Re: Chez Watt: Re: The Seed

[Herman]

On Apr 7, 8:50 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 7:44 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 1:49 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In message
> > > <4934293c-1389-4866-a1e8-29b60d1c8...@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> writes>On Apr 7, 11:09 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >> In message
> > > >> <d850fdc8-724c-4a12-bdc2-8206fa9b2...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> writes
>
> > > >> >On Apr 7, 3:36 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >> >> In message
> > > >> >> <b372ded2-6a21-45a7-b568-45dac7a9f...@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> >> Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> writes>On Apr 6, 10:19 am, Kermit
> > > >> >><unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Apr 4, 11:09 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > On Apr 4, 12:35 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > > On Apr 4, 4:54 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 20:45:36 -0700 (PDT), Herman
> > > >> >> >> > > ><Dusty55...@aol.com>
> > > >> >> >> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >On Mar 31, 7:08 pm, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> On Mar 30, 10:52 am, Kermit
> > > >> >> >> > > > >><unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > On Mar 29, 3:27 am, Herman <Dusty55...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > On Mar 29, 1:28 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:48:52 -0700 (PDT), Herman
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > ><Dusty55...@aol.com>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > <snip to point>
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> So far there have not been any explanations.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > You have been given many explanations many times.
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > You refuse to read
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > them.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >>(And there never will be
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> because the experts can't even explain the big bang
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >>theory because
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> it's false.)
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > So how come you still listen to those false experts?
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > think they are so smart they can predict dust-free
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > still think they are so stupid they need you to tell
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >how quasars
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > work?
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >>However, not only can I explain what the
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >>Bible teaches,
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > You are a congregation of one.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >>I
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> have illustrated it step by step with Hubble and
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> info.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > Your could as easily illustrate it with images from
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >childhood,
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > and they would be as relevant.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >>Have you ever noticed that there is no step by step
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> of the Big Bang theory, only the cone illustration
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> that does not fit with what the Spitzer reported.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > Yes, I noticed that the article you cited said nothing
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >like what you
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > said it says.  You still haven't explained why that is.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >>I wonder why they
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> don’t have step by step illustrations for their
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >>Can you answer
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >> that?
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > Because you won't read them.  The cite I provided
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > step-by-step as you can get and still cover the subject.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >In the meantime, here's one for you. They have found
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >galaxies in the deep field that are about 250- 450
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > Considering the best estimate for the age of the
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >Universe to be 13.7
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > billion (with a 'B') years old, 250-450 million years
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > >actually
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > quite young.  Did you mean to say those galaxies were
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > million years *after* the Big Bang?
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > >How can an entire galaxy form in 250-450 million years?
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > Herman, what basis do you have for decidiing how long
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > > galaxy to form?
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > Our earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and according to the
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > science galaxies formed on 250-450 MILLION years. I know
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > hard for you to see that there is something wrong with
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > but don't you think that those galaxies formed kind
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > >of fast?
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > >   Could there be another explanation to how old the
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > >universe is and
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > how it formed?.. Be careful and don't blow your mind.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > Difficult to understand what you're getting at here. It
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >the Earth
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > and the rest of our solar system perhaps ten million to
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >hundred
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > million years to form, and it has changed slightly
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >since then.
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > Discovering galaxies formed less than half a billion years
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >after the
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > Big Bang only means that it takes less than half a billion
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >years to
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > form some galaxies.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > Once there is sufficient matter in the form of H / He
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >I would
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > expect stars to form rapidly (less than 100,000,000
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >A second
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > generation of stars would form soon after, from the
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >cast off
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > from the most unstable of stars, which died quickly as
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >supernovae. The
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > fusion which fueled those stars also produced the heavier
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > believe our closest star, sol, is a third generation star.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > If you think 250-450 million years is too short to produce
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >galaxy,
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > perhaps you could explain why you think so? Please
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >be specific.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> Your answers are in my above post to Alex.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > >NEW VIEW OF PRIMORDIAL HELIUM TRACES STRUCTURE OF EARLY UNIVERSE
>
> > > >> >> >> > > >http://usgovinfo.about.com/blagencyrelease14.htm
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > <replace cut-and-paste with link>
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > Very good, Herman.  From this article, you should understand that
> > > >> >> >> > > > those working on FUSE consider it a confirmation of the Big
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > that the structures they observed are about 10 billion light-
> > > >> >> >> > > >years
> > > >> >> >> > > > away, meaning they are observing a part of the Universe
> > > >> >> >> > > >that existed
> > > >> >> >> > > > almost 4 billion (with a 'b') years after the Big Bang.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > You should also notice that this article says nothing about
> > > >> >> >> > > >how long
> > > >> >> >> > > > it took these galaxies to form, or about what these galaxies and
> > > >> >> >> > > > quasars are made of, or about whether or not quasars
> > > >> >> >> > > >created all (or
> > > >> >> >> > > > any!) of the remaining elements.
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > So, is there anything specific about this article you thought
> > > >> >> >> > > > remarkable?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> > > I think it was you who doubted that quasars were not at the
> > > >> >> >> > >center of
> > > >> >> >> > > Galaxies. This post shows they are. There are a train load of
> > > >> >> >> > >galaxies
> > > >> >> >> > > with quasars at the center. I'm sure that I can find other
> > > >> >> >> > >pages that
> > > >> >> >> > > explain it better than this one but I just thought I would post it
> > > >> >> >> > > because it came from way back in the year 2000. Old knowledge.-
> > > >> >> >> > >Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> > Jillery... How do you think that the chemical elements formed? Do you
> > > >> >> >> > think that the elementary particles just stick together like magnets
> > > >> >> >> > and make elements?
>
> > > >> >> >> That's pretty much so for hydrogen.
>
> > > >> >> >> > You must have your thoughts because you do not
> > > >> >> >> > accept that they are formed by quasars.
>
> > > >> >> >> Correct. The physicists do not say that, so you cannot use them as
> > > >> >> >> evidence for your claim that they do. What evidence do you have -
> > > >> >> >> hidden messages of physics ina bible that nobody else sees these
> > > >> >> >> messages in?
>
> > > >> >> >> > Or maybe you think that
> > > >> >> >> > hydrogen and helium formed the first stars and when the stars
> > > >> >> >> >exploded
> > > >> >> >> > they produced all the chemical elements. If so, explain how
> > > >> >> >> >this could
> > > >> >> >> > happen. Then explain how hydrogen and helium formed to make the first
> > > >> >> >> > stars.
>
> > > >> >> >> These questions are in reverse order.  One characteristic of matter is
> > > >> >> >> its gravitational field. All matter attracts other matter to some
> > > >> >> >> degree. The H & He atoms
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Babu G. Ranganathan
Pravda.ru
NASA has stoked the imagination of millions by talking about
exploration of life on other planets because of the possibility of
other planets being able to sustain life.
However, just having water and the right conditions to support life is
not the same as what is required for life to come into
existence.
For example, we all know that oxygen is necessary for life. What many
don’t realize, however, is that although oxygen is necessary for
life’s processes, the presence of oxygen would actually prevent life
from coming into being.
This is because oxygen is destructive (i.e. it causes decay and rust).
For oxygen to be safe there must be mechanisms already in place to
control, direct, and regulate oxygen. All life forms have these
mechanisms.
Evolutionists must assume that the early earth had no oxygen. But,
then that would mean there was no ozone layer in the atmosphere to
protect from harmful radiation that would destroy life or even any
budding form of life. Ozone is made-up of oxygen. It’s a Catch-22
situation for evolutionists. In fact, there are numerous Catch-22
situations for evolutionists when it comes to the origin of life
issue.
The latest scientific evidence from geology shows that there, indeed,
was oxygen in the earth’s earliest atmosphere.
Stanley Miller, in his famous 1950′s experiment, made sure that there
was no oxygen mixed in the laboratory atmosphere he used to produce
amino acids, life’s building blocks. Miller also had a device to
protect the amino acids once they were formed or otherwise they would
have been destroyed by the very random energy that produced them!
In any case, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The millions of
various amino acids making up a cell would have to come together in
the right sequence (just like the letters in a sentence). Amino acids
can arise by chance but not protein molecules, which require that
amino acids be in the right sequence.
There’s no inherent chemical tendency for amino acids to come together
into a sequence. Amino acids can come together in any order. The only
reason why they come together in a sequence in our bodies is because
there is already a sequence in our DNA directing them to do so.
Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to
50th power or greater is impossible. The probability of just a single
average protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power!
Even the simplest cell has millions of protein molecules. And, the
cell would have to come into existence all at once. It could not have
gradually evolved. A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate
under the effects of random forces of the environment, especially
without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell
membrane.
A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years for chance to
make it complete and then become living! In fact, it couldn’t have
even reached the partially evolved state.
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the code and
mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The problem
for atheists is how did the cell originate when there were no
directing code/mechanisms in nature. Natural laws may explain how a
cell or an airplane works but undirected natural laws cannot bring
about the existence of either.
Natural selection you say? Natural selection doesn’t create or produce
anything. It can only “select” from what is produced that has survival
value. Natural selection can only “select” from variations that are
possible. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that
survival is called “natural selection.” It’s a passive process.
There’s no conscious selection by nature, and natural selection only
operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it
could not have been any assistance in the origin of life.
Science cannot prove that we’re here by chance or design. Neither was
observed. Both are positions of faith. The issue is which faith is
best supported by science. Let the scientific arguments of both sides
be presented. No one is being forced to believe in God, so there is no
violation of separation of church and state.
Money from taxpayers on both sides of the issue is used to support
public schools. It is only fair that in public schools, at least, the
scientific arguments of both sides be presented.
There’s a good explanation for why life may exist on Mars. In the
Earth’s past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have
easily spewed dirt and rocks containing microbes into outer space
which not only could have eventually reached Mars but also ended up
traveling in orbit through space that we now know as meteors.
A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this
possibility. “We think there’s about 7 million tons of earth soil
sitting on Mars”, says scientist and evolutionist Kenneth Nealson.
“You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it
could have come from the Earth” [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September
21, 1998, p.12].
NASA knows all of this but looking for life on other planets is a
powerful way to motivate people to want their government to give more
and more money to NASA. NASA, after all, is a business with hefty
salaries at stake.