So, any creationists want a *real* debate?
Adam Marczyk
good at posting ad hominem diatribes and preach-to-the-choir sermons and
then ignoring the responses. But anyone can do that; it accomplishes
nothing and convinces no one. What's conspicuously lacking here is a real
debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the other. I'm
willing to have such a debate with any creationist who dares. So, how 'bout
it? Are you guys going to show that your beliefs can hold up in a fair
fight, or are you afraid of what one little atheist will say?
--
"I'm materialist | a.a. #2001
Call me a humanist | http://www.ebonmusings.org
I guess I'm full of doubt | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
So I'll gladly have it out with you..." | ICQ: 8777843
--Bad Religion, "Materialist" | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JISTASKKIN
news:M_eqb.17461$HO4....@news01.roc.ny...
> This newsgroup certainly has no shortage of loudmouthed creationists
who're
> good at posting ad hominem diatribes and preach-to-the-choir sermons and
> then ignoring the responses. But anyone can do that; it accomplishes
> nothing and convinces no one. What's conspicuously lacking here is a real
> debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the other.
I'm
> willing to have such a debate with any creationist who dares. So, how
'bout
> it? Are you guys going to show that your beliefs can hold up in a fair
> fight, or are you afraid of what one little atheist will say?
Adam,
We tried this. The subject was about star formation. In desperation you
tried to use a "poster" in your room as proof.
Well, I pointed out the obvious flaw in that...you had a hissy fit and kill
filled me.
Well I have watched you since then. Sad to say all you have become is a
very unoriginal miniature Lenny F.
You use the same debunked evolutionistic arguments over and over.
You Adam do not need a debate. You Adam M, need to be saved. You need to
agree with God that you are a sinner and accept the Lord Jesus as your
Saviour.
Have you ever done that?
Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no
pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way
and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house
of Israel?
J McCoy
> good at posting ad hominem diatribes and preach-to-the-choir sermons and
> then ignoring the responses. But anyone can do that; it accomplishes
> nothing and convinces no one. What's conspicuously lacking here is a real
> debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the other.
You've just said that you find lacking conspicuously is the lack of
real debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the
other. Hmm, reminds me of how you keep bringing up the gen2rev check
without answering the arguments that I bring up. Hypocrisy in action.
JM
"What's conspicuously lacking here is a real debate where each side
actually responds to the arguments of the other."
-Adam Marczyk
Adam Marczyk
news:10jqb.20846$6A4.8906@edtnps84...
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M_eqb.17461$HO4....@news01.roc.ny...
> > This newsgroup certainly has no shortage of loudmouthed creationists
> who're
> > good at posting ad hominem diatribes and preach-to-the-choir sermons
and
> > then ignoring the responses. But anyone can do that; it accomplishes
> > nothing and convinces no one. What's conspicuously lacking here is a
real
> > debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the other.
> I'm
> > willing to have such a debate with any creationist who dares. So, how
> 'bout
> > it? Are you guys going to show that your beliefs can hold up in a fair
> > fight, or are you afraid of what one little atheist will say?
>
> Adam,
> We tried this. The subject was about star formation. In desperation you
> tried to use a "poster" in your room as proof.
The poster you were referring to happened to be a reproduction of a Hubble
Space Telescope image of the Eagle Nebula that showed new stars being born
from evaporating gas clouds.
> Well, I pointed out the obvious flaw in that...
Which is what, exactly?
> you had a hissy fit and killfilled me.
I will not argue with someone who denies the existence of processes that
can be directly observed. To do so would be, as Thomas Paine said, to give
medicine to the dead.
[...]
> You Adam do not need a debate. You Adam M, need to be saved. You need
to
> agree with God that you are a sinner and accept the Lord Jesus as your
> Saviour.
> Have you ever done that?
As I said - ad hominem diatribes and preaching to the choir. Now, is there
anyone who wants a *real* debate?
--
"The spiritual man.... attacks what he believes | a.a. #2001
to be wrong, though defended by the many, | ebonmuse!hotmail.com
and he is willing to stand for the right | www.ebonmusings.org
against the world." --Robert Green Ingersoll | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Marczyk
news:3f355ee.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<M_eqb.17461$HO4....@news01.roc.ny>...
> > This newsgroup certainly has no shortage of loudmouthed creationists
who're
> > good at posting ad hominem diatribes and preach-to-the-choir sermons
and
> > then ignoring the responses. But anyone can do that; it accomplishes
> > nothing and convinces no one. What's conspicuously lacking here is a
real
> > debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the other.
>
> You've just said that you find lacking conspicuously is the lack of
> real debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the
> other. Hmm, reminds me of how you keep bringing up the gen2rev check
> without answering the arguments that I bring up. Hypocrisy in action.
Pay gen2rev the money you owe him, and then we can talk. In case you've
forgotten, you proposed the bet, defined the terms, set the amount, and
then lost fair and square. The latest chapter in this story appears to be
that you sent him a deliberately and obviously altered check (which people
can view here: http://crosswinds.net/~gen2rev/check.html), which cannot
legally be cashed. Until you can meet your own obligations, I have no
interest in responding to you. The "hypocrisy" you refer to can be seen
plainly in *your* actions, and I sincerely hope your fellow creationists
will disavow you for your dishonest behavior.
Andrew
> news:M_eqb.17461$HO4....@news01.roc.ny...
> > This newsgroup certainly has no shortage of loudmouthed creationists
> who're
> > good at posting ad hominem diatribes and preach-to-the-choir sermons and
> > then ignoring the responses. But anyone can do that; it accomplishes
> > nothing and convinces no one. What's conspicuously lacking here is a real
> > debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the other.
> I'm
> > willing to have such a debate with any creationist who dares. So, how
> 'bout
> > it? Are you guys going to show that your beliefs can hold up in a fair
> > fight, or are you afraid of what one little atheist will say?
>
> Adam,
> We tried this. The subject was about star formation. In desperation you
> tried to use a "poster" in your room as proof.
> Well, I pointed out the obvious flaw in that...you had a hissy fit and kill
> filled me.
Really? After your performance in the "Calling all creationists"
thread I'm willing to bet this story is a little different than you
make it out to be. Let's check shall we? Here's the post where Mr
Marczyk kill-filed you:
Hmmmm, so he didn't kill file you because of the poster thing, he kill
filed you because in the previous threads you ignored just about
everything he said and continued making unsupported blind assertions!
Also, I might qualify to the 3rd party viewers that the "poster" in
question is actually a Hubble Space Telescope *photopraph* of the
Eagle Nebula, a well known stellar birthplace. So it's more than a
little disingenious to say that he "tried to use a poster" as proof of
an argument. The thrust was that new born stars are being *observed*
in the process of formation, the poster being a record of that
observation (as could the Hubble Space Telescope website, or the many
journals that the telescope's images have appeared in). Of course, you
ignored those details, focussing on the poster and completely missing
the point.
So we see that the incident isn't as claimed. Mr Marczyk just got fed
up with your general ignorance and gave up. I must ask why, once
again, you have paraphrased an occurrence in such a way that it
becomes a dishonest lie?
> Well I have watched you since then. Sad to say all you have become is a
> very unoriginal miniature Lenny F.
Cue insults, and he didn't even address you in his post!
> You use the same debunked evolutionistic arguments over and over.
You don't use anything but blind assertions. I've never seen you try
and back up your claims.
> You Adam do not need a debate. You Adam M, need to be saved. You need to
> agree with God that you are a sinner and accept the Lord Jesus as your
> Saviour.
> Have you ever done that?
Tell me Mr JISTASKKIN, are *you* saved? If so, why do you lie? Why,
when you make a gross error of judgement, do you not at least retract
it and apologise? The pride in your heart turns you from the Lord. You
do not seek to glorify His name on these groups, only yourself.
In fact, you do far more *damage* to Christianity than atheists like
Mr Marczyk can. When people see your insulting, degrading and
pride-filled responses in these groups and contrast them with the
reasoned responses of others, their faith is called into question. How
is it that a man who calls himself "Christian" can behave in such a
way?
> Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no
> pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way
> and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house
> of Israel?
That passage equally applies to you Mr JISTASKKIN.
Andrew
Bushmanland Crafts & Tours
http://www.bushmanland.co.za/Comparison%20between%20foot%20print%20engravings%20and%20foot%20impressions.htm
http://www.bushmanland.co.za
May be this would help the 'little atheist 'to believe a little bit of God
Word.
Elma le Roux Kenhardt Bushmanland South Africa
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M_eqb.17461$HO4....@news01.roc.ny...
Tom
Tom: Man, this is what Jesus needs, Jistanass preaching for him. With that
kind of help, Jesus doesn't stand a chance.
Tom
news:<M_eqb.17461$HO4....@news01.roc.ny>...
> > This newsgroup certainly has no shortage of loudmouthed creationists
who're
> > good at posting ad hominem diatribes and preach-to-the-choir sermons and
> > then ignoring the responses. But anyone can do that; it accomplishes
> > nothing and convinces no one. What's conspicuously lacking here is a
real
> > debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the other.
>
> You've just said that you find lacking conspicuously is the lack of
> real debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the
> other. Hmm, reminds me of how you keep bringing up the gen2rev check
> without answering the arguments that I bring up. Hypocrisy in action.
>
> JM
Tom: Just send the damn check, John. The heat get too much for you over at
talkorigins so you decided to come over here. We know about the bet here so
find another NG.
Malachi
[snip]
> Also, I might qualify to the 3rd party viewers that the "poster" in
> question is actually a Hubble Space Telescope *photopraph* of the
> Eagle Nebula, a well known stellar birthplace. So it's more than a
> little disingenious to say that he "tried to use a poster" as proof of
> an argument. The thrust was that new born stars are being *observed*
> in the process of formation, the poster being a record of that
> observation (as could the Hubble Space Telescope website, or the many
> journals that the telescope's images have appeared in).
And just to *demonstrate* that, here's the Hubble image.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1995/44/
And here's some images from amateur astronomers using their backyard
telescopes (in otherwords, he could, if he was actually seeking the
truth, verify its existence himself):
http://www.astroimages.org/ccd/m16.html
http://www.astrocruise.com/m16.htm
http://www.astro.univie.ac.at/~exgalak/koprolin/Photo/Neb/M16.html
> Of course, you
> ignored those details, focussing on the poster and completely missing
> the point.
Do you think maybe he'll discuss the images now?
Thore Schmechtig
I have done almost nothing else but reading through websites on the
creationism vs science debate. All of them showed one thing clearly:
From the creationist camp comes nothing but lies, intentional ignorance
and blind obedience to whatever the creationist Führers tell their
quoting drones.
If you should be able to present any _valid_ evidence whatsoever in
favor of creationism, go ahead and send it to me. But don't use the
same trash that can be found on any creationist website and has been
debunked a zillion times. You creationists need to learn that a lie
does not become true (or at least marginally believable) no matter how
long you keep repeating it.
I learned this around age 6. How old are you really?
> You Adam do not need a debate. You Adam M, need to be saved.
YOU need to be saved fundie boy. Saved from the lies and deception of
your cult Führer. Come on, show some courage and CONSIDER what we all
tell you. If you're right you have nothing to lose. On the other hand,
if you are wrong, wouldn't you want to know?
> Have you ever done that?
As for me, I was a christian most of my life... until I read the whole
bible. That was the death blow for any possible literal interpretation
of the bible. Now to return your question: Have you ever done that (i.
e. read the whole book)? If so, why do you still believe in what can be
used as a source of inspiration, but in NO way as a literal guide to
life and the Divine? Why do you worship the bible as an idol?
> Ezekiel 33:11
Quoting, quoting, endlessly quoting. The desperate measure of those who
have turned off their brains in blind obedience to their always-lying
cult Führers.
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Adam Marczyk
news:27eaec6.03110...@posting.google.com...
Thank you for backing me up on this. Notwithstanding the total rejection of
reason and evidence that "JISTASKKIN" displayed on that occasion, and
notwithstanding the rudeness and lack of civility he has displayed on
numerous occasions, I am still willing to debate him or any creationist on
a topic of his choosing. (John McCoy is not excluded from this offer.
However, he is under another outstanding obligation which he must first
satisfy before any debate between me and him can begin.) Readers will note
that JIST did not actually accept my challenge - instead he replied with
the exact same type of ad hominem attacks and condescending sermonizing
that I pointed out in my original post has become a creationist modus
operandi on this group.
>> Well I have watched you since then. Sad to say all you have become is a
>> very unoriginal miniature Lenny F.
>
> Cue insults, and he didn't even address you in his post!
>
>> You use the same debunked evolutionistic arguments over and over.
>
> You don't use anything but blind assertions. I've never seen you try
> and back up your claims.
>
>> You Adam do not need a debate. You Adam M, need to be saved. You need
>> to agree with God that you are a sinner and accept the Lord Jesus as
>> your Saviour.
>> Have you ever done that?
>
> Tell me Mr JISTASKKIN, are *you* saved? If so, why do you lie? Why,
> when you make a gross error of judgement, do you not at least retract
> it and apologise? The pride in your heart turns you from the Lord. You
> do not seek to glorify His name on these groups, only yourself.
>
> In fact, you do far more *damage* to Christianity than atheists like
> Mr Marczyk can. When people see your insulting, degrading and
> pride-filled responses in these groups and contrast them with the
> reasoned responses of others, their faith is called into question. How
> is it that a man who calls himself "Christian" can behave in such a
> way?
I agree wholeheartedly. While I am an atheist, I am not against
Christianity per se, or against any religion. As far as I am concerned,
people have a right to believe whatever they want, and as long as they are
willing to live and let live and do not attempt to push their beliefs on or
harm others, I have no quarrel with them. However, I must speak out when I
see fundamentalist believers blatantly distorting the truth by attacking
science and lobbying to have their sectarian beliefs taught in public
schools. And I agree that JIST and those like him are doing *far* more
damage to Christianity by their actions than an atheist such as myself
could ever accomplish. I can easily post numerous testimonies from people
who were so "turned off" by the intolerance, ignorance and rudeness of
fundamentalists - creationists in particular -that they made the decision
to abandon Christianity, or at least fundamentalist Christianity, entirely.
Here's one such:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021215072438/http://www.johncollins.org/life.htm
And another:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
And a third:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul03.html#run
By inviting the creationists to a debate, I am giving them the chance to
redeem themselves, if only they would see it. But judging by the current
lack of response, I am sad to say it seems as if they would rather forge
blindly on, congratulating themselves on how many souls they think they are
winning by spamming newsgroups with cut-and-paste sermons and then
responding to the replies only with insults, if at all. This is a tragedy
for all concerned.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Marczyk
news:bodb51$66u$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> I would like to start at evidence found by ; "The first people of Africa"
>
http://www.bushmanland.co.za/Comparison%20between%20foot%20print%20engravings%20and%20foot%20impressions.htm
> http://www.bushmanland.co.za
> May be this would help the 'little atheist 'to believe a little bit of
> God Word.
> Elma le Roux Kenhardt Bushmanland South Africa
If you wish to debate, you should begin by presenting a coherent argument
in your own words, not by posting a link to a web page. What is the topic,
what do you intend to prove, and what is your evidence?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
J McCoy
You keep saying the same thing, that I should send gen2rev a check
that he can actually cash. A few days ago, when gen2rev posted a
copy of my check, I immediately e-mailed him giving him several
options. That he could either send the check back for a replacement,
or that he could risk cashing the check and if it didn't work out I
would make it good, or that I could send him a letter of authenticity.
I have yet to hear from gen2rev on this matter so I can't send him a
check or do anything for that matter. You're being unfair in trying
to force an issue that isn't even an issue. It seems that you're just
trying to make me look bad so as to bring my creationist viewpoint
down with my character. But it's up to gen2rev, you see, and not just
what you want me to do.
JM
But even as you change the subject, you're still a hypocrite. There's
still time for you to change.
"What's conspicuously lacking here is a real debate where each side
actually responds to the arguments of the other."
-Adam Marczyk
Andrew
This is what you need to do:
1) Go down to your bank and put a stop on the dodgy cheque you wrote.
2) Send another cheque.
See how easy that was?! Step 1 will safeguard you if you're paranoid
about gen2rev somehow managing to cash your first cheque (although any
bank would have to be criminally negligent to accept it). I think it's
pretty obvious that he wouldn't attempt to do that. All this talk
about returning cheques and letters of authorisation is unnecessary. A
bank would probably not accept a letter of authorisation unless there
was a way to confirm the identity of the sender (anyone can forge a
signature).
Andrew
Bushmanland Crafts & Tours
> Bushmanland Crafts & Tours <in...@bushmanland.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bodb51$66u$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > I would like to start at evidence found by ; "The first people of
Africa"
> >
>
http://www.bushmanland.co.za/Comparison%20between%20foot%20print%20engravings%20and%20foot%20impressions.htm
> > http://www.bushmanland.co.za
> > May be this would help the 'little atheist 'to believe a little bit of
> > God Word.
> > Elma le Roux Kenhardt Bushmanland South Africa
>
> If you wish to debate, you should begin by presenting a coherent argument
> in your own words, not by posting a link to a web page. What is the topic,
> what do you intend to prove, and what is your evidence?
Thanks for your advise. I would like people first to visit
http://www.bushmanland.co.za. Without visiting, there can be no argument.
Evidence is talking. Images on the website is only a drop in the bucket of
what we've got. How came different human-(some gigantic) , ape-, beast-
dinosaurs- like foot impressions on the same igneous bodies? Are
watermarks not enough evidence of a flood ? Does'nt a San depiction of a
child's foot impression on the highest peak, speaks of a disastrous event ?
( I've heard all the arguments in the past four years - too hot, erosion ,
carvings ect.) These impressions and engravings are for real, no fake.
The SAN people made their
engravings (turned yellowish through the years) next to these impressions.
We took this up with a SAN organisation to be accepted)
Why are the impressions being ignored ? Is'nt this a cover-up of the
truth ? Sterkfontein
South Africa -"Cradle of humankind"?? Little Foot got stuck in what kind of
'rock'??
Elma (Only a 'Boesmanlander' , no scientist of any kind - apologising for
poor English)
Bushmanland Crafts & Tours
> Bushmanland Crafts & Tours <in...@bushmanland.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bodb51$66u$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > I would like to start at evidence found by ; "The first people of
Africa"
> >
>
http://www.bushmanland.co.za/Comparison%20between%20foot%20print%20engravings%20and%20foot%20impressions.htm
> > http://www.bushmanland.co.za
> > May be this would help the 'little atheist 'to believe a little bit of
> > God Word.
> > Elma le Roux Kenhardt Bushmanland South Africa
>
> If you wish to debate, you should begin by presenting a coherent argument
> in your own words, not by posting a link to a web page. What is the topic,
> what do you intend to prove, and what is your evidence?
Thanks for your advise. I would like people first to visit
http://www.bushmanland.co.za. Without visiting, there can be no argument.
Evidence is talking. Images on the website is only a drop in the bucket of
what we've got. How came different human-(some gigantic) , ape-, beast-
dinosaurs- like foot impressions on the same igneous bodies? Are
watermarks not enough evidence of a flood ? Does'nt a San depiction of a
child's foot impression on the highest peak, speaks of a disastrous event ?
( I've heard all the arguments in the past four years - too hot, erosion ,
carvings ect.) These impressions and engravings are for real, no fake.
The SAN people made their
engravings (turned yellowish through the years) next to these impressions.
We took this up with a SAN organisation to be accepted)
Why are the impressions being ignored ? Is'nt this a cover-up of the
truth ? Sterkfontein
South Africa -"Cradle of humankind"?? Little Foot got stuck in what kind of
'rock'??
Elma (Only a 'Boesmanlander' , no scientist of any kind - apologising for
poor English)
>
Elmer Bataitis
> How came different human-(some gigantic) , ape-, beast-
> dinosaurs- like foot impressions on the same igneous bodies?
There are not. Neither is that Abe Lincoln in that cloud over there.
Try pouring a trench full of molten lead and then slowly walk across it
and when it's cool, see what kinds of footprints you leave behind.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
Bushmanland Crafts & Tours
"Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:3FABFF79...@frontiernet.net...
> Bushmanland Crafts & Tours wrote:
>
> > How came different human-(some gigantic) , ape-, beast-
> > dinosaurs- like foot impressions on the same igneous bodies?
>
> There are not. Neither is that Abe Lincoln in that cloud over there.
>
> Try pouring a trench full of molten lead and then slowly walk across it
> and when it's cool, see what kinds of footprints you leave behind.
Please imagen the evidence of a disastrous flood on one continent. Do you
know about the Book Genesis in the Bible? Genesis made sense to me after I
have discovered these impressions. Fountains of the deep broke forth .....
igneous bodies popping up in this mass of water - living creatures reaching
for anything solid to stand on. It's so simple ! Please search "The
cooling of igneous bodies"on the net. You're welcome to visit the engraving
and impressions sites in our region!
May you be blessed with an open mind !
http://www.bushmanland.co.za/Comparison%20between%20foot%20print%20engravings%20and%20foot%20impressions.htm
> > http://www.bushmanland.co.za
Elma
JISTASKKIN
You must own *lots* of swampland. Uh, I don't suppose you have any real
proof that stars form from gas clouds?
Didn't think so.
>
> > Well, I pointed out the obvious flaw in that...
>
> Which is what, exactly?
Which is a picture of a gas cloud on your bedroom wall with an imaginative
explanation of it being the *birth of a star* is an interpretation of the
data.
Do you believe the gas cloud is the remnant of a previous star...or is the
gas cloud forming a completely new one?
Adam, .there is not one shred of good scientific data to prove it is a star
forming.. But of course we are mot talking scientific data here, it's
evolutionary science.
Taken straight from the latest star trek episode.
>
> > you had a hissy fit and killfilled me.
>
> I will not argue with someone who denies the existence of processes that
> can be directly observed.
Ahhhhh!!! When exactly did you directly observe a star formed from a gas
cloud?
To do so would be, as Thomas Paine said, to give
> medicine to the dead.
Fine . Lets not argue. Talk some sense and we will get somewhere.
>
> [...]
>
> > You Adam do not need a debate. You Adam M, need to be saved. You need
> to
> > agree with God that you are a sinner and accept the Lord Jesus as your
> > Saviour.
> > Have you ever done that?
>
> As I said - ad hominem diatribes and preaching to the choir. Now, is there
> anyone who wants a *real* debate?
Dodge Adam, yer dodging. Have you ever considered your relationship with
God?
Tom
any >real proof that stars form from gas clouds?
> Didn't think so.
Tom: Jistanass is so stupid that he doesn't have a clue as to how stupid
comments like this make him appear. I guess you could say that he is
clueless. If he had swampland he could definitely sell it to you. Jistanass
won't believe stars form in this region unless a telescope is trained
directly on a dark area of the sky when an actual star is born. It is
amazing that Jistanass can't understand star formation yet he believes in
the literal truth of mythological stories in the Hebrew bible that were
borrowed from earlier mythology. Tell me Jistanass, if stars aren't born how
do you explain an H-R diagram? Here are a couple of sites that you need to
visit. After that I need you to tell me why all of the information presented
on these two sites is wrong and why it is wrong. You can do that, can't you
Jistanass?
http://casa.colorado.edu/TourofCASA/InTheMedia/dcamera_1113_2000.shtml
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/huge_star_forming_region.html
> >
> > > Well, I pointed out the obvious flaw in that...
> >
> > Which is what, exactly?
>
>Jistanass: Which is a picture of a gas cloud on your bedroom wall with an
>imaginative
> explanation of it being the *birth of a star* is an interpretation of the
> data.
> Do you believe the gas cloud is the remnant of a previous star...or is the
> gas cloud forming a completely new one?
> Adam, .there is not one shred of good scientific data to prove it is a
star
> forming.. But of course we are mot talking scientific data here, it's
> evolutionary science.
> Taken straight from the latest star trek episode.
Tom: Stupidity at its best!
>
> >
> > > you had a hissy fit and killfilled me.
> >
> > I will not argue with someone who denies the existence of processes that
> > can be directly observed.
>
>Jistanass: Ahhhhh!!! When exactly did you directly observe a star formed
from a >gas cloud?
Tom: Nope, this is stupidity at its best.
> To do so would be, as Thomas Paine said, to give
> > medicine to the dead.
>
>Jistanass: Fine . Lets not argue. Talk some sense and we will get
somewhere.
Tom: Nope, this has got to be the height of stupidity.
> > [...]
> >
> > > You Adam do not need a debate. You Adam M, need to be saved. You
need
> > to
> > > agree with God that you are a sinner and accept the Lord Jesus as your
> > > Saviour.
> > > Have you ever done that?
> >
> > As I said - ad hominem diatribes and preaching to the choir. Now, is
there
> > anyone who wants a *real* debate?
>
>Jistanass: Dodge Adam, yer dodging. Have you ever considered your
relationship >with God?
Tom: Yes Jistanass, did you ever consider that the god you worship doesn't
exist?
Zachriel
Science doesn't deal in "proof", at least not how you are using the word.
However, there is very good evidence that stars do form from nebula.
Following are links to various scientific sites, including Hubble, Nature,
NASA and Astronomy:
HUBBLE: Star Formation Pillars in M16
"This image, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, shows gaseous pillars in a
star-formation region of the Eagle Nebula."
http://tinyurl.com/u6t5
NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
pressurized molecular clouds
"The individual star formation time, t*f, determines the accretion rate of
the star; the value of the former quantity is currently uncertain by many
orders of magnitude, leading to other astrophysical questions."
http://tinyurl.com/u6ry
NASA: NGC 281 is a busy workshop of star formation.
http://tinyurl.com/u6sj
NATURE: Low-mass relics of early star formation
"Recent studies of primordial star formation have shown that, in the absence
of metals (elements heavier than helium), the formation of stars with masses
100 times that of the Sun would have been strongly favoured, and that
low-mass stars could not have formed before a minimum level of metal
enrichment had been reached."
http://tinyurl.com/u6ro
ASTRONOMY: Portraits of the Orion Nebula
Visible to the naked eye, [the Orion Nebula] is one of the brightest
emission nebula in the sky and is a hotbed of star formation
http://tinyurl.com/u6sv
NATURE: Star formation triggered by galaxy collisions
"The ultraluminous infrared galaxies are predominantly powered by enormous
star-formation events that are triggered in the last phases of such
collisions."
http://tinyurl.com/u6ru
Seppo Pietikainen
It was already told to you, but I'll just point to a page which
discusses this, as well as other relevant topics:
<http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp>
Jisty's spewage leaves nothing to discuss with.
>
>
> To do so would be, as Thomas Paine said, to give
>
>>medicine to the dead.
>
>
> Fine . Lets not argue. Talk some sense and we will get somewhere.
>
You wouldn't understand sense if it was attached to you with
nails.
>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>You Adam do not need a debate. You Adam M, need to be saved. You need
>>
>>to
>>
>>>agree with God that you are a sinner and accept the Lord Jesus as your
>>>Saviour.
>>>Have you ever done that?
>>
>>As I said - ad hominem diatribes and preaching to the choir. Now, is there
>>anyone who wants a *real* debate?
>
>
> Dodge Adam, yer dodging. Have you ever considered your relationship with
> God?
>
>
>
>>--
>>"The spiritual man.... attacks what he believes | a.a. #2001
>>to be wrong, though defended by the many, | ebonmuse!hotmail.com
>>and he is willing to stand for the right | www.ebonmusings.org
>>against the world." --Robert Green Ingersoll | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
Jisty is incapable of a thought, so Adam is quite right.
I don't think Jisty's "god" is anything to write home about,
let alone considering a relationship with.
Seppo P
(I'm off to a one week business trip into France)
so
Seppo Pietikainen
> JISTASKKIN wrote:
>
>> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:wNnqb.4568$LB....@news02.roc.ny...
>>
>>> "JISTASKKIN" <try...@here.com> wrote in message
>>> news:10jqb.20846$6A4.8906@edtnps84...
>>>
<snip>
>>> The poster you were referring to happened to be a reproduction of a
>>> Hubble
>>> Space Telescope image of the Eagle Nebula that showed new stars being
>>> born
>>> from evaporating gas clouds.
>>
>>
>>
>> You must own *lots* of swampland. Uh, I don't suppose you have any real
>> proof that stars form from gas clouds?
>> Didn't think so.
>>
Proof is for drunk fundies, *evidence* is another thing:
<http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=%22star+formation%22&Simple+Search.x=0&Simple+Search.y=0>
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?S29F23A76>
I have no illusions whatsoever that Jisty will have a peek at that,
even less that he would understand *anything* about that.
You know, even if NASA was able to put man on the moon and all that, they still
wouldn't be able to *pray* themselves out of a paper bag using Jisty's
imaginary gods (not that anyone could...).
<more snip>
>
> Jisty is incapable of a thought, so Adam is quite right.
>
> I don't think Jisty's "god" is anything to write home about,
> let alone considering a relationship with.
>
> Seppo P
> (I'm off to a one week business trip into France)
> so
>
Seppo P.
JISTASKKIN
"Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqq2vi3...@corp.supernews.com...
Hey Tommy. Have you figured out how a kill-file works yet?
Ask real nice and I will explain it to you.
JISTASKKIN
"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:boj2j8$1e71c3$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
But it is common knowledge that real operational science tells us that the
pressure build up would not allow gravity to form a star....
Ahhh forget it. You are bent on closing your eyes and "imagining" it all
happened in magical evolution land.
Any time you want to discuss real science Mr. sappy, let me know.
JISTASKKIN
Hey Sappo, anytime you would like to present the operational science that
shows how gas can coalesce into a solid object, let me know.
Of course you would have to come out of your imaginary world of evolutionary
"it happened a looooong time ago and faaaaaar away to do so.
Tom
> Ask real nice and I will explain it to you.
Tom: I noticed that you clipped my post without notation. What's the
matter Jistanass, couldn't respond to my replies? Didn't think so. I have
already replied to the killfile in another post, Mr. "Christian".
Seppo Pietikainen
Looks like your "god" didn't give you the nod to go to see jpl/nasa.
Try "freezing", though the concept may be too hard for you to grasp.
consider having been presented (though it hasn't much to do with
star formation, gravity does, however).
> Of course you would have to come out of your imaginary world of evolutionary
> "it happened a looooong time ago and faaaaaar away to do so.
>
What the hell "star formation" has to do with biological evolution?
You're still ways to educate yourself to get even to the level of a half-wit.
As the things stand now, you're giving bad rap to the half-wits.
>
>>
>><more snip>
>>
>>>Jisty is incapable of a thought, so Adam is quite right.
>>>
>>>I don't think Jisty's "god" is anything to write home about,
>>>let alone considering a relationship with.
>>>
>>>Seppo P
>>>(I'm off to a one week business trip into France)
>>>so
>>>
>>
>>Seppo P.
>>
>
>
>
Seppo P.
JISTASKKIN
"Zachriel" <an...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:U78rb.3603$yb7.99...@twister2.starband.net...
Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you are
kidding here.
>
> HUBBLE: Star Formation Pillars in M16
> "This image, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, shows gaseous pillars in
a
> star-formation region of the Eagle Nebula."
> http://tinyurl.com/u6t5
Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you are
kidding here.
>
> NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> pressurized molecular clouds
Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that turbulence
and pressure form a solid object?
Earth to Zach... earth to Zach...You are believing someone's wild
imagination.
> "The individual star formation time, t*f, determines the accretion rate of
> the star; the value of the former quantity is currently uncertain by many
> orders of magnitude, leading to other astrophysical questions."
> http://tinyurl.com/u6ry
Zach....it is all speculation. And my point.
>
> NASA: NGC 281 is a busy workshop of star formation.
> http://tinyurl.com/u6sj
Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you are
kidding here.
>
> NATURE: Low-mass relics of early star formation
> "Recent studies of primordial star formation have shown that, in the
absence
> of metals (elements heavier than helium), the formation of stars with
masses
> 100 times that of the Sun would have been strongly favoured, and that
> low-mass stars could not have formed before a minimum level of metal
> enrichment had been reached."
> http://tinyurl.com/u6ro
Zach...there is no science here. Only speculation.
>
> ASTRONOMY: Portraits of the Orion Nebula
> Visible to the naked eye, [the Orion Nebula] is one of the brightest
> emission nebula in the sky and is a hotbed of star formation
> http://tinyurl.com/u6sv
Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you are
kidding here.
>
> NATURE: Star formation triggered by galaxy collisions
> "The ultraluminous infrared galaxies are predominantly powered by enormous
> star-formation events that are triggered in the last phases of such
> collisions."
> http://tinyurl.com/u6ru
Zach....where did the galaxies come from? Do you even think about what your
are shown?
Think about this fact Zach.. Star material can only be made within Stars.
Seppo Pietikainen
You've still to demonstrate that you have "common knowledge", even less
that you know *anything* about "real operational science".
> Ahhh forget it. You are bent on closing your eyes and "imagining" it all
> happened in magical evolution land.
What the fuck star formation has to do with biological evolution?
>
> Any time you want to discuss real science Mr. sappy, let me know.
Not with you I wouldn't. You know jack shit about *any* science.
Even a two-by-four would know more than you.
>
>
>
Seppo P.
JISTASKKIN
Can you not answer a simple question?
Tommy, have you figured out how a kill-file works?
>
>
>
Tom
us that >the pressure build up would not allow gravity to form a star....
> Ahhh forget it. You are bent on closing your eyes and "imagining" it all
> happened in magical evolution land.
Tom: What in the hell does evolution have to do with star formation??
Pressure build-up won't allow star formation. Please tell me how this real
operational science works, Jistanass? Also I don't see where you answered my
question on the H-R diagram. With your comment on pressure build up, are you
familiar with Jean's Mass? Didn't think so but I thought a powerhouse person
of science such as you might have heard of it. Read about it sometime.
>Jistanass: Any time you want to discuss real science Mr. sappy, let me
know.
Tom: ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!! Jistanass wants to discuss "real" science. What a
joke. Tell us a few more "real" science facts.
JISTASKKIN
Would a fellow evolutionist please translate that.
>
> > Of course you would have to come out of your imaginary world of
evolutionary
> > "it happened a looooong time ago and faaaaaar away to do so.
> >
>
> What the hell "star formation" has to do with biological evolution?
> You're still ways to educate yourself to get even to the level of a
half-wit.
> As the things stand now, you're giving bad rap to the half-wits.
The discussion is star formation. And Sappo, you would need to explain that
before you tried to explain biological life.
Tom
> Tommy, have you figured out how a kill-file works?
Tom: Still not acknowledging your alteration, are you Jistanass? What a true
Christian you are, Jistanass.
JISTASKKIN
Oooohh lots of evidence I see.
>
> > Ahhh forget it. You are bent on closing your eyes and "imagining" it
all
> > happened in magical evolution land.
>
> What the fuck star formation has to do with biological evolution?
Very skillful use of vulgarity there Sappo, what does that have to do with
anything?
>
> >
> > Any time you want to discuss real science Mr. sappy, let me know.
>
> Not with you I wouldn't. You know jack shit about *any* science.
> Even a two-by-four would know more than you.
Emotional responses are not going to convince anyone of your position.
Go calm down and come back later.
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> Seppo P.
>
Seppo Pietikainen
We don't speak Talibanese.
>
>
>>>Of course you would have to come out of your imaginary world of
>
> evolutionary
>
>>>"it happened a looooong time ago and faaaaaar away to do so.
>>>
>>
>>What the hell "star formation" has to do with biological evolution?
>>You're still ways to educate yourself to get even to the level of a
>
> half-wit.
>
>>As the things stand now, you're giving bad rap to the half-wits.
>
>
> The discussion is star formation. And Sappo, you would need to explain that
> before you tried to explain biological life.
Ok, it happened far away and many moons ago. You're still incapable
of forming a cogent argument, or even a thought. And you're still far away
from becoming even a half-wit.
>
>
>>
>>>><more snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Jisty is incapable of a thought, so Adam is quite right.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think Jisty's "god" is anything to write home about,
>>>>>let alone considering a relationship with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seppo P
>>>>>(I'm off to a one week business trip into France)
>>>>>so
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seppo P.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Seppo P.
>>
>
>
>
Seppo P.
Zachriel
Um. That's what telescopes are for. They're imaging devices.
> > HUBBLE: Star Formation Pillars in M16
> > "This image, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, shows gaseous pillars
in
> a
> > star-formation region of the Eagle Nebula."
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6t5
>
> Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you
are
> kidding here.
Um. That's why we attach cameras to telescopes. To take pictures.
> > NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> > pressurized molecular clouds
>
> Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
turbulence
> and pressure form a solid object?
Um. Snowflakes are solids formed from turbulence and pressure. They fall to
the ground to make glaciers and snowdrifts, among other solid forms.
> Earth to Zach... earth to Zach...You are believing someone's wild
> imagination.
NASA, Nature, Astronomy, Hubble. Gee whiz, if only they hired you to help
keep their imaginations under control. Next thing you know they'll dream up
some crazy scheme to launch a telescope into space.
> > "The individual star formation time, t*f, determines the accretion rate
of
> > the star; the value of the former quantity is currently uncertain by
many
> > orders of magnitude, leading to other astrophysical questions."
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6ry
>
> Zach....it is all speculation. And my point.
The uncertainty is the rate of accretion, not whether accretion occurs or
not. The point is that knowing these dust clouds accrete leads "to other
astrophysical questions."
> > NASA: NGC 281 is a busy workshop of star formation.
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6sj
>
> Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you
are
> kidding here.
Um. That's why they build telescopes. To create images of distant objects.
> > NATURE: Low-mass relics of early star formation
> > "Recent studies of primordial star formation have shown that, in the
> absence
> > of metals (elements heavier than helium), the formation of stars with
> masses
> > 100 times that of the Sun would have been strongly favoured, and that
> > low-mass stars could not have formed before a minimum level of metal
> > enrichment had been reached."
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6ro
>
> Zach...there is no science here. Only speculation.
Quoting from the NATURE article, "Here we show that the recent discovery of
the most iron-poor star known indicates the presence of dust in extremely
low-metallicity gas, and that this dust is crucial for the formation of
lower-mass second-generation stars that could survive until today. The dust
provides a pathway for cooling the gas that leads to fragmentation of the
precursor molecular cloud into smaller clumps, which become the lower-mass
stars."
They "show". Like all science, even though the article was subjected to
peer-review, the results are always provisional. Do you have specific
evidence to shed insight on the properties of low-metallicity gases? Perhaps
a cite from someone who actually makes astronomical observations.
> > ASTRONOMY: Portraits of the Orion Nebula
> > Visible to the naked eye, [the Orion Nebula] is one of the brightest
> > emission nebula in the sky and is a hotbed of star formation
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6sv
>
> Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you
are
> kidding here.
Well, it started with Galileo. He built a telescope and pointed it at the
sky. He saw mountains on the moon, the phases of Venus, and moons orbiting
Jupiter. He realized that what religious philosophers were teaching about
the cosmos was wrong. There is no literal "Heaven above" or angels moving
planets on crystal spheres. He was percecuted for pointing this out.
Since, then we have built a few more telescopes of varying sizes and
characteristics, including the Hubble Space Telescope.
> > NATURE: Star formation triggered by galaxy collisions
> > "The ultraluminous infrared galaxies are predominantly powered by
enormous
> > star-formation events that are triggered in the last phases of such
> > collisions."
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6ru
>
> Zach....where did the galaxies come from? Do you even think about what
your
> are shown?
> Think about this fact Zach.. Star material can only be made within Stars.
*Light* captured by telescopes clearly shows that stars are made of the same
kind of matter as our own Sun and Earth. Not that scientific cites mean
anything to you, but for others who may be interested:
Dept. of Astronomy, University of Illinois
"We know what the stars are made of, know of their structures and their
lives, only because we are able to observe and analyze their spectra.
Unbroken starlight allows us to admire a star's external characteristics;
its spectrum allows us to look into its very soul."
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/spectra.html
Tom
<snip>
> > Science doesn't deal in "proof", at least not how you are using the
word.
> > However, there is very good evidence that stars do form from nebula.
> > Following are links to various scientific sites, including Hubble,
Nature,
> > NASA and Astronomy:
>
me you >are kidding here.
Tom: Yes, you know that Jistanass can't interpret pictures.
> >
> > HUBBLE: Star Formation Pillars in M16
> > "This image, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, shows gaseous pillars
in
> a
> > star-formation region of the Eagle Nebula."
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6t5
>
>Jistanass: Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell
me you >are kidding here.
Tom:Yes, you know that Jistanass can't interpret pictures.
> > NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> > pressurized molecular clouds
>
>Jistanass: Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
>turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
> Earth to Zach... earth to Zach...You are believing someone's wild
> imagination.
Tom: Uh Jistanass, where have you shown any science that you mention to be
true?
>
>
> > "The individual star formation time, t*f, determines the accretion rate
of
> > the star; the value of the former quantity is currently uncertain by
many
> > orders of magnitude, leading to other astrophysical questions."
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6ry
>
>Jistanass: Zach....it is all speculation. And my point.
Tom: Yes Zach, you know that Jistanass can't perform math calculations.
GC 281 is a busy workshop of star formation.
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6sj
>
>Jistanass: Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell
me you
>are kidding here.
Tom: Yes, you know that Jistanass can't interpret pictures.
> > NATURE: Low-mass relics of early star formation
> > "Recent studies of primordial star formation have shown that, in the
> absence
> > of metals (elements heavier than helium), the formation of stars with
> masses
> > 100 times that of the Sun would have been strongly favoured, and that
> > low-mass stars could not have formed before a minimum level of metal
> > enrichment had been reached."
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6ro
>
>Jistanass: Zach...there is no science here. Only speculation.
Tom: Really ironic isn't it? A believer in a literal Genesis even mentions
speculation. Jistanass, since you are only replying to certain posts perhaps
you can tell me if the raw materials flowed from "god's" mouth when he
created the universe.
> > ASTRONOMY: Portraits of the Orion Nebula
> > Visible to the naked eye, [the Orion Nebula] is one of the brightest
> > emission nebula in the sky and is a hotbed of star formation
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6sv
>
>Jistanass: Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell
me you
>are kidding here.
Tom: Yes, you know that Jistanass can't interpret pictures.
> > NATURE: Star formation triggered by galaxy collisions
> > "The ultraluminous infrared galaxies are predominantly powered by
enormous
> > star-formation events that are triggered in the last phases of such
> > collisions."
> > http://tinyurl.com/u6ru
>
>Jistanass: Zach....where did the galaxies come from? Do you even think
about >what our are shown?
> Think about this fact Zach.. Star material can only be made within Stars.
Tom: Jistanass thinks "god" created galaxies by the sound of his voice out
of a raw material that is not only unknown but is unfound.
David Jensen
<in...@bushmanland.co.za> wrote in <boiqce$hjm$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>:
>
>"Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:3FABFF79...@frontiernet.net...
>> Bushmanland Crafts & Tours wrote:
>>
>> > How came different human-(some gigantic) , ape-, beast-
>> > dinosaurs- like foot impressions on the same igneous bodies?
>>
>> There are not. Neither is that Abe Lincoln in that cloud over there.
>>
>> Try pouring a trench full of molten lead and then slowly walk across it
>> and when it's cool, see what kinds of footprints you leave behind.
>
>Please imagen the evidence of a disastrous flood on one continent. Do you
>know about the Book Genesis in the Bible? Genesis made sense to me after I
>have discovered these impressions. Fountains of the deep broke forth .....
>igneous bodies popping up in this mass of water - living creatures reaching
>for anything solid to stand on. It's so simple ! Please search "The
>cooling of igneous bodies"on the net. You're welcome to visit the engraving
>and impressions sites in our region!
>May you be blessed with an open mind !
My mind is open, but it has not fallen out. Your story doesn't fit with
the actual evidence that geologists have been gathering for a couple
centuries.
JISTASKKIN
Seppo Pietikainen
Why, thank you. You'might want to reply to the question I
presented.
>
>
>>>Any time you want to discuss real science Mr. sappy, let me know.
>>
>>Not with you I wouldn't. You know jack shit about *any* science.
>>Even a two-by-four would know more than you.
>
>
> Emotional responses are not going to convince anyone of your position.
> Go calm down and come back later.
I wouldn't consider my response emotional, I'd consider it factual, besides
we're not debating, dimmy. We're demonstrating that you are pig-ignorant
twit (sorry, pigs, no insult meant). (Anybody want to by a used god
from Jisty?)
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>Seppo P.
>>
>
>
>
Seppo P.
JISTASKKIN
English will do just fine.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Of course you would have to come out of your imaginary world of
> >
> > evolutionary
> >
> >>>"it happened a looooong time ago and faaaaaar away to do so.
> >>>
> >>
> >>What the hell "star formation" has to do with biological evolution?
> >>You're still ways to educate yourself to get even to the level of a
> >
> > half-wit.
> >
> >>As the things stand now, you're giving bad rap to the half-wits.
> >
> >
> > The discussion is star formation. And Sappo, you would need to explain
that
> > before you tried to explain biological life.
>
> Ok, it happened far away and many moons ago. You're still incapable
> of forming a cogent argument, or even a thought. And you're still far away
> from becoming even a half-wit.
Would stars from before or after biological life?
JISTASKKIN
Seppo Pietikainen
What part of the word "Gravity" escapes your linguistic abilities?
You don't seem to understand English.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>Of course you would have to come out of your imaginary world of
>>>
>>>evolutionary
>>>
>>>
>>>>>"it happened a looooong time ago and faaaaaar away to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What the hell "star formation" has to do with biological evolution?
>>>>You're still ways to educate yourself to get even to the level of a
>>>
>>>half-wit.
>>>
>>>
>>>>As the things stand now, you're giving bad rap to the half-wits.
>>>
>>>
>>>The discussion is star formation. And Sappo, you would need to explain
>
> that
>
>>>before you tried to explain biological life.
>>
>>Ok, it happened far away and many moons ago. You're still incapable
>>of forming a cogent argument, or even a thought. And you're still far away
>>from becoming even a half-wit.
>
>
> Would stars from before or after biological life?
Make a wild-ass guess.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>><more snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jisty is incapable of a thought, so Adam is quite right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't think Jisty's "god" is anything to write home about,
>>>>>>>let alone considering a relationship with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Seppo P
>>>>>>>(I'm off to a one week business trip into France)
>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seppo P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Seppo P.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Seppo P.
>>
>
>
>
Seppo P.
Zachriel
>
<snipped>
>
> But it is common knowledge that real operational science tells us that the
> pressure build up would not allow gravity to form a star....
Cite to a scientific journal please. Meanwhile, for those who can't wait for
JISTASKKIN to provide relevant cites, here are a couple for your perusal:
Georgia State University: Gravitational Collapse
"The source of the energy for star formation is gravitational collapse -
this collapse must provide enough energy to heat the gas of the protostar to
the ignition point of hydrogen fusion, some 15 million Kelvins. Knowledge of
the mass and distribution of the gas cloud permits some fairly detailed
modeling . . . ."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/gravc.html
University of Kent: Triggered Star Formation models
"A substantial amount of theoretical work has already been carried out to
model the evolution of dense, gaseous clumps subject to the ionising
radiation of nearby OB stars."
http://www.kent.ac.uk/physical-sciences/space/gw/triggered1.htm
> Ahhh forget it. You are bent on closing your eyes and "imagining" it all
> happened in magical evolution land.
Never been there. But I will say that biological evolution has nothing to
say about star formation.
JISTASKKIN
And then you do the imagining.
>
>
> > > HUBBLE: Star Formation Pillars in M16
> > > "This image, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, shows gaseous
pillars
> in
> > a
> > > star-formation region of the Eagle Nebula."
> > > http://tinyurl.com/u6t5
> >
> > Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you
> are
> > kidding here.
>
> Um. That's why we attach cameras to telescopes. To take pictures.
And then you imagine a star forming...and call it science?
>
>
> > > NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> > > pressurized molecular clouds
> >
> > Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
> turbulence
> > and pressure form a solid object?
>
> Um. Snowflakes are solids formed from turbulence and pressure.
Are you *JOKING*
They fall to
> the ground to make glaciers and snowdrifts, among other solid forms.
Are you seriously trying to make the analogy of water molecule behavior to
hydrogen molecule behavior to show that stars form like snowflakes?
If not, what are you saying?
>
>
> > Earth to Zach... earth to Zach...You are believing someone's wild
> > imagination.
>
> NASA, Nature, Astronomy, Hubble. Gee whiz, if only they hired you to help
> keep their imaginations under control. Next thing you know they'll dream
up
> some crazy scheme to launch a telescope into space.
What???
>
>
> > > "The individual star formation time, t*f, determines the accretion
rate
> of
> > > the star; the value of the former quantity is currently uncertain by
> many
> > > orders of magnitude, leading to other astrophysical questions."
> > > http://tinyurl.com/u6ry
> >
> > Zach....it is all speculation. And my point.
>
> The uncertainty is the rate of accretion, not whether accretion occurs or
> not. The point is that knowing these dust clouds accrete leads "to other
> astrophysical questions."
All we see is a gas cloud Zach.
>
>
> > > NASA: NGC 281 is a busy workshop of star formation.
> > > http://tinyurl.com/u6sj
> >
> > Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you
> are
> > kidding here.
>
> Um. That's why they build telescopes. To create images of distant objects.
Good. And that's all we see Zach. Not what your imagination wants to see.
>
>
> > > NATURE: Low-mass relics of early star formation
> > > "Recent studies of primordial star formation have shown that, in the
> > absence
> > > of metals (elements heavier than helium), the formation of stars with
> > masses
> > > 100 times that of the Sun would have been strongly favoured, and that
> > > low-mass stars could not have formed before a minimum level of metal
> > > enrichment had been reached."
> > > http://tinyurl.com/u6ro
> >
> > Zach...there is no science here. Only speculation.
>
> Quoting from the NATURE article, "Here we show that the recent discovery
of
> the most iron-poor star known indicates the presence of dust in extremely
> low-metallicity gas, and that this dust is crucial for the formation of
> lower-mass second-generation stars that could survive until today. The
dust
> provides a pathway for cooling the gas that leads to fragmentation of the
> precursor molecular cloud into smaller clumps, which become the lower-mass
> stars."
>
> They "show". Like all science, even though the article was subjected to
> peer-review, the results are always provisional. Do you have specific
> evidence to shed insight on the properties of low-metallicity gases?
Perhaps
> a cite from someone who actually makes astronomical observations.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1384.asp
Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas
clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees
required for nuclear fusion.
But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent
collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such
mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating
enough of the heat away.
But according to theory, the 'big bang' made mainly hydrogen, with a little
helium - the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't
form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be
molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light,
and usually needs dust grains to form - and dust grains require heavier
elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave
gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.
Abraham Loeb of Harvard's Center for Astrophysics says: 'The truth is that
we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.'1
Reference
1. Marcus Chown, 'Let there be light', New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7
February 1998.
And, how did the material get here?
>
> Dept. of Astronomy, University of Illinois
> "We know what the stars are made of, know of their structures and their
> lives, only because we are able to observe and analyze their spectra.
> Unbroken starlight allows us to admire a star's external characteristics;
> its spectrum allows us to look into its very soul."
> http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/spectra.html
Do you know how far our current telemetry readings go? If the Sun were an
orange Zach, we don't even "see" half way through the peel.
Think about that Zach, and think about how much imagination has been used to
come to the conclusions you so happily believe.
How far do you think we can probe our own Sun Zach?
>
>
>
>
JISTASKKIN
No vulgarity will be tolerated.. Ask again.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Any time you want to discuss real science Mr. sappy, let me know.
> >>
> >>Not with you I wouldn't. You know jack shit about *any* science.
> >>Even a two-by-four would know more than you.
> >
> >
> > Emotional responses are not going to convince anyone of your position.
> > Go calm down and come back later.
>
> I wouldn't consider my response emotional, I'd consider it factual,
besides
> we're not debating, dimmy. We're demonstrating that you are pig-ignorant
> twit (sorry, pigs, no insult meant). (Anybody want to by a used god
> from Jisty?)
Emotional responses will look just like..well what you just posted.
Come back when you cool down Sappy.
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Seppo P.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> Seppo P.
>
JISTASKKIN
Where did I say it did?
>
>
>
JISTASKKIN
Tommy, figure out a kill-file yet?
Ask nice......
>
>
Zachriel
I said it. I even prefaced it.
Meanwhile, you never provided cites to support this JISTASKKINian assertion,
"that real operational science tells us that the pressure build up would not
allow gravity to form a star."
The mass required to ignite a stellar reaction is called Jean's Mass.
MJ = [3/4 pi density]1/2 [15kT/G mH]3/2 ~ [density)]1/2
http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/stars/collapse.html
Zachriel
>
> "Zachriel" <an...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
> news:TB9rb.3613$3v.997...@twister2.starband.net...
> >
> > "JISTASKKIN" <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:C89rb.10787$%Q5.3592@edtnps84...
> > >
> > > "Zachriel" <an...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
> > > news:U78rb.3603$yb7.99...@twister2.starband.net...
> > > > NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> > > > pressurized molecular clouds
> > >
> > > Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
> > turbulence
> > > and pressure form a solid object?
> >
> > Um. Snowflakes are solids formed from turbulence and pressure.
>
> Are you *JOKING*
>
> They fall to
> > the ground to make glaciers and snowdrifts, among other solid forms.
>
> Are you seriously trying to make the analogy of water molecule behavior to
> hydrogen molecule behavior to show that stars form like snowflakes?
> If not, what are you saying?
This is a mischaracterization of my comments. As can be seen above you
challenged me to point to "where in the real waking world has science shown
that turbulence and pressure form a solid object."
Snowflakes are one such solid object formed from a turbulent gas and
differential pressure. Another would be frost on the windowpane. Of course,
it is also present in thousands of industrial processes.
Zachriel
>
> "Zachriel" <an...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
> news:TB9rb.3613$3v.997...@twister2.starband.net...
> >
> > They "show". Like all science, even though the article was subjected to
> > peer-review, the results are always provisional. Do you have specific
> > evidence to shed insight on the properties of low-metallicity gases?
> Perhaps
> > a cite from someone who actually makes astronomical observations.
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1384.asp
Oh my gosh. A cite, even if it is from our friends at answersingenesis.org.
> Evolutionists
Already off to a bad start. Assuming by evolutionists they mean evolutionary
biologists, evolutionary biology has nothing to do with star formation. They
must have typed it wrong and meant "astronomers" or "astrophysicists". By
the way, does anything here have to do with the specific subject of the
properties of low-metallicity gases? Let's read on and find out.
> generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas
> clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees
> required for nuclear fusion.
The equations for heat, pressure and nuclear fusion are quite well
understood.
>
> But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent
> collapse.
This depends on the mass of the object. Certainly for smaller objects, such
as Earth, the outward pressure prevents collapse. However, for objects
greater than the Jean's Mass, the object will continue to collapes until the
heat is such that hydrogen will fuse into helium.
Case Western Reserve University
"The cloud will only collapse if its mass is large enough to allow this - a
mass called the 'Jean's Mass.'"
http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_birth.html
> Evolutionists
Maybe it wasn't a typo. Do these guys even know that evolutionary biologists
don't study stars?
> must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such
> mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating
> enough of the heat away.
>
> But according to theory, the 'big bang' made mainly hydrogen, with a
little
> helium - the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't
> form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be
> molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet
light,
> and usually needs dust grains to form - and dust grains require heavier
> elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would
leave
> gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.
<snip>
They forgot to include the math. Anyway, this has nothing to do with stellar
ignition or with the properties of low-metallicity gases.
Adam Marczyk
news:bogu85$a91$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
[...]
>> If you wish to debate, you should begin by presenting a coherent
>> argument in your own words, not by posting a link to a web page. What
>> is the topic, what do you intend to prove, and what is your evidence?
>
> Thanks for your advise. I would like people first to visit
> http://www.bushmanland.co.za. Without visiting, there can be no argument.
> Evidence is talking. Images on the website is only a drop in the bucket
> of what we've got. How came different human-(some gigantic) , ape-,
> beast- dinosaurs- like foot impressions on the same igneous bodies?
I can think of one obvious explanation: they're carvings. Since igneous
rock is rock that has solidified from a molten state, there would be
obvious difficulties in leaving footprints on it. How many barefoot strolls
across lava have you taken lately?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom
Tom: There isn't anyone in the world that could explain "real" science to
you.
> > > Of course you would have to come out of your imaginary world of
> evolutionary
> > > "it happened a looooong time ago and faaaaaar away to do so.
> > >
> >
> > What the hell "star formation" has to do with biological evolution?
> > You're still ways to educate yourself to get even to the level of a
> half-wit.
> > As the things stand now, you're giving bad rap to the half-wits.
>
>Jistanass: The discussion is star formation. And Sappo, you would need to
>explain that before you tried to explain biological life.
Tom: You're the one who introduced evolution in the conversation, so don't
try to tell Seppo what the subject is. No, he doesn't need to explain
anything before biological life. He doesn't even need to explain life. Once
life started on earth, evolution explains the distribution and diversity of
life.
Adam Marczyk
[...]
>> NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
>> pressurized molecular clouds
>
> Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
> turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
Right here, as a matter of fact:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/533-3.html
These researchers turned oxygen into a solid metal (briefly) by putting it
under enormous pressure between two sapphire anvils and then subjecting it
to a shock wave. As far as I know we don't yet have machines that can exert
enough pressure to turn hydrogen into a solid metal - although we have
turned it into a metallic liquid.
Tom
Tom: Jistanass can't explain a killfile, yet he teases others. That is
dishonest, Jistanass!
Adam Marczyk
[...]
>> I wouldn't consider my response emotional, I'd consider it factual,
>> besides we're not debating, dimmy. We're demonstrating that you are
>> pig-ignorant twit (sorry, pigs, no insult meant). (Anybody want to by a
>> used god from Jisty?)
>
> Emotional responses will look just like..well what you just posted.
> Come back when you cool down Sappy.
Now, now, JIST, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Tom
> > presented.
>
Tom: Go to hell, you ignorant stooge :-).
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Any time you want to discuss real science Mr. sappy, let me know.
> > >>
> > >>Not with you I wouldn't. You know jack shit about *any* science.
> > >>Even a two-by-four would know more than you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Emotional responses are not going to convince anyone of your position.
> > > Go calm down and come back later.
> >
> > I wouldn't consider my response emotional, I'd consider it factual,
> besides
> > we're not debating, dimmy. We're demonstrating that you are pig-ignorant
> > twit (sorry, pigs, no insult meant). (Anybody want to by a used god
> > from Jisty?)
>
>Jistanass: Emotional responses will look just like..well what you just
posted.
> Come back when you cool down Sappy.
Tom: Translated...Jistanass can't respond to the questions at hand.
Tom
> > >Jistanass: But it is common knowledge that real operational science
tells
> > us that >the pressure build up would not allow gravity to form a
star....
> > > Ahhh forget it. You are bent on closing your eyes and "imagining" it
> all
> > > happened in magical evolution land.
> >
Tom: Still can't explain it, huh Jistanass? Why did you not respond to my
post, Jistanass? Unable to?
Tom
Tom: In your last post, liar!
Adam Marczyk
> "Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:boj589$1eqdcc$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
[...]
>
<http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=%22star+fo
r
> mation%22&Simple+Search.x=0&Simple+Search.y=0>
>> <http://makeashorterlink.com/?S29F23A76>
>>
>> I have no illusions whatsoever that Jisty will have a peek at that,
>> even less that he would understand *anything* about that.
>> You know, even if NASA was able to put man on the moon and all that,
>> they still wouldn't be able to *pray* themselves out of a paper bag
>> using Jisty's imaginary gods (not that anyone could...).
>
> Hey Sappo, anytime you would like to present the operational science that
> shows how gas can coalesce into a solid object, let me know.
Stars are not solid objects. I am amazed that you don't know this. Stars
are fluid all the way through; we know this because we have directly
observed "sunquakes", vibrational patterns in the surface of our own Sun
analogous to earthquakes. On the Earth, there are two different types of
vibrations produced by an earthquake: P-waves, which are compressional
patterns similar to sound waves, and S-waves, which vibrate perpendicular
to the direction of motion (similar to the way an electromagnetic wave
vibrates). P-waves can travel through any medium; S-waves can only travel
through solids. We observe P-waves in the Sun, but no S-waves at all.
Therefore, we conclude that the Sun is not solid.
Do you *really* intend to argue against well-established theories of star
formation when you are ignorant of even the most basic facts of astronomy?
That would be like arguing against creationism without ever having read any
part of the Bible. If you would dismiss a person who tried to do that as
uneducated, then you should have the decency to actually learn some things
about this subject before staking out a position on it.
Tom
> Ask nice......
Tom: Notice folks, not one response to the post. This is because Jistanass
is bankrupt. He has no ideas of his own, he can't even think on his own.
What's more he can't explain how a killfile works. Apparently there isn't a
lot that Jistasnass can do :-).
Zachriel
> JISTASKKIN <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:C89rb.10787$%Q5.3592@edtnps84...
>
> [...]
>
> >> NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> >> pressurized molecular clouds
> >
> > Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
> > turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
DOH!
>
> Right here, as a matter of fact:
>
> http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/533-3.html
>
> These researchers turned oxygen into a solid metal (briefly) by putting it
> under enormous pressure between two sapphire anvils and then subjecting it
> to a shock wave. As far as I know we don't yet have machines that can
exert
> enough pressure to turn hydrogen into a solid metal - although we have
> turned it into a metallic liquid.
Great cite. Except stars aren't solid.
DOH!
http://www.thesimpsons.com/
Malachi
> Which is a picture of a gas cloud on your bedroom wall with an imaginative
> explanation of it being the *birth of a star* is an interpretation of the
> data.
Would you like to actually discuss the data?
> Do you believe the gas cloud is the remnant of a previous star...or is the
> gas cloud forming a completely new one?
It is a star forming region. However, it is not 'forming a completely
new one,' as you say, but rather, it is forming *lot's* of new ones.
Now, asking why we think so is a very reasonable question. But it can't
be explained why in merely a sentence or two.
Do you understand the spectrum of light and what the consequences of its
analysis are? By studying the spectrum of light from stars and nebula
we can determine their composition; what elements they are composed of.
For example, did you know that helium was discovered in the Sun before
it was discovered on Earth by the analysis of the Sun's spectrum? That
is why it is called helium, from helios.
By taking the spectra of thousands upon thousands of stars in our
immediate region of the galaxy, astronomers have been able to piece
together the life cycle of stars. What young stars look like and what
old stars look like.
Part of the evidence supporting this is the analysis of the spectra of
the nebula various stars are associated with. For example, look at the
following nebulae, they are very, very different from the Eagle nebula
that has been the topic of this discussion thus far:
http://ad.usno.navy.mil/pne/caption.html
These are referred to as 'planetary nebula' (PN). They got their name
because, to early telescopic observers, they looked like a disk of a
planet only nebulous. And if you've ever seen Uranus or Neptune through
a small telescope along with various PNs you'd know what I mean.
Anyway, notice how different these nebulas are in comparison to the
Eagle nebula. Their structure is completely different. Spectra reveal
that their composition is also very different. PN are concentrated with
heavier elements where as nebula like the Eagle nebula are not. PN are
always found to be expanding outward from a central point which always
contains a very different kind of star known as a white dwarf.
Spectra reveal white dwarfs to be very compact, dense stars with very,
very high surface temperatures. Completely unlike other stars, such as
the Sun or other stars you see in the sky with your naked eyes.
Now let's contrast these planetary nebula with nebula like the Eagle
nebula. There are other nebulae that are similar to the Eagle nebula,
such as the Orion Nebula or the Trifid Nebula. The globules found in
these nebulas are nothing like anything found in the PNs. Unlike PNs,
these nebula are always associated with a large cluster of stars. And,
these stars have been shown to all be moving through space together.
Their sizes are very different too. The Eagle nebula is several
thousand light years across where as PN are typically about 1 light year
in diameter.
So anyway, there's some basics describing two different kinds of nebulae
with very different characteristics. Obviously, different processes are
taking place in these different kind of nebula.
What do you suppose is going on in these nebulae?
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xuarb.1734$Zf4....@news01.roc.ny...
>> JISTASKKIN <try...@here.com> wrote in message
>> news:C89rb.10787$%Q5.3592@edtnps84...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
>>>> pressurized molecular clouds
>>>
>>> Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
>>> turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
>
> DOH!
>
>
>>
>> Right here, as a matter of fact:
>>
>> http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/533-3.html
>>
>> These researchers turned oxygen into a solid metal (briefly) by putting
>> it under enormous pressure between two sapphire anvils and then
>> subjecting it to a shock wave. As far as I know we don't yet have
>> machines that can exert enough pressure to turn hydrogen into a solid
>> metal - although we have turned it into a metallic liquid.
>
> Great cite. Except stars aren't solid.
>
> DOH!
> http://www.thesimpsons.com/
You're correct, of course. I should have mentioned that this demand on
JIST's part is irrelevant since we know stars are not solids (as I pointed
out to him in another post), though he seems to erroneously think
otherwise.
David C. Fritzinger
<try...@here.com> wrote:
> "Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:boj2j8$1e71c3$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > JISTASKKIN wrote:
> > > "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wNnqb.4568$LB....@news02.roc.ny...
> > >
> > >>"JISTASKKIN" <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:10jqb.20846$6A4.8906@edtnps84...
> > >>
> > >>>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:M_eqb.17461$HO4....@news01.roc.ny...
> > >>>
> > >>>>This newsgroup certainly has no shortage of loudmouthed creationists
> > >>>
> > >>>who're
> > >>>
> > >>>>good at posting ad hominem diatribes and preach-to-the-choir sermons
> > >>
> > >>and
> > >>
> > >>>>then ignoring the responses. But anyone can do that; it accomplishes
> > >>>>nothing and convinces no one. What's conspicuously lacking here is a
> > >>
> > >>real
> > >>
> > >>>>debate where each side actually responds to the arguments of the
> > >
> > > other.
> > >
> > >>>I'm
> > >>>
> > >>>>willing to have such a debate with any creationist who dares. So, how
> > >>>
> > >>>'bout
> > >>>
> > >>>>it? Are you guys going to show that your beliefs can hold up in a fair
> > >>>>fight, or are you afraid of what one little atheist will say?
> > >>>
> > >>>Adam,
> > >>>We tried this. The subject was about star formation. In desperation
> > >
> > > you
> > >
> > >>>tried to use a "poster" in your room as proof.
> > >>
> > >>The poster you were referring to happened to be a reproduction of a
> Hubble
> > >>Space Telescope image of the Eagle Nebula that showed new stars being
> born
> > >>from evaporating gas clouds.
> > >
> > >
> > > You must own *lots* of swampland. Uh, I don't suppose you have any real
> > > proof that stars form from gas clouds?
> > > Didn't think so.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Well, I pointed out the obvious flaw in that...
> > >>
> > >>Which is what, exactly?
> > >
> > >
> > > Which is a picture of a gas cloud on your bedroom wall with an
> imaginative
> > > explanation of it being the *birth of a star* is an interpretation of
> the
> > > data.
> > > Do you believe the gas cloud is the remnant of a previous star...or is
> the
> > > gas cloud forming a completely new one?
> > > Adam, .there is not one shred of good scientific data to prove it is a
> star
> > > forming.. But of course we are mot talking scientific data here, it's
> > > evolutionary science.
> > > Taken straight from the latest star trek episode.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>>you had a hissy fit and killfilled me.
> > >>
> > >>I will not argue with someone who denies the existence of processes that
> > >>can be directly observed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ahhhhh!!! When exactly did you directly observe a star formed from a
> gas
> > > cloud?
> >
> > It was already told to you, but I'll just point to a page which
> > discusses this, as well as other relevant topics:
> >
> <http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creatio
> ni_2_13_2001.asp>
> >
> > Jisty's spewage leaves nothing to discuss with.
>
> But it is common knowledge that real operational science tells us that the
> pressure build up would not allow gravity to form a star....
> Ahhh forget it. You are bent on closing your eyes and "imagining" it all
> happened in magical evolution land.
If it is common knowledge, I suppose you are now going to give us
references to back up your stupid statement. Right. Indeed, they should
be just below.
>
> Any time you want to discuss real science Mr. sappy, let me know.
Ooops, I guess I was wrong. As usual, Jist couldn't back up his stupid
assertion. Just another insult from our resident example of poor
christianity, mixed with a lack of knowledge of science. That would be
JISTASKKIN, the man (boy?) who has never backed up an assertion, IIRC.
Dave Fritzinger
Elmer Bataitis
> "Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message..
> > Bushmanland Crafts & Tours wrote:
> > > How came different human-(some gigantic) , ape-, beast-
> > > dinosaurs- like foot impressions on the same igneous bodies?
> > There are not. Neither is that Abe Lincoln in that cloud over there.
> > Try pouring a trench full of molten lead and then slowly walk across it
> > and when it's cool, see what kinds of footprints you leave behind.
> Please imagen the evidence of a disastrous flood on one continent. Do you
> know about the Book Genesis in the Bible? Genesis made sense to me after I
> have discovered these impressions. Fountains of the deep broke forth .....
> igneous bodies popping up in this mass of water - living creatures reaching
> for anything solid to stand on. It's so simple ! Please search "The
> cooling of igneous bodies"on the net. You're welcome to visit the engraving
> and impressions sites in our region!
> May you be blessed with an open mind !
Try taking a biology and geology course.
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
David C. Fritzinger
<try...@here.com> wrote:
> "Zachriel" <an...@zachriel.com> wrote in message
> news:U78rb.3603$yb7.99...@twister2.starband.net...
> >
> > "JISTASKKIN" <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:OG6rb.10421$%Q5.7258@edtnps84...
> > Science doesn't deal in "proof", at least not how you are using the word.
> > However, there is very good evidence that stars do form from nebula.
> > Following are links to various scientific sites, including Hubble, Nature,
> > NASA and Astronomy:
>
> Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right? Please tell me you are
> kidding here.
IOW, you couldn't back up what you were saying. But, we knew that.
Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
David C. Fritzinger
<try...@here.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> No vulgarity will be tolerated.. Ask again.
But your insults, and unsupported assertions will be tolerated. I don't
think so.
Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Elmer Bataitis
(snip)
> Do you know how far our current telemetry readings go? If the Sun were an
> orange Zach, we don't even "see" half way through the peel.
So what do you expect? Aliens living beneath the photosphere? Gardens?
Do you really think astronomy is that incompetant?
JISTASKKIN
Tommy, I could make one if I wanted to.
Now ask nice you buffoon.
.
>
>
JISTASKKIN
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>JISTASKKIN wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>JISTASKKIN wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>news:wNnqb.4568$LB....@news02.roc.ny...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"JISTASKKIN" <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:10jqb.20846$6A4.8906@edtnps84...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>The poster you were referring to happened to be a reproduction of
a
> >>>>>>>>>Hubble
> >>>>>>>>>Space Telescope image of the Eagle Nebula that showed new stars
> >
> > being
> >
> >>>>>>>>>born
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>from evaporating gas clouds.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>real
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>proof that stars form from gas clouds?
> >>>>>>>>Didn't think so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
<http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=%22star+for
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>><http://makeashorterlink.com/?S29F23A76>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I have no illusions whatsoever that Jisty will have a peek at that,
> >>>>>>even less that he would understand *anything* about that.
> >>>>>>You know, even if NASA was able to put man on the moon and all that,
> >>>
> >>>they
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>still
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>wouldn't be able to *pray* themselves out of a paper bag using
Jisty's
> >>>>>>imaginary gods (not that anyone could...).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Hey Sappo, anytime you would like to present the operational science
> >>>
> >>>that
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>shows how gas can coalesce into a solid object, let me know.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Try "freezing", though the concept may be too hard for you to grasp.
> >>>>consider having been presented (though it hasn't much to do with
> >>>>star formation, gravity does, however).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > English will do just fine.
>
> What part of the word "Gravity" escapes your linguistic abilities?
> You don't seem to understand English.
But the *gravity* could not overcome the p r e s s u r e.
Get it?
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>Of course you would have to come out of your imaginary world of
> >>>
> >>>evolutionary
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>"it happened a looooong time ago and faaaaaar away to do so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>What the hell "star formation" has to do with biological evolution?
> >>>>You're still ways to educate yourself to get even to the level of a
> >>>
> >>>half-wit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>As the things stand now, you're giving bad rap to the half-wits.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The discussion is star formation. And Sappo, you would need to explain
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>before you tried to explain biological life.
> >>
> >>Ok, it happened far away and many moons ago. You're still incapable
> >>of forming a cogent argument, or even a thought. And you're still far
away
> >>from becoming even a half-wit.
> >
> >
> > Would stars from before or after biological life?
>
> Make a wild-ass guess.
Now your talking evolutionary theory. Your the expert, you tell me.
JISTASKKIN
Sorry, let me rephrase. Any evolutionist who is not a buffoon.
JISTASKKIN
Not solid as in rock density solid. Solid as in relative to a gas cloud.
>
> Do you *really* intend to argue against well-established theories of star
> formation when you are ignorant of even the most basic facts of astronomy?
How did the moon get here?
> That would be like arguing against creationism without ever having read
any
> part of the Bible. If you would dismiss a person who tried to do that as
> uneducated, then you should have the decency to actually learn some things
> about this subject before staking out a position on it.
Good advice. Now answer the simple question above.
JISTASKKIN
> > > Why, thank you. You'might want to reply to the question I
> > > presented.
> >
> >Jistanass: No vulgarity will be tolerated.. Ask again.
>
> Tom: Go to hell, you ignorant stooge :-).
Sorry, that's the only place a Christian can't go.
Tommy, have you figured out a kill-file yet?
JISTASKKIN
Zach...are you saying snowflakes behave the same as stars?
>
>
>
JISTASKKIN
No Zach, taht only happens when you have a star, not when one is forming.
Get it?
>
> Case Western Reserve University
> "The cloud will only collapse if its mass is large enough to allow this -
a
> mass called the 'Jean's Mass.'"
> http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_birth.html
And where do we see this?
>
>
> > Evolutionists
>
> Maybe it wasn't a typo. Do these guys even know that evolutionary
biologists
> don't study stars?
>
>
> > must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such
> > mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and
radiating
> > enough of the heat away.
> >
> > But according to theory, the 'big bang' made mainly hydrogen, with a
> little
> > helium - the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't
> > form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would
be
> > molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet
> light,
> > and usually needs dust grains to form - and dust grains require heavier
> > elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would
> leave
> > gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.
> <snip>
>
> They forgot to include the math. Anyway, this has nothing to do with
stellar
> ignition or with the properties of low-metallicity gases.
Dream on star boy.
>
>
>
>
JISTASKKIN
> JISTASKKIN <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:C89rb.10787$%Q5.3592@edtnps84...
>
> [...]
>
> >> NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> >> pressurized molecular clouds
> >
> > Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
> > turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
>
> Right here, as a matter of fact:
>
> http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/533-3.html
>
> These researchers turned oxygen into a solid metal (briefly) by putting it
> under enormous pressure between two sapphire anvils and then subjecting it
> to a shock wave. As far as I know we don't yet have machines that can
exert
> enough pressure to turn hydrogen into a solid metal - although we have
> turned it into a metallic liquid.
Oh, so you believe that giant anvils in space created stars?
JISTASKKIN
Relative to a gas cloud many light years in diameter they are.
David Jensen
<glfrb.25447$%Q5.6926@edtnps84>:
on our planet, of course.
David Jensen
>
>"Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:vqqdg65...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > > Why, thank you. You'might want to reply to the question I
>> > > presented.
>> >
>> >Jistanass: No vulgarity will be tolerated.. Ask again.
>>
>> Tom: Go to hell, you ignorant stooge :-).
>
>Sorry, that's the only place a Christian can't go.
Have you provided any evidence in any of these discussions that you are
a follower of Christ?
Tom McDonald
<snip>
>
> But it is common knowledge that real operational science tells us that the
> pressure build up would not allow gravity to form a star....
> Ahhh forget it. You are bent on closing your eyes and "imagining" it all
> happened in magical evolution land.
Jist,
Where can one find that "common knowledge"? What is/are the
principle(s) involved that would increase pressure (in the
collapsing cloud, apparently) to the point where it would stop
further gravitational collapse? Where could one find an
accessible on-line or print treatment of this/these principle(s)?
Tom McDonald
--
remove 'nohormel' to reply
Adam Marczyk
Uh-huh. Sure. You knew that all along, I bet.
> Solid as in relative to a gas cloud.
So, let's see: now that you admit that the Sun is not a solid body, what
precisely is left for you to object to? Do you take issue with the idea
that gravity can compress a gas cloud into a denser gas cloud?
>> Do you *really* intend to argue against well-established theories of
>> star formation when you are ignorant of even the most basic facts of
>> astronomy?
>
> How did the moon get here?
Based on the available evidence, the best hypothesis is that our moon was
created early in the history of the solar system, when a large (i.e., about
the size of Mars) body crashed into the Earth. The collision remelted the
Earth and spewed a jet of molten debris into space. Some of this debris
entered Earth orbit, coalesced and cooled, and eventually became our moon.
>> That would be like arguing against creationism without ever having read
>> any part of the Bible. If you would dismiss a person who tried to do
>> that as uneducated, then you should have the decency to actually learn
>> some things about this subject before staking out a position on it.
>
> Good advice. Now answer the simple question above.
You're welcome.
Adam Marczyk
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xuarb.1734$Zf4....@news01.roc.ny...
>> JISTASKKIN <try...@here.com> wrote in message
>> news:C89rb.10787$%Q5.3592@edtnps84...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
>>>> pressurized molecular clouds
>>>
>>> Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
>>> turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
>>
>> Right here, as a matter of fact:
>>
>> http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/533-3.html
>>
>> These researchers turned oxygen into a solid metal (briefly) by putting
>> it under enormous pressure between two sapphire anvils and then
>> subjecting it to a shock wave. As far as I know we don't yet have
>> machines that can exert enough pressure to turn hydrogen into a solid
>> metal - although we have turned it into a metallic liquid.
>
> Oh, so you believe that giant anvils in space created stars?
Your ability to miss the point is nothing short of amazing. Admit that your
original challenge ("Where in the real waking world has science shown that
turbulence and pressure form a solid object?") has been satisfactorily
answered, and then we can move on to the topic of star formation.
Tom McDonald
> "Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:boj589$1eqdcc$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Seppo Pietikainen wrote:
>>
>>>JISTASKKIN wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:wNnqb.4568$LB....@news02.roc.ny...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"JISTASKKIN" <try...@here.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:10jqb.20846$6A4.8906@edtnps84...
>>>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>The poster you were referring to happened to be a reproduction of a
>>>>>Hubble
>>>>>Space Telescope image of the Eagle Nebula that showed new stars being
>>>>>born
>>>>>from evaporating gas clouds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You must own *lots* of swampland. Uh, I don't suppose you have any real
>>>>proof that stars form from gas clouds?
>>>>Didn't think so.
>>>>
>>
>>Proof is for drunk fundies, *evidence* is another thing:
>>
>>
>
> <http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=%22star+for
> mation%22&Simple+Search.x=0&Simple+Search.y=0>
>
>><http://makeashorterlink.com/?S29F23A76>
>>
>>I have no illusions whatsoever that Jisty will have a peek at that,
>>even less that he would understand *anything* about that.
>>You know, even if NASA was able to put man on the moon and all that, they
>
> still
>
>>wouldn't be able to *pray* themselves out of a paper bag using Jisty's
>>imaginary gods (not that anyone could...).
>
>
> Hey Sappo, anytime you would like to present the operational science that
> shows how gas can coalesce into a solid object, let me know.
Jist,
What solid object are you speaking of? Planets? If so, then
why should this be a problem? Your assumption that the
protostellar cloud would be entirely gas is not supported by
the evidence of astronomy; there is also dust and bits of
solid matter.
<snip>
Malachi
Hmmmpf! I meant the Eagle nebula is several *dozen* light years wide.
Sorry. Several thousand light years would be it's distance.
Tom McDonald
> "Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:boj8st$1ertdk$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>JISTASKKIN wrote:
>>
>>>"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
>>>news:boj719$1eqgk1$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
>>>>
>>>>What the fuck star formation has to do with biological evolution?
>>>
>>>
>>>Very skillful use of vulgarity there Sappo, what does that have to do
>
> with
>
>>>anything?
>>
>>Why, thank you. You'might want to reply to the question I
>>presented.
>
>
> No vulgarity will be tolerated.. Ask again.
No, of course not. If you can't emulate Jist and express
viscious personal attack without using Anglo-Saxon jargon,
then you get to have Jist fail to respond to your valid questions.
And, of course, Jist will be able to make some cork-screw
pseudo-logic to explain why biological evolution and stellar
evolution are identical. It won't make sense, of course; but
he'll defend it until he gets tired and goes away again.
Tom
> > Tom: Jistanass can't explain a killfile, yet he teases others. That is
> > dishonest, Jistanass!
>
> Now ask nice you buffoon.
Tom: See my answer to Raymond for the truth. You only make yourself look
like a fool. Gosh, did I say that? Of course you look like a fool, you are a
fool!!
Tom
>Jistanass: Sorry, let me rephrase. Any evolutionist who is not a buffoon.
Tom: I just told you how stars form and where they must form. Read that if
you can and then scientifically tell me why this isn't true. If you can't do
that, just admit that you are full of shit!
Tom
> > You don't seem to understand English.
>
> Get it?
Tom: But the gravity did overcome the pressure. All areas of space are not
suited for star formation. All people who have even a modicum of scientific
knowledge are aware of this. Stars form in regions where the interstellar
material is relatively dense, so that atoms and dustgrains are close
together and gravitational attraction is increased.
Also to help in star formation the pressure of the material should be
relatively low. This means that the medium should be as cold as possible,
because the pressure of a gas goes down as the gas temperature of the gas
decreases.
This means that the only parts of the interstellar medium with high enough
density and low enough temperature for stars to form are the dark nebulae.
Guess where we see stars forming, Jistanass, in the nebulaes. That is one
reason that getting an actual picture of star formation is extremely
difficult.
Tell me Jistanass, who is teaching you science??? You need to go to a better
school.
<snip>
Tom
gas cloud.
Tom: :-). Why don't you explain that to us :-).
> >
> > Do you *really* intend to argue against well-established theories of
star
> > formation when you are ignorant of even the most basic facts of
astronomy?
>Jistanass: How did the moon get here?
Tom: LOL. Talk about shifting the goal posts :-). You are so transparent
Jistanass and so ignorant. Let's just stick with the stars until we get an
"uncle" from you. Then we will go to the moon.
> > That would be like arguing against creationism without ever having read
> any
> > part of the Bible. If you would dismiss a person who tried to do that as
> > uneducated, then you should have the decency to actually learn some
things
> > about this subject before staking out a position on it.
>
>Jistanass: Good advice. Now answer the simple question above.
Tom: What a disgrace. As I said we'll stick to star formation and after you
admit that you don't have a frigging clue as to why stars can't form, then
we'll go to your simple question.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vqqdg65...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > Why, thank you. You'might want to reply to the question I
> > > > presented.
> > >
> > >Jistanass: No vulgarity will be tolerated.. Ask again.
> >
> > Tom: Go to hell, you ignorant stooge :-).
>
> Tommy, have you figured out a kill-file yet?
Tom: You are still claiming to be a Christian?? Read my answer to Raymond,
I've called your bluff Jistanass.
Tom
Tom: Gosh, what a terrible reading problem. I've given you your answer
Jistanass, you tell us why stars can't form now.
Tom
>forming. Get it?
Tom: No, the question is do you get it? As I told you, which you ignore,
stars form only in nebulas for a reason, don't they, Jistanass?
>Jistanass: Dream on star boy.
Tom: Keep denying science "god boy". Speking of that, how do you think "god"
made the stars, Jistanass?
Tom
>
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xuarb.1734$Zf4....@news01.roc.ny...
> > JISTASKKIN <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> > news:C89rb.10787$%Q5.3592@edtnps84...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> > >> pressurized molecular clouds
> > >
> > > Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
> > > turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
> >
> > Right here, as a matter of fact:
> >
> > http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/533-3.html
> >
> > These researchers turned oxygen into a solid metal (briefly) by putting
it
> > under enormous pressure between two sapphire anvils and then subjecting
it
> > to a shock wave. As far as I know we don't yet have machines that can
> exert
> > enough pressure to turn hydrogen into a solid metal - although we have
> > turned it into a metallic liquid.
>
>
Tom: Oh, so you believe that god created the stars by the sound of his
voice? How did he do that, Jistanass?
JISTASKKIN
And how many astronomers agree with that particular explanation?
JISTASKKIN
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelCharter.net> wrote in message
news:vqr8sv6...@corp.supernews.com...
> JISTASKKIN wrote:
>
> > "Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> > news:boj8st$1ertdk$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>JISTASKKIN wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietika...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> >>>news:boj719$1eqgk1$1...@ID-137900.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>>
> >>>>What the fuck star formation has to do with biological evolution?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Very skillful use of vulgarity there Sappo, what does that have to do
> >
> > with
> >
> >>>anything?
> >>
> >>Why, thank you. You'might want to reply to the question I
> >>presented.
> >
> >
> > No vulgarity will be tolerated.. Ask again.
>
> No, of course not. If you can't emulate Jist and express
> viscious personal attack without using Anglo-Saxon jargon,
> then you get to have Jist fail to respond to your valid questions.
Very good. Gotta problem with that?
>
> And, of course, Jist will be able to make some cork-screw
> pseudo-logic to explain why biological evolution and stellar
> evolution are identical. It won't make sense, of course; but
> he'll defend it until he gets tired and goes away again.
If you choose not to look at it honestly, why bother?
JISTASKKIN
> JISTASKKIN <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:vxfrb.27522$%Q5.907@edtnps84...
> > "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:xuarb.1734$Zf4....@news01.roc.ny...
> >> JISTASKKIN <try...@here.com> wrote in message
> >> news:C89rb.10787$%Q5.3592@edtnps84...
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>> NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> >>>> pressurized molecular clouds
> >>>
> >>> Uh, Zach. Where in the real waking world has science shown that
> >>> turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
> >>
> >> Right here, as a matter of fact:
> >>
> >> http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2001/split/533-3.html
> >>
> >> These researchers turned oxygen into a solid metal (briefly) by putting
> >> it under enormous pressure between two sapphire anvils and then
> >> subjecting it to a shock wave. As far as I know we don't yet have
> >> machines that can exert enough pressure to turn hydrogen into a solid
> >> metal - although we have turned it into a metallic liquid.
> >
> > Oh, so you believe that giant anvils in space created stars?
>
> Your ability to miss the point is nothing short of amazing. Admit that
your
> original challenge ("Where in the real waking world has science shown that
> turbulence and pressure form a solid object?") has been satisfactorily
> answered, and then we can move on to the topic of star formation.
I am trying to figure out what you are saying here. Please, your paranoia is
frightening me.
Are you saying that snowflakes and stars are similar in design?
JISTASKKIN
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Science doesn't deal in "proof", at least not how you are using
the
> > > word.
> > > > > However, there is very good evidence that stars do form from
nebula.
> > > > > Following are links to various scientific sites, including Hubble,
> > > Nature,
> > > > > NASA and Astronomy:
> > > >
> > > >Jistanass: Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right?
Please
> > tell
> > > me you >are kidding here.
> > >
> > > Tom: Yes, you know that Jistanass can't interpret pictures.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > HUBBLE: Star Formation Pillars in M16
> > > > > "This image, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, shows gaseous
> > pillars
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > star-formation region of the Eagle Nebula."
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/u6t5
> > > >
> > > >Jistanass: Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right?
Please
> > tell
> > > me you >are kidding here.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom:Yes, you know that Jistanass can't interpret pictures.
> > >
> > > > > NATURE: Massive star formation in 100,000 years from turbulent and
> > > > > pressurized molecular clouds
> > > >
shown
> > that
> > > >turbulence and pressure form a solid object?
> > > > imagination.
> > >
> > > Tom: Uh Jistanass, where have you shown any science that you mention
to
> be
> > > true?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "The individual star formation time, t*f, determines the accretion
> > rate
> > > of
> > > > > the star; the value of the former quantity is currently uncertain
by
> > > many
> > > > > orders of magnitude, leading to other astrophysical questions."
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/u6ry
> > > >
> > > >Jistanass: Zach....it is all speculation. And my point.
> > >
> > > Tom: Yes Zach, you know that Jistanass can't perform math
calculations.
> > >
> > > GC 281 is a busy workshop of star formation.
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/u6sj
> > > >
> > > >Jistanass: Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right?
Please
> > tell
> > > me you
> > > >are kidding here.
> > >
> > > Tom: Yes, you know that Jistanass can't interpret pictures.
> > >
> > > > > NATURE: Low-mass relics of early star formation
> > > > > "Recent studies of primordial star formation have shown that, in
the
> > > > absence
> > > > > of metals (elements heavier than helium), the formation of stars
> with
> > > > masses
> > > > > 100 times that of the Sun would have been strongly favoured, and
> that
> > > > > low-mass stars could not have formed before a minimum level of
metal
> > > > > enrichment had been reached."
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/u6ro
> > > >
> > > >Jistanass: Zach...there is no science here. Only speculation.
> > >
> > > Tom: Really ironic isn't it? A believer in a literal Genesis even
> mentions
> > > speculation. Jistanass, since you are only replying to certain posts
> > perhaps
> > > you can tell me if the raw materials flowed from "god's" mouth when he
> > > created the universe.
> > >
> > > > > ASTRONOMY: Portraits of the Orion Nebula
> > > > > Visible to the naked eye, [the Orion Nebula] is one of the
brightest
> > > > > emission nebula in the sky and is a hotbed of star formation
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/u6sv
> > > >
> > > >Jistanass: Pictures? Are you kidding? You are kidding right?
Please
> > tell
> > > me you
> > > >are kidding here.
> > >
> > > Tom: Yes, you know that Jistanass can't interpret pictures.
> > >
> > > > > NATURE: Star formation triggered by galaxy collisions
> > > > > "The ultraluminous infrared galaxies are predominantly powered by
> > > enormous
> > > > > star-formation events that are triggered in the last phases of
such
> > > > > collisions."
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/u6ru
> > > >
> > > >Jistanass: Zach....where did the galaxies come from? Do you even
think
> > > about >what our are shown?
> > > > Think about this fact Zach.. Star material can only be made within
> > Stars.
> > >
> > > Tom: Jistanass thinks "god" created galaxies by the sound of his
voice
> > out
> > > of a raw material that is not only unknown but is unfound.
> >
> >Jistanass: Tommy, figure out a kill-file yet?
> > Ask nice......
>
> Tom: Notice folks, not one response to the post. This is because Jistanass
> is bankrupt. He has no ideas of his own, he can't even think on his own.
> What's more he can't explain how a killfile works. Apparently there isn't
a
> lot that Jistasnass can do :-).
Were you not even capable of following Raymond's simpleton brain-dead easy
to follow (thanks again Raymond) instructions?
Unbelievable. Your stupidity is beyond belief.
>
>