian God is far more heinous than Hitler. No "loving" and "perfect" being can also be a mass-murderer bent of global genocide. Yet Christians willfully worship him. Why?

If you are a Christian, I would ask you to simply look inside yourself today. Why would you accept a mass murderer into your life?

http://godisimaginary.com/i45.htm

[TA1LGUNN3R]

You do know that the Noah flood myth is just a poor rehash of the earlier story of Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh, right? The Mesopotamian flood myth predates the Biblical flood myth, and they just appropriated what was then a very popular story for their own devices.

-TG

[Viceroy63]

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

Uuuuhhh Yeah; Sure thing buddy.


[Note]
No need to provide any references here???

Do you EVER check anything for yourself before asking other people to do unpaid research for you?

<sigh>
http://www.titanicfacts.net/building-the-titanic.html

3 - the number of years it took to build the RMS Titanic.

$7,500,000 - the cost of building the Titanic (£1.5 million).

3,000 - the approximate number of men employed in the construction of the Titanic, around 20% of the Harland & Wolff workforce.

3 years X 3,000 men = 9,000 man-years. Or is arithmetic also a conspiracy by scientists to get more funding?

Thanks for saving me the bother.

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

Uuuuhhh Yeah; Sure thing buddy.


[Note]
No need to provide any references here???

Do you EVER check anything for yourself before asking other people to do unpaid research for you?

<sigh>
http://www.titanicfacts.net/building-the-titanic.html

3 - the number of years it took to build the RMS Titanic.

$7,500,000 - the cost of building the Titanic (£1.5 million).

3,000 - the approximate number of men employed in the construction of the Titanic, around 20% of the Harland & Wolff workforce.

3 years X 3,000 men = 9,000 man-years. Or is arithmetic also a conspiracy by scientists to get more funding?

Thanks for saving me the bother.

Where did you guys learn to count "Man-Years?" First of all it's Man Hours and that represents the total number of hours worked. Man Years it can not be because no one works in years but in hours. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds, "Man-Years?" That's like in the movie "Duece Bigolo" where he is a "Man Whore" with a "He Pussy."

The total number of hours that a man works in one year is 2,000 hours. Now count with me and let me know if I'm going too fast for you so I can slow down some, OK.

0,040 hours per week, times
0,050 weeks in a year, minus 2 weeks vacation and sick leave is...
2,000 "Man Hours" per year.

It comes out that way on any calculator created on any planet in all the known galaxies. Are you with me so far? Haven't lost anyone yet have I?

2,000 "Man Hours" times
3,000 employees is equal to
6,000,000 - "Man Hours." Did I lose anyone? Are ye still with me so far? Aaaaallllrighty then!

Now here comes the tricky part so watch me closely, OK. I'll go nice and sloooooooow.

-6,000 "Man Hours" per Year, times...
-0,003 Years of Titanic Construction is equal toooooo...
18,000,000 - "Man Hours" total Titanic Constructions time.

Now when we multiply...

-24 - "Man-Hours" in a "Man-Day" times
365 - "Man-Days" in a "Man-Year," we then arrive at...
8,760 "Man-Hours" in just one "Man-Year." So that just one "Man-Year" is the same as 8,760 "Man-Hours."

And when we divide...

18,000,000 - actual "Man-Hours" work on constructing the Titanic by
-8,760 - actual "Man-Hours" in just one "Man-Year," then we arrive at...
2,054.7445 Or just over 2,000 "Man-Years" actually worked on the construction of the HMS Titanic.

So the total amount of "Man Years?" is Just over 2,000 "Man-Years" spent on the construction of the Titanic.

Now I'll grant you that I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but even an evolutionist's monkey's uncle can spot the difference between actual construction time of 2,000 "Man-Years" and 9,000 "Man-Years." I could be wrong, and every planet certainly has the right to count "Man-Years" how ever they damn well please, but on this planet and in every century, one simply does not get paid for the time not worked and we don't count the "Man-Years" but the Man Hours. OK.

I know that I robbed you of some 7,000 or so "Man-Years" and I am truly sorry for that, but trust me, getting paid for time not work,.. is just not honest. And 7,000 thousand "Man-Years" of Salary is a lot of salary to be robbing the White Star Line Company that built the Titanic.

I hope that was helpful to you all who had such a hard time with high school math and let me just say, Please don't give up. Remember that Reading, is fundamental. What the hell does reading have to do with math I don't know but I do not know of a slogan for math, except perhaps,...

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters....



Well for crying out loud, it's not like there were trying to construct a billion dollar luxury liner with all the fancy trimmings like a pool deck and a pool and a gym and restaurants, states rooms with indoor plumbing and electric lights and a Boilers and an engine room and a bridge that controls the whole thing not to mention a rudder and engines and propellers in steel double hull construction and a ball room and a galleria and....

[AAFitz]

So a hundred years to build a huge Ark? Only a few people actually working on that huge dry dock?

It's possible!

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

With 20th century technology.

Many of the workers were less than 500 years old as well, I think.

I have no source to prove.

[crispybits]

0,040 hours per week, times
0,050 weeks in a year, minus 2 weeks vacation and sick leave is...
2,000 "Man Hours" per year.

-24 - "Man-Hours" in a "Man-Day" times
365 - "Man-Days" in a "Man-Year," we then arrive at...
8,760 "Man-Hours" in just one "Man-Year." So that just one "Man-Year" is the same as 8,760 "Man-Hours."

Nice try Viceroy - but you're still talking shit... Either a man-year is 2000 man-hours or it's 8760 man-hours, it can't be both depending on whatever best suits your argument...

(unless of course you're suggesting that Noah worked 24 hours a day 7 days a week for 100 years and so did anyone helping him?)

[jonesthecurl]

...and what happened to his day job for that 100 years?

[Metsfanmax]

...and what happened to his day job for that 100 years?

I'm sure you know very well that the most successful comedians don't need a day job.

[jonesthecurl]

...and what happened to his day job for that 100 years?

I'm sure you know very well that the most successful comedians don't need a day job.

Ha! You know less about comedy than Viceroy does about shipbuilding.

[notyou2]

Who gathered and looked after the animals, insects, plants, etc? How much time did that take?


PS: To the OP. This thread might have a tad more legitimacy if you actually gave real choices for the pole.