The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible

[AlexG]

In HD we're dealing with a baiting troll who claims to have answered everybody when he's just bullshitted.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Mostly correct Alex.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Mostly correct Alex.

Not at all correct CC. Have even you, a mod, simply attempted to bring one iota back from the wiki link on classic mechanics? I've reflected on what that's about ion my posts right after. They want answers, they should start there, or this will just keep winding on with these accusations. Sure, in a PM youi told me you are atheist and that I'd get no shelter from you, but are you going to debase your own position by joining in and identifying ME as the troll when others are failing to accept the answers to their own trolling tirades and multiplexes of off topic questions?

You are wrong.

Let me ask this:

Would it be better if I started a whole new thread on this? When I began (I'm typing all this information AGAIN!!!) this thread, I did not have the required 20 posts. It was an experimental thread in an area that solicits exactly this type of thread in a top end (mainstream) area. My first response to that explained that and as soon as I could, I brought in the Hubble gallery page of stars where planets were found. This has grown just a bit over the past couple years. Nothing there dismisses my initial proposition, however a few tend to validate it. To explain and evidence how that is true, it appears I have to walk these people through the physics that points to that.

So... New thread, perhaps enhanced, or tell the rest of these mean spirited, insulting posters to stop all the GIGO routines and cooperate with my repair efforts? Yes. I did imply that the OPost was defective and explained why.

The insults and abuse is uncalled for. A mod should be neutral and, in this case, reading all of the posts that have so proliferously spawned GIGO like an ascomycetal vesicle chronically evacuated on a teenager's mirror.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Can you find and click on the first wiki article? Classic Mechanics?

I doubt that any of your most strident critics need help from wiki as you might imagine.

Mechanics, and all science in general, has absolutely nothing to do with the creation myth, Genesis, the order of creation in the Bible, the creation of God from gravity, the interference with the Yellowstone caldera by cessation of the sunspots cycles, or the production of prophetic powers by an anomolous activity in the pineal region of the brain.

You have not yet convinced me, or probably anyone else, that you actually believe any of this, which, at a minimum, would be an orderly way for you to bail yourself out of a nonsensical proposition that is not only unsupported, but unsupportable, period.

I have repeatedly asked you to establish your motive for bringing this spurious proposition, and only after you endured repeated encouragement by others to disabuse yourself of your errors.

You started by telling me of a fantasy of being assaulted within the working areas of NSF. You seem to have come here solely to provoke strident responses, as if you were baiting us, as AlexG has already pointed out to you several times.

Now I'm asking you to cut the BS, cut to the chase. What's your game?

I have already told you we understand accretion. So that's moot. And I repeat: no one has any idea to what extent any planets may have been captured. Yes, it seems likely that the system condensed out of a disk. But so what? That's not your point. You are trying to tie this to a religion, and you have even invented one just to avoid being labeled a fundamentalist, or so you seem to think. But it doesn't change the fact that you are speaking the rubric of Creation Science, and your pretense to demonstrate this with freshman physics smacks of pseudoscience, as do your other nutty threads.

Whatever your game is, it's not going to work. To succeed here, you have to bring a proposal that has a chance of generating informed dialogue. For some reason you are doing the exact opposite.

The question is: why?

 

[HectorDecimal]

I doubt that any of your most strident critics need help from wiki as you might imagine.

Then they should have no problem demonstrating that.

Mechanics, and all science in general, has absolutely nothing to do with the creation myth, Genesis, the order of creation in the Bible, the creation of God from gravity, the interference with the Yellowstone caldera by cessation of the sunspots cycles, or the production of prophetic powers by an anomolous activity in the pineal region of the brain.

If that was true... any of it... we'd be sending messages by carrier pigeon right now... at best. Even speculating all that is myth without a shred aof truth, if there was no classic mechanics involved those creating the alleged myths would have been eaten by a predator.

You have not yet convinced me, or probably anyone else, that you actually believe any of this, which, at a minimum, would be an orderly way for you to bail yourself out of a nonsensical proposition that is not only unsupported, but unsupportable, period.

You really have missed a lot of this haven't you?

I have repeatedly asked you to establish your motive for bringing this spurious proposition, and only after you endured repeated encouragement by others to disabuse yourself of your errors.

Yes. I'm glad you admit to joining in on perpetuating the turmoil and doing so by missing the replies that evidence the lack of errancy on my part, while allowing the mean spirited disruptions that began at the get go. Effectively you are demonstrating human nature being such to kick the guy who's faced with villagers bearing torches and pitchforks. The content of my truth has been buried in the witch hunt and here you are participating in it.

You started by telling me of a fantasy of being assaulted within the working areas of NSF. You seem to have come here solely to provoke strident responses, as if you were baiting us, as AlexG has already pointed out to you several times.

You should read up on the difference between an analogy and a fantasy. Don't you think this category being where it is in the main stream is bait for any theist coming here? An innocent theist comes in sees an invite to compare religions, does so and out comes every mean spirited atheist under the bridge to destroy something that just might threaten their own religion of atheism. This leaves me the question: Are there any mods here that are theists, even theists of a Bible religion?

Now I'm asking you to cut the BS, cut to the chase. What's your game?

From the perspective of this thread? To point out that in a forming star system, the smaller planetary bodies, by classic physics, that being aligned with astrophysics, will be well under way, even bearing advanced lifeforms, prior to the IGNITION of the star. ALL of that is proliferous. From the deeper perspective of "my game," I do the same as any other scientist should, aim to help humanity. To cut the BS I'd have to be able to delete the vast majority of posts from the mean spirited ones you seem so quick to caress.

I have already told you we understand accretion. So that's moot. And I repeat: no one has any idea to what extent any planets may have been captured. Yes, it seems likely that the system condensed out of a disk. But so what? That's not your point. You are trying to tie this to a religion, and you have even invented one just to avoid being labeled a fundamentalist, or so you seem to think. But it doesn't change the fact that you are speaking the rubric of Creation Science, and your pretense to demonstrate this with freshman physics smacks of pseudoscience, as do your other nutty threads.

Now THAT, judging by the sidestepping of the issue, sounds like BS. INventing a religion? Although that is not my intent in this thread, I suppose it could be viewed as a new FACTION of an existing religion.

Whatever your game is, it's not going to work. To succeed here, you have to bring a proposal that has a chance of generating informed dialogue. For some reason you are doing the exact opposite.

I believe I just offered two suggestions. 1. Start a new, enhanced, if not better written, thread. 2. Repair this thread with the cooperation of the ones I now see as nothing sort of a flash mob.

The question is: why?

Because I'd actually like to resolve this into a meaningful discussion, or start a new one with basically the same topic refined. This war between the atheist and theist religions seems to be a hot topic here. Why not participate?

That's the reason why I haven't abandoned you all as a lost cause. I'm not a troll and I'd like to see others here stop giving me reason to think that they are.

 

[Trippy]

That's the reason why I haven't abandoned you all as a lost cause. I'm not a troll and I'd like to see others here stop giving me reason to think that they are.

And yet you continue to avoid addressing direct comments, questions and criticisms of your ideas.

 

[HectorDecimal]

And yet you continue to avoid addressing direct comments, questions and criticisms of your ideas.

I'm sure its axiomatic based upon that post you quoted from where I just addressed Auquaes' tirade of direct comments, questions and criticisms of my ideas.

New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?

A direct question directed to you.

 

[Trippy]

I'm sure its axiomatic based upon that post you quoted from where I just addressed Auquaes' tirade of direct comments, questions and criticisms of my ideas.

As a native anglophone I'm having a good deal of difficulty parsing this as a meaningful sentence.

You're sure what is axiomatic? 'It' is the third person neutral personal pronoun (the baby had its first apple) or as a dummy pronoun (it rained last night). In either case, there is something else stated or implied that 'it' refers to.

Even if we presume it was a typo, and you meant it's "I'm sure it's axiomatic based upon..." still makes no sense.

For example, in preparing this response I copy the quote tag from the first portion, and paste in the second portion inserting a second /quote at the end of the relevant portion of your post to indicate where your comments end and mine begin.

It's not that hard, and your current approach only confuses matters, especially when you do things like insert your own commentary into somebody elses post.

The only posts I quoted were posts that I personally have made in this thread that are relevant to the OP but remain unaddressed. They have no bearing on Aqueous IDs comments which were a general criticism of your approach, methodology, attitude and so on.

None of your responses to Aqueous ID have any relevance to any of the points that I made, so there is nothing that I can infer as being an axiom from either his criticisms or your responses.

Of course, the problems exemplified in communicating with you, by your reply to me are only exacerbated by your unwillingness to try and undertsand how to use the forum features.

Real science relies on accurate communication.

New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?

A direct question directed to you.

The blame for the sidetracking of the thread lies squarely on your shoulders. The questions asked, and counterpoints raised have all been valid, including the dissection of the bible (remember what you titled the thread) and criticisms of its continuity and self consistency.

The reason the thread has become detracted is because of your unwillingness to address counterpoints raised by your various interlocutors, and your insistence on relying upon the kind of chop logic that I wouldn't let my children get away with.

 

[HectorDecimal]

As a native anglophone I'm having a good deal of difficulty parsing this as a meaningful sentence.

You're sure what is axiomatic? 'It' is the third person neutral personal pronoun (the baby had its first apple) or as a dummy pronoun (it rained last night). In either case, there is something else stated or implied that 'it' refers to.

Even if we presume it was a typo, and you meant it's "I'm sure it's axiomatic based upon..." still makes no sense.

For example, in preparing this response I copy the quote tag from the first portion, and paste in the second portion inserting a second /quote at the end of the relevant portion of your post to indicate where your comments end and mine begin.

It's not that hard, and your current approach only confuses matters, especially when you do things like insert your own commentary into somebody elses post.

The only posts I quoted were posts that I personally have made in this thread that are relevant to the OP but remain unaddressed. They have no bearing on Aqueous IDs comments which were a general criticism of your approach, methodology, attitude and so on.

None of your responses to Aqueous ID have any relevance to any of the points that I made, so there is nothing that I can infer as being an axiom from either his criticisms or your responses.

Of course, the problems exemplified in communicating with you, by your reply to me are only exacerbated by your unwillingness to try and undertsand how to use the forum features.

Real science relies on accurate communication.


The blame for the sidetracking of the thread lies squarely on your shoulders. The questions asked, and counterpoints raised have all been valid, including the dissection of the bible (remember what you titled the thread) and criticisms of its continuity and self consistency.

The reason the thread has become detracted is because of your unwillingness to address counterpoints raised by your various interlocutors, and your insistence on relying upon the kind of chop logic that I wouldn't let my children get away with.

Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?

A direct question directed to you.

 

[Trippy]

New thread or cooperate in repairing this one?

A direct question directed to you.

Asked and answered.

 

[Bells]

I would suggest, Hector, that you respond to the questions asked of you in this thread and also provide the examples needed and evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Yazata]

From the perspective of this thread? To point out that in a forming star system, the smaller planetary bodies, by classic physics, that being aligned with astrophysics, will be well under way, even bearing advanced lifeforms, prior to the IGNITION of the star.

I think that you could make a pretty good argument that there would be a gaseous accretion disk before the star ignited.

Making a convincing argument that actual planets would have formed, as opposed to accretion disks of rocks, dust and gas, is going to be a lot more difficult.

Making an argument that bombardment of planetesmals would have already ceased, and that it ceased long enough before the star ignited that the planets would have had time to cool and form solid surfaces and water oceans, is probably going to be an impossible task in my opinion. The idea sounds a little outlandish from the point of view of conventional planetary science and doesn't seem to be consistent with our solar system evidence.

And finally, the phrase "even bearing advanced lifeforms" seems to have just been slipped in gratuitously without justification. The odds of that being the case (particularly the odds that the Earth's land surface already hosted flowering seed-bearing plants) before the Sun ignited appear vanishingly unlikely and the proposition almost certainly untrue. And having said that, the origin of life and its evolutionary history on Earth isn't a matter that's best addressed with a Wikipedia page on classical mechanics anyway.

Now THAT, judging by the sidestepping of the issue, sounds like BS. INventing a religion? Although that is not my intent in this thread, I suppose it could be viewed as a new FACTION of an existing religion.

Gravity created God? What was up with that remark of yours? Did you mean it literally or ironically? It isn't an idea that Christians (or Muslims, Jews or any theists) would be likely to accept.

 

[HectorDecimal]

I would suggest, Hector, that you respond to the questions asked of you in this thread and also provide the examples needed and evidence to back up your claims.

Then you are wanting to cooperate in repairing this thread? To do that appropriately, I can review it and make a list of intermediate posts to delete, then do exactly that. Without help, Occam's Razor would suggest a new thread.

Again,

A DIRECT question:

New thread or cooperation in repairing the original?

If I cannot get a direct answer to a very simple direct question then why would anyone on this forum be expected to give a direct answer to anyone else's?

 

[Trippy]

Again,

A DIRECT question:

New thread or cooperation in repairing the original?

This question has already been answered.

You might also want to check the forum rules.

If I cannot get a direct answer to a very simple direct question then why would anyone on this forum be expected to give a direct answer to anyone else's?

Because there is an element of reciprocity to the arrangement.

People are unlikely to give you a direct answer to your new question unless you first give them direct answers to their old questions.

And why should they? They're under no obligation to extend to you a courtosey that have thus far refused to offer.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Making a convincing argument that actual planets would have formed, as opposed to accretion disks of rocks, dust and gas, is going to be a lot more difficult.

Are you suggesting that the rocks, dust and gas would simply orbit some central axis if all was uniform, perfectly spaced without any contracting forces involved?

 

[HectorDecimal]

This question has already been answered.

You might also want to check the forum rules.


Because there is an element of reciprocity to the arrangement.

People are unlikely to give you a direct answer to your new question unless you first give them direct answers to their old questions.

And why should they? They're under no obligation to extend to you a courtosey that have thus far refused to offer.

I believe Occam's Razor can offer a direct answer. Yazata seems to have an alternative to both. Ask new questions, in a courteous, organized and non-multiplex manner. Get an answer, or a question that asks for clarification, such as just happened.

 

[HectorDecimal]

BTW... I did check the rules. This thread is in line with them and for this individual forum as well.

 

[Trippy]

I believe Occam's Razor can offer a direct answer.

Yes, and it excludes your hypothesis.

Ask new questions, in a courteous, organized and non-multiplex manner.

I have repeatedly asked questions in a courteous and organized manner, you however have repeatedly refused to answer them.

Get an answer, or a question that asks for clarification, such as just happened.

I won't hold my breath, least I end up looking like this:

 

[Trippy]

BTW... I did check the rules. This thread is in line with them and for this individual forum as well.

Right, but do you think that reposting the same ideas without any new information, and without having addressed valid criticisms would be in line with the rules?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Given the general incoherent and evasion of HD's posts can someone explain to me how he thinks classical mechanics supports any kind of Bible claim? Speaking as someone familiar with CD on a level a bit beyond 'I read the Wiki page on it' and also know a fair few extremely good astrophysicists I don't for a second think such a claim can be justified but I want to see what the actual claim is. HD's tendency to dodge the issue just makes things less clear.

HD, your claims of being somehow an engineer are becoming more and more dubious with each passing post.