One of many problems with Evolution

[notyou2]

You sir are one of them.

Me too! Me too! Don't forget ME in your list of zealots! This indeed, is a high honor! (even if your description is way off)

The mid east is waiting for you Jay.

[jay_a2j]

You sir are one of them.

Me too! Me too! Don't forget ME in your list of zealots! This indeed, is a high honor! (even if your description is way off)

The mid east is waiting for you Jay.

So, if I follow you, those in the mid-east are bad people? Terrorists even? And all people of faith should live in the desert? Let me ask you something.... When was the last time a Christian boarded a bus full of people with TNT strapped to their body? Beheaded a non-Christian? Yet Christians are dangerous! They cause so many problems in the world reading their "book" and helping the poor!

[universalchiro]

A major problem for evolutionist is how the elements formed. H through Fe can be through fusion,but beyond Iron there is no explanation that doesn't require faith.

No formation of heavier elements than Iron is observed naturally and thus its faith based where all the elements of the periodic table came from.

[Metsfanmax]

A major problem for evolutionist is how the elements formed. H through Fe can be through fision,but beyond Iron there is no explanation that doesn't require faith.

This is not a major problem, it was solved decades ago. These elements are formed in the explosions of stars, when temperatures get high enough for nuclear fusion. This is known because we look at the remnants of these explosions and we can see the signatures of these elements.

[universalchiro]

A major problem for evolutionist is how the elements formed. H through Fe can be through fusion,but beyond Iron there is no explanation that doesn't require faith.

No formation of heavier elements than Iron is observed naturally and thus its faith based where all the elements of the periodic table came from.

Whoever is the evolutionist that tries to answer this, don't dare make the mistake of saying its fact the heavier elements evolved from supernovas. Its not fact, its faith based. Learn the difference.

[Metsfanmax]

A major problem for evolutionist is how the elements formed. H through Fe can be through fusion,but beyond Iron there is no explanation that doesn't require faith.

No formation of heavier elements than Iron is observed naturally and thus its faith based where all the elements of the periodic table came from.

Whoever is the evolutionist that tries to answer this, don't dare make the mistake of saying its fact the heavier elements evolved from supernovas. Its not fact, its faith based. Learn the difference.

It literally is fact. We know what the spectral signatures of the heavy elements are, and we see elements like gold in the spectra of the stellar explosions. It's on as solid ground as the knowledge that the low-mass elements are created during stellar evolution. (Also, I like how you wrote "fision" initially and then changed it to fusion when you remembered that you don't know anything about nuclear physics.)

You know, the point of having me on ignore is moot if you click on "view the post" anyway.

[universalchiro]

The fallacy of evolution is that the formation of fusing two elements together to form heavier elements is only up to iron, beyond the mass of Fe there is no formation of heavier elements by fusing two together. Don't be fooled by text books saying it is likely that all the elements of the periodic table were formed through fusion, this has NEVER been observed and this is not repeatable in a lab. It's only contrived in the minds of evolutionist to support their wild claims. And any evolutionist that claims their theory is fact, is blind to the lack of observable and testable requirements of the Scientific Method.

Evolutionist can scream all they want it's fact that stars form the heavy elements, but they'll never observe this, nor test this, it's purely faith based. The text books that teach stars formed the heavier elements at least use a little integrity with saying phrases "it's likely", "we believe", "the evidence suggests", "most likely", "it is accepted that". Oh but not here, they leap to it's fact. Makes me laugh to see.

[hotfire]

elements and atoms are evolving now too....these darn abiotic reproduction processes are pissing me off

[denominator]

The fallacy of evolution is that the formation of fusing two elements together to form heavier elements is only up to iron, beyond the mass of Fe there is no formation of heavier elements by fusing two together. Don't be fooled by text books saying it is likely that all the elements of the periodic table were formed through fusion, this has NEVER been observed and this is not repeatable in a lab. It's only contrived in the minds of evolutionist to support their wild claims. And any evolutionist that claims their theory is fact, is blind to the lack of observable and testable requirements of the Scientific Method.

Evolutionist can scream all they want it's fact that stars form the heavy elements, but they'll never observe this, nor test this, it's purely faith based. The text books that teach stars formed the heavier elements at least use a little integrity with saying phrases "it's likely", "we believe", "the evidence suggests", "most likely", "it is accepted that". Oh but not here, they leap to it's fact. Makes me laugh to see.

Last time I checked, setting off a supernova in the lab is not feasible.

This is all moot as the fusion of the evolution has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It sounds like you're trying to troll science in general now, instead of just evolution.

[Metsfanmax]

The fallacy of evolution is that the formation of fusing two elements together to form heavier elements is only up to iron, beyond the mass of Fe there is no formation of heavier elements by fusing two together.

I hate that I'm responding to this, but you just walked into my field, and I cannot let this stand. First, it is not impossible to create elements more massive than iron through fusion. 1a: the popular understanding is even slightly incorrect, nickel is probably the most massive element created in a star's normal evolution with any real abundance, and then it radioactively decays to iron. 1b: we can fuse these elements in the lab if we wanted to. The popularly repeated truth is that these aren't created in nature through fusion of lower-mass elements because this requires energy. However, in the lab, we have plenty of external energy sources, and we can fuse two low-mass elements into a high-mass element if we want. 1c: even the popularly repeated truth is incorrect, because there are plenty of examples where we're not worried about the fact that the reaction is endothermic. That only matters when we're trying to do something like hold a star up. In a supernova, there's a gigantic energy source that elements can use for skipping up the periodic table. Second, what happens in a supernova or a neutron star merger is that elements like iron capture neutrons and protons in sequence, and by capturing enough of these (and then radioactively decaying the neutrons to protons, or vice-versa) makes the distribution of heavy elements that we see in the supernova remnants. It's not the fusion of two iron nuclei; it's the capture of neutrons and protons onto the iron nuclei.

Don't be fooled by text books saying it is likely that all the elements of the periodic table were formed through fusion, this has NEVER been observed and this is not repeatable in a lab. It's only contrived in the minds of evolutionist to support their wild claims. And any evolutionist that claims their theory is fact, is blind to the lack of observable and testable requirements of the Scientific Method.

It is repeatable in a lab. How do you think we create the super-heavy elements (the ones that only are created in labs)? It's through fusion. We bombard heavy elements like titanium into other heavy elements and hope that some of them fuse. This is possible because the beam of titanium (say) has lots of extra kinetic energy, which can be converted into the energy for the reaction. It is absolutely false to say that this has not been observed. It has been. Whatever creationist site you pulled this from evidently was written in the 1920s.

Evolutionist can scream all they want it's fact that stars form the heavy elements, but they'll never observe this, nor test this, it's purely faith based.

No, we see the heavy elements directly in the remnants of these explosions. It's a fact.

[notyou2]

UC those books you are quoting are FULL OF SHIT and you know it. Every argument you have brought forth has been soundly defeated. Try reading some other trash like National Enquirer and we can debate what the Beiber is going to do next.

What does your bible say about spewing lies and half truths?


You're a sinner.

[universalchiro]

Mets, you wrote a nice reply, but your flaw is mistakenly saying what is a hypothesis is fact. You are over accepting the prevailing hypothesis, maybe it's fact to you, but reality is different than what you believe. There are ample honest astrophysicist that purport and explain the most likely scenario is that heavier elements came from supernovas.

The synthesis of the heavy elements is thought to occur in supernovae, that being the only mechanism which presents itself to explain the observed abundances of heavy elements.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... novcn.html
The link is from Georgia State University/ astrophysics

So stop telling everyone what you believe is fact, when it's just a theory at best.

@Notyou, dude I never read your crap, you've been foed for over a year. You never bring evidence, you just bring foolishness.

[denominator]

The fallacy of evolution is that the formation of fusing two elements together to form heavier elements is only up to iron, beyond the mass of Fe there is no formation of heavier elements by fusing two together.

I hate that I'm responding to this, but you just walked into my field, and I cannot let this stand. First, it is not impossible to create elements more massive than iron through fusion. 1a: the popular understanding is even slightly incorrect, nickel is probably the most massive element created in a star's normal evolution with any real abundance, and then it radioactively decays to iron. 1b: we can fuse these elements in the lab if we wanted to. The popularly repeated truth is that these aren't created in nature through fusion of lower-mass elements because this requires energy. However, in the lab, we have plenty of external energy sources, and we can fuse two low-mass elements into a high-mass element if we want. 1c: even the popularly repeated truth is incorrect, because there are plenty of examples where we're not worried about the fact that the reaction is endothermic. That only matters when we're trying to do something like hold a star up. In a supernova, there's a gigantic energy source that elements can use for skipping up the periodic table. Second, what happens in a supernova or a neutron star merger is that elements like iron capture neutrons and protons in sequence, and by capturing enough of these (and then radioactively decaying the neutrons to protons, or vice-versa) makes the distribution of heavy elements that we see in the supernova remnants. It's not the fusion of two iron nuclei; it's the capture of neutrons and protons onto the iron nuclei.

Don't be fooled by text books saying it is likely that all the elements of the periodic table were formed through fusion, this has NEVER been observed and this is not repeatable in a lab. It's only contrived in the minds of evolutionist to support their wild claims. And any evolutionist that claims their theory is fact, is blind to the lack of observable and testable requirements of the Scientific Method.

It is repeatable in a lab. How do you think we create the super-heavy elements (the ones that only are created in labs)? It's through fusion. We bombard heavy elements like titanium into other heavy elements and hope that some of them fuse. This is possible because the beam of titanium (say) has lots of extra kinetic energy, which can be converted into the energy for the reaction. It is absolutely false to say that this has not been observed. It has been. Whatever creationist site you pulled this from evidently was written in the 1920s.

Evolutionist can scream all they want it's fact that stars form the heavy elements, but they'll never observe this, nor test this, it's purely faith based.

No, we see the heavy elements directly in the remnants of these explosions. It's a fact.

UC may not bother acknowledging anything, but thanks for posting this. I learned something from an expert (at least, you claim to be an expert and sound like an expert) and am all the smarter from having read it.

[DoomYoshi]

Mets, you wrote a nice reply, but your flaw is mistakenly saying what is a hypothesis is fact. You are over accepting the prevailing hypothesis, maybe it's fact to you, but reality is different than what you believe. There are ample honest astrophysicist that purport and explain the most likely scenario is that heavier elements came from supernovas.

The synthesis of the heavy elements is thought to occur in supernovae, that being the only mechanism which presents itself to explain the observed abundances of heavy elements.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... novcn.html
The link is from Georgia State University/ astrophysics

So stop telling everyone what you believe is fact, when it's just a theory at best.

@Notyou, dude I never read your crap, you've been foed for over a year. You never bring evidence, you just bring foolishness.

It's based on the spectra that one observes when looking at a supernova. It's as close to fact as possible, unless the way light bends magically changes only when looking at supernovas.

Here's one such view:
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2005-7/hl2005-7-en.html

I'm sure max has better ones.

[betiko]

what was the name of that other dude that was a soc teacher from puerto rico? oh yeah viceroy. I think I found one of his multis.

[universalchiro]

Mets, you wrote a nice reply, but your flaw is mistakenly saying what is a hypothesis is fact. You are over accepting the prevailing hypothesis, maybe it's fact to you, but reality is different than what you believe. There are ample honest astrophysicist that purport and explain the most likely scenario is that heavier elements came from supernovas.

The synthesis of the heavy elements is thought to occur in supernovae, that being the only mechanism which presents itself to explain the observed abundances of heavy elements.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... novcn.html
The link is from Georgia State University/ astrophysics

So stop telling everyone what you believe is fact, when it's just a theory at best.

@Notyou, dude I never read your crap, you've been foed for over a year. You never bring evidence, you just bring foolishness.

It's based on the spectra that one observes when looking at a supernova. It's as close to fact as possible, unless the way light bends magically changes only when looking at supernovas.

Here's one such view:
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2005-7/hl2005-7-en.html

I'm sure max has better ones.

The first bit of evidence from the evolutionist, finally, however there is one small detail, IT'S A COMPUTER SIMULATION! And look how you push it to fact. This is standard operating procedure to take a hypothesis and elevate it to fact, that's not science that's faith.

@ Betiko, you have too much tenure to post such silliness, you get a pass. But come strong next time with substance. I know Christians make you ill, but show some resolve and rise above. I have faith in you.

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, you wrote a nice reply, but your flaw is mistakenly saying what is a hypothesis is fact. You are over accepting the prevailing hypothesis, maybe it's fact to you, but reality is different than what you believe. There are ample honest astrophysicist that purport and explain the most likely scenario is that heavier elements came from supernovas.

The synthesis of the heavy elements is thought to occur in supernovae, that being the only mechanism which presents itself to explain the observed abundances of heavy elements.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... novcn.html
The link is from Georgia State University/ astrophysics

I understand why this could be confusing. There's actually a long-standing unsolved problem in the field. Before I get to that, though, it's absolutely certain that we see the signatures of these heavy elements in supernovae -- we are as certain of that as we are that low-mass elements like carbon can also be found in stars. I promise it's a "fact" in the conventional sense of the word. The theory involved relates to explaining how the supernovae were able to create these heavy elements. We're coming up with that theory because we know they're created there. We can see it directly through our telescopes, using the same type of spectral analysis we would do here on Earth to figure out what elements are in a sample. Here's some example data of what that looks like in practice:



The curves are the actual amount of light we see from the supernova at each wavelength, and all we're doing is matching the dips in brightness to the elements that cause dips at those wavelengths. It's like if we were to shine a light source at a transparent mineral and look at what light comes out the other side. Some would be absorbed by the elements and molecules inside the mineral, and we can match that absorption to elements we know absorb at those wavelengths. In the image above, we figure out what elements like barium and scandium do when we shine light through them, and then we found that these same dips in light appear in these explosions of stars.

Now, the unsolved problem is in explaining whether the supernovae can produce enough of these heavy elements to explain the amount of them that we see, for example, in the solar system. There's a competing hypothesis, which is that the merger and eventual explosion of two neutron stars could produce the heavy elements as well. And indeed, we've seen heavy elements like gold in the spectra of these events. That's why I was careful to say "stellar explosions" and not "supernovae" in my initial response, because it's likely that both types of stellar explosions are necessary to explain the abundances of the heavy elements we see. My initial point was not that we have a complete understanding of the abundances of all of the heavy elements -- I was just disproving your claim that we know of no natural mechanism to produce them. We definitely, absolutely do.

[DoomYoshi]

Mets, you wrote a nice reply, but your flaw is mistakenly saying what is a hypothesis is fact. You are over accepting the prevailing hypothesis, maybe it's fact to you, but reality is different than what you believe. There are ample honest astrophysicist that purport and explain the most likely scenario is that heavier elements came from supernovas.

The synthesis of the heavy elements is thought to occur in supernovae, that being the only mechanism which presents itself to explain the observed abundances of heavy elements.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... novcn.html
The link is from Georgia State University/ astrophysics

So stop telling everyone what you believe is fact, when it's just a theory at best.

@Notyou, dude I never read your crap, you've been foed for over a year. You never bring evidence, you just bring foolishness.

It's based on the spectra that one observes when looking at a supernova. It's as close to fact as possible, unless the way light bends magically changes only when looking at supernovas.

Here's one such view:
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2005-7/hl2005-7-en.html

I'm sure max has better ones.

The first bit of evidence from the evolutionist, finally, however there is one small detail, IT'S A COMPUTER SIMULATION! And look how you push it to fact. This is standard operating procedure to take a hypothesis and elevate it to fact, that's not science that's faith.

A computer simulation is used in one sense. Then real data is plotted to see how it compares to the simulation... I don't understand why you fail to grasp that.

[ooge]

Evolution.

exactly..cant change without evolution.if you don't believe in evolution you don't believe in gravity.

[jay_a2j]

Evolution.

exactly..cant change without evolution.if you don't believe in evolution you don't believe in gravity.

Really? Because I'm just as certain that evolution is as untrue as gravity is true.

[betiko]

Evolution.

exactly..cant change without evolution.if you don't believe in evolution you don't believe in gravity.

Really? Because I'm just as certain that evolution is as untrue as gravity is true.

Gravity is a faith, you can t prove it.

[universalchiro]

gravity is observed and testable.
We observe apples fall from trees, we observe the further away from the source of gravity it becomes weaker, can calculate that the acceleration of gravity is 9.81m/s/s, we can multiply mass times gravity to know the force/weight. We can calculate buoyant force that subtracts from net gravity whether its displaced volumes of water or air to know the net force of gravity. We can calculate the centripetal force that subtracts from gravitational force to know net gravity. And there is more.


The Scientific Method has been met. Gravity is accepted fact. What has not met Scientific Method is evolution. For example: show where a mutation enhanced genetic information, show where life from non-living material is possible and Pasteur was wrong.

[Frigidus]

What causes gravity, uc? If you can't fully explain every detail of gravity then it's clearly bullshit.

[Endgame422]

The Scientific Method has been met. Gravity is accepted fact. What has not met Scientific Method is evolution. For example: show where a mutation enhanced genetic information, show where life from non-living material is possible and Pasteur was wrong.

OK so you have identified some holes in this theory but they are not unlike the holes in your theory. Can you show some EVIDENCE of God enhancing genetic material or of God creating life from nonliving material? Can anyone recreate this in a laboratory? The scientific method has not been met for your argument anymore than it has for evolutionist arguments. So are you just saying your beliefs(and that's all they are) are better than everyone else's beliefs? You contend evolution is simply a belief and if that's true then why go out if your way(by creating a mud slinging post like this) just to discredit this particular belief? Why not Muslims or Jews or Buddhists? They all are directly contrary to your beliefs while evolutionist theories could be complementary(the whole evolution was part of God's plan that some 37 percent believe bit). Help me understand here.What is your point?

[universalchiro]

endgame,
Yes, God formed man out of clay, still not living material, so what God did is He breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of man and he became alive. The Hebrew words for Life and alive are both chay, so the texts reads God breathed into the nostrils the breath of chay and man became chay. So the Bible records that the Breath of Life, Holy Spirit, begot life. Which is Life begot life. And that's why Luke 3:38 records Adam was begot by God. Which is in harmony with Pasteur , yet evolution violates Pasteur that life cannot come from non-living material. The theory of Life begetting life is observed and tested with every birth. The theory of life evolving from non-living material is not observable.

Evolution is the biggest threat to Bible, gets mankind away from reading the Bible and its taught in school to children, very dangerous doctrine.