Re: Why the epidemic of fraud exists in science today
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, will brooks <wilson_brooks2003@...> wrote:
>David Williams: You really like that word. Can you leave your house without wearing nappies?
> From Will Brooks Monday 26th August 2.25PM GMT
> in response to David Williams
> David Williams: I don't care if he took Genesis literally or not. I don't.
> Will: You produced Augustine as your witness. But when your witness contradicted you you disown him in the above manner. Hoisted by your own Petard.
> Furthermore, in doing so you have yet again very clearly given evidence that you, the very person who accuses creationists of blind faith and stupidity,David Williams: Are you confessing?
are the one who has blind faith in blind atheist scientists who cannot give answers as to how nothing produced something and how non intelligence produced intelligence.
David Williams: No one has credible scientific evidence for ultimate origins. You are free to belive the origin myth of your choice.
Additionally, you are a supporter of those so called scientists who arbitrarily make the rules and decide what is and what is not real science and who operate a closed shop policy and deny freedom of speech in Academia. And you have the audacity to call that science.
David Williams: Scientists have standards as does your church. Would your church let an atheist preach evolutionary theory in its pulpits?
You ought not to be surprised that you cannot be taken seriously.
> ÂDavid Williams: I never expect to be taken seriously by any creationist. They should not expect me to ever take them seriously.
> And further, rather than believing atheist scientists I choose to believe the Word of God who said: â As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.â Matthew 24 v 37through 40.David Williams: This kind of rhetoric is meant for believers of certain religious persuasions which I am not. I prefer real science.
> David Williams: He is saying that if a rational, educated person hears twaddle coming out of a church, he may not be interested in going there.
> Will: That is why many people, including me, quit attending certain churches when the minister/vicar treats the Bible like a Restaurant Menu and promotes oxymoron theistic evolution which is partly responsible for anti Christian liberal anything goes conduct.
> I invite others to read the document you referenced below in it is entirety which gives an altogether different picture to that which you would wish to give. No surprise there. Here is an extract.
> http://creation. com/can-flood- geology-explain- thick-chalk- beds
>> Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?
> by Andrew A. Snelling
> The Final Answer
> The situation has been known where pollution in coastal areas has contributed to the explosive multiplication of microorganisms in the ocean waters to peak concentrations of more than 10 billion per litre.26Woodmorappe has calculated that in chalk there could be as many as 3 x 1013coccoliths per cubic metre if densely packed (which usually isnât the case), yet in the known bloom just mentioned, 10 billion microorganisms per litre of ocean water equates to 1013microorganisms per cubic metre.
> Adapting some of Woodmorappeâs calculations, if the 10% of the earthâs surface that now contains chalk beds was covered in water, as it still was near the end of the Flood, and if that water explosively bloomed with coccolithophores and foraminifera with up to 1013microorganisms per cubic metre of water down to a depth of less than 500 metres from the surface, then it would have only taken two or three such blooms to produce the required quantity of microorganisms to be fossilised in the chalk beds. Lest it be argued that a concentration of 1013microorganisms per cubic metre would extinguish all light within a few metres of the surface, it should be noted that phytoflagellates such as these are able to feed on bacteria, that is, planktonic species are capable of heterotrophism (they are âmixotrophicâ).27Such bacteria would have been in abundance, breaking down the masses of floating and submerged organic debris (dead fish, plants, animals, etc.)
> generated by the flood. Thus production of coccolithophores and foraminifera is not dependent on sunlight, the supply of organic material potentially supporting a dense concentration.
> Since, for example, in southern England there are three main chalk beds stacked on top of one another, then this scenario of three successive, explosive, massive blooms coincides with the rock record. Given that the turnover rate for coccoliths is up to two days,28then these chalk beds could thus have been produced in as little as six days, totally conceivable within the time framework of the flood. What is certain, is that the right set of conditions necessary for such blooms to occur had to have coincided in full measure to have explosively generated such enormous blooms, but the evidence that it did happen is there for all to plainly see in these chalk beds in the geological record. Indeed, the purity of these thick chalk beds worldwide also testifies to their catastrophic deposition from enormous explosively generated blooms, since during protracted deposition over supposed millions of years it is straining credulity to expect that such purity would
> be maintained without contaminating events depositing other types of sediments. There are variations in consistency (see Appendix) but not purity.
> The only additional material in the chalk is fossils of macroscopic organisms such as ammonites and other molluscs, whose fossilisation also requires rapid burial because of their size (see Appendix).
> No doubt there are factors that need to be better quantified in such a series of calculations, but we are dealing with a cataclysmic Flood, the like of which has not been experienced since for us to study its processes. However, we do have the results of its passing in the rock record to study, and it is clear that by working from what is known to occur today, even if rare and catastrophic by todayâs standards, we can realistically calculate production of these chalk beds within the time framework and cataclysmic activity of the Flood, and in so doing respond adequately to the objections and âproblemsâ raised by the critics.
BL: It seems to be the common opinion among scientists that water was supplied to the earth by extra-terrestrial asteroids and/or comets when it had cooled down somewhat after being formed in the young solar system, and esp. after the traumatic hit by a foreign object that formed the moon. E.g. see article at
"Comets Created Earth's Oceans, Study Concludes"
by Charles Q. Choi, SPACE.com Contributor | October 05, 2011 01:01pm ET
"When the Earth formed it was so hot that most volatiles escaped to space, so when the Earth cooled down it was dry," said study lead author Paul Hartogh, a planetary scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. "Water and other volatiles must have been delivered at a later stage."
Comets are natural candidates for the original sources of the world's seas, loaded with ice as they often are. However, computer models of how the solar system formed have suggested that asteroids actually were the source of most of the planet's oceans, with comets delivering no more than 10 percent of Earth's water.
To identify the original sources of Earth's oceans, scientists compared isotopes of the hydrogen found in the planet's water to isotopes of hydrogen seen in extraterrestrial bodies such as comets. All isotopes of an element have the same number of protons, but each has a different number of neutrons -- for instance, regular hydrogen has no neutrons, while the hydrogen isotope known as deuterium has one neutron.
Scientists used the European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory to observe the ratio of deuterium to regular hydrogen in comet Hartley 2. In Earth water, approximately 1,558 deuterium atoms are seen per 10 million regular hydrogen atoms.
Past measurements of six comets from the giant spherical Oort cloud beyond the Kuiper belt saw approximately 2,960 deuterium atoms there per 10 million regular hydrogen atoms, which had suggested they were not the source of Earth's water.
Prior studies of meteorites known as carbonaceous chondrites originating from asteroids had water more like that seen on Earth, with about 1,400 deuterium atoms per 10 million regular hydrogen atoms.
Now researchers find that water seen in Comet Hartley 2 is very close to Earth's, with about 1,610 deuterium atoms per 10 million regular hydrogen atoms.
"With our finding it may be that more than 10 percent and perhaps all water on Earth possibly stems from comets," Hartogh told SPACE.com.
It may be that all bodies in the inner solar system get their water from these comets. Sampling a larger number of comets for their deuterium-hydrogen ratios could shed light on the matter, Hartogh said.
The scientists detailed their findings online Oct. 5 [BL: In 2011] in the journal Nature.
BL: As far as I can see, the "Creative Causation" isn't mentioned in the article. They must have forgotten to include it.
Kamran: Why am I not surprised? But I doubt if they forgot it. To the extent the above claims that water was naturally delivered to this planet under random operation of forces and events of nature, they either don’t know what they are talking about, or have no respect for the intelligence of people hearing/reading what they say. This would be similar to the opinions expressed by so-called scientists who want people to believe life popped up from or evolved out of dead nature and then transformed to many different models.
So to follow the explanations that you apparently agree about how water reached the earth, are you saying that water was produced under natural conditions somewhere in space and then was properly preserved and packaged by the random events of nature on or within celestial bodies like comets and asteroids, some of which hit our earth and dumped their cargo here?? And this water compound just happened to be technically optimized and vital for the existence of certain phenomena to come later and be known as life? While water would have had absolutely no role in catalyzing countless simultaneous chemical reactions that would put matter on course to coming alive? And, after the comet or asteroid shower that brought the original body of water that cover 70 percent of earth’s surface, such events basically stopped and we didn’t see and don’t see up to now water being constantly dumped on our heads from outer space. Moreover, if such a hypothesis is to be recognized as even a remotely plausible one, then we should see oceans upon oceans of water ice material on our moon and mars and other planets because there is no reason we should assume that our earth had a much higher statistical chance of receiving all the interstellar water cargo. I can call on many other technical and logical flaws that would emphasize the absurdity of natural-water-from-out-of-space hypothesis, but would like to first give you a chance to perhaps revise your statement about where you think water has come from. Of course the subject of how water, this peculiar compound, was produced is no less important than how it actually got here.
One important advice for you, in this forum just simply saying he or she (be it NASA or any other high profile institution) said this or that is not sufficient in passing that position as a fact or a plausible argument. You need to stand behind what you say and address all challenges that are presented against it.
(P.S. Unless absolutely necessary, can you please follow a conversation in its original sequence and put your response after the posting you are responding to rather than at the top? In this case you have left the original conversation (below) and started with your abrupt posting from the top. Anyone who was observing your posting wouldn’t even know what you are responding to unless they scrolled all the way down, and more.)
WB: It may well be the case that some Christians have encountered some atheists who have accepted the evidence for the Flood but I have no way of knowing whether or not this is the case.
BL: I doubt very much that anyone has accepted the evidence for a global "Flood" in historic times as trustworthy without a personal belief in one of the Abrahamic religions.
Kamran: Well I can put an end to your doubts, because that “anyone” would be someone like me. No natural process on this planet (or any firmly verified process outside this planet) forms water. The only known process of water formation on earth is in the cellular respiration, which is a manufacturing process within the information-based nano-technological machine of life, which itself (to any rational and trained eye) is certainly not an autonomous outgrowth of dead non-biotic nature. Outside life, the available water is simply recycled by natural processes. Therefore at some point water must have been phased into existence on this planet, essentially through Creative Causation, in just the right quantity and composition, to fulfill many other essential roles like balancing earth-moon orbit to suit the requirements of life (especially human life and purpose). As a result some sort of a monumental flood situation must have prevailed all over this planet for some time after its cooling stage, and this appears to be the only viable inference of scientific facts. Personally I have my own reasons/rational that such global flood did not happen when humans were already phased into existence, but that is not necessarily a subject which you I need to debate.