PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     The Real Genesis - now showing
       terrestrial planet in the making

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Genesis of the Bible says that God make earth on the first day.  He waited until the fourth day to make the sun, the moon, and stars.

I'll admit, Genesis of the Bible has some very moving poetry to it.  I enjoy reading it.  

In reality, though, star formation comes first - followed by planetary formation from disks of dust, rock, ice, and gas.  Earth was formed in this very manner 4.6 billion years ago.

And now... the Spitzer space telescope has spotted just such a thing happening in a star system 430 light-years away - the formation of a terrestrial planet around a young solar mass size star about 10 -16 million years old.  Just getting started!

Spitzer Spots New Planet in the Making

The Earth-like planet is about 430 light years away or 2.5x1015 miles from Earth. It's inside a huge dust belt -- bigger than our asteroid belt -- with enough dusty material to build a planet. "The material is forming at just the same distance, or close to the same distance where the Earth formed from the sun," Dr. Lisse says.

To find the planet, astronomers used images captured by the Spitzer Space Telescope. It looks for infrared light or heat radiating from the dusty materials. The images also confirm the rocky fragments forming the new planet are similar to materials found in the Earth's crust and core.

"So, the body that's going to form -- the planet that's going to form -- isn't going to be this gas giant with incredibly thick atmosphere," explains Dr. Lisse. It's going to be a rocky planet like Mars or Venus or the Earth."

There's also an outer ice belt circling the young planet, making it more likely that water could reach the new planet's surface … and maybe even life; but don't wait around for signs of life. The planet still needs another 100 million years before it's completely formed.


Is that cool, or what!  We are actually in a new age where we can see snapshots of  these processes happening.  Yes, it's Genesis - you might say God is busy at work creating new stars, new worlds, new life - but in a naturalistic fashion.

This is SO cool!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:47 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

you are right. that IS really cool.
seriously


the rest of this this post has been edited by me (anti-evolutionist) because I used a quote out of context.
if you read down you will see that many people where, rightfully, unhappy about that.
as a consequence I am sure they will now hold a black mark against my name.

if you try, it shouldn't be too hard to guess what I originally posted here by reading some of the posts below.
but if you don't know what I said, then it won't mislead the debate any more.

(Edited by anti-evolutionist 9/23/2009 at 08:11 AM).


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 07:12 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still quoting out of context?

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:17 PM on September 13, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:44 PM on September 13, 2009 :

I am just a thinker


Then start demonstrating it.


I am not going to make any claims about the origin of the universe. I am simply going to give a quote and allow the rest of you to decide what to make of it:



"one could account for what was observed equally well on the theory that the universe has existed forever or the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner as to look as though it has existed forever"
Page 9 of "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking


Is quote-mining a sin?  How about looking at the quote in context:

When most people believed in an essentially static and unchanging universe, the question of whether or not it had a beginning was really one of metaphysics or theology. One could account for what was observed equally well on the theory that the universe had existed forever or on the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner as to look as though it had existed forever. But in 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means that at earlier times objects would have been closer together. In fact, it seemed that there was a time, about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, when they were all at exactly the same place and when, therefore, the density of the universe was infinite. This discovery finally brought the question of the beginning of the universe into the realm of science.

If you are a thinker, think for yourself and don't copy.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:48 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would certainly like to hear what you have to say to this A-E. Can you defend such a blatent piece of misdirection (and I mean defend yourself, do not attack anyone else to divert the issue)
Why would you be so dishopnest, not just once (ok, maybe it was an error) but twice, especially after having the quote put in context for you, clearly showing the actual meaning behind the statement that you cribbed.
Seriously, I'd like to know why you have been so dishonest. Are you willing to address this?


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:56 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you are right
I did quote out of context

I use the quote to illustrate the point that, just because the universe is working the way it is working now that doesn't prove it has always been working like that.
Especially in regards to 'the beginning'

the problem in saying it like that, or worse saying "God made it that way, dispite what you can see out of space", is never going to hold ground in a debate where the opposition will say:
"we can not observe the actions of God. But we can observe the actions of a star 430 light years away. thus we are right and you are wrong"

using a quote from a well known scientist was the only way for what I said to be noticed.
as just mentioned, if I had said it as me talking (and not Stephen Halkings) then it would either be totally ignored or shot down as 'unprovable'

Yes, I took the quote out of context.
and Yes, it was not the honest thing to do (I actually feel ashamed now that you have pointed it out)
and if I was still following the other thread then I would have cleared up the matter then and there.

but a quote does not, and will never, prove the point I put forward. it simply helps to get you to take listen to what I have to say.
(but in the future I will try and be more reliable with my quotes)


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 08:35 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 02:47 AM on September 22, 2009 :
And now... the Spitzer space telescope has spotted just such a thing happening in a star system 430 light-years away - the formation of a terrestrial planet around a young solar mass size star about 10 -16 million years old.  Just getting started!


This is amazing in the highest degree of sanity! A terrestrial planet that is in the habitable zone (I assume) that is just starting to form that could produce an atmosphere and house liquid water! If everything goes well there's a big chance of life; this is big news, I love it! To me this means that solar systems like ours with earth-like planets may not be so rare as once thought. I think this shows that there's a greater chance for other life to be out there, perhaps it is an inevitability for life to form in this universe everywhere.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 08:36 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 08:35 AM on September 22, 2009 :
Yes, I took the quote out of context.
and Yes, it was not the honest thing to do (I actually feel ashamed now that you have pointed it out)
and if I was still following the other thread then I would have cleared up the matter then and there.

but a quote does not, and will never, prove the point I put forward. it simply helps to get you to take listen to what I have to say.
(but in the future I will try and be more reliable with my quotes)


Your net effect is to further undermine your already weak position.  If you want to argue from a "higher" moral position, avoid creationist sources, especially when they use quotes.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:47 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hi, sorry I took a while to post back, work always seems to get in the way of fun.
I use the quote to illustrate the point that, just because the universe is working the way it is working now that doesn't prove it has always been working like that.
Especially in regards to 'the beginning'

Sorry, that doesn't wash.
1. A quote doesn't illustrate that point. Evidence that processes have changed over time would illustrate that point, but not simply quoting someone.
2. That 'quote' that you posted doesn't illustrate that in any way. All it does is imply that TOE is comparible to TOC in its ability to describe nature. It speaks nothing of how the universe works, or how nature's processes may or may not have changed over time.

the problem in saying it like that, or worse saying "God made it that way, dispite what you can see out of space", is never going to hold ground in a debate
Agreed, and quite rightly so.
"we can not observe the actions of God. But we can observe the actions of a star 430 light years away. thus we are right and you are wrong"
Surely an over simplification.

using a quote from a well known scientist was the only way for what I said to be noticed.
That's a poor excuse for what you did, and I'm sorry to say, that I don't believe it anyway.

as just mentioned, if I had said it as me talking (and not Stephen Halkings [sic]) then it would either be totally ignored or shot down as 'unprovable'

What exactly would you have said? Do you not feel that you should be asked to show evidence for your assertions? Or do you think that you should be able to simply say 'A higher being, beyond our ken, has done all of this' and proffer no evidence whatsoever, and then expect scientists to accept your position? Sorry, but Dream on
and if I was still following the other thread then I would have cleared up the matter then and there.
Personally, I think that you should now, go and address that point in that thread too.

but a quote does not, and will never, prove the point I put forward.

1. then why post it.
2. You didn't actually put a point across:
well that is true to an extent.  but as the great Stephen Hawkings once said:...

it simply helps to get you to take listen to what I have to say.
No, it really, really doesn't. What it does is make most people think less of you for being dishonest.



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:52 AM on September 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 08:35 AM on September 22, 2009 :

"we can not observe the actions of God. But we can observe the actions of a star 430 light years away. thus we are right and you are wrong"




Do you agree that what we are observing at the star happened 430 years ago?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:39 PM on September 23, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Do you agree that what we are observing at the star happened 430 years ago?

yes I do.




-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 6:46 PM on September 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:46 PM on September 23, 2009 :

Do you agree that what we are observing at the star happened 430 years ago?

yes I do.


Observations of the Crab Nebula show that the gas cloud is expanding at a rate that would put at a point source about 900 years ago.  



There are numerous records of the appearance of a supernova in this location in the year 1054.

The Crab Nebula is 6500 light years away, did the supernova that resulted in it occur about 7455 years ago?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:50 PM on September 23, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Observations of the Crab Nebula show that the gas cloud is expanding at a rate that would put at a point source about 900 years ago.  



There are numerous records of the appearance of a supernova in this location in the year 1054.

The Crab Nebula is 6500 light years away, did the supernova that resulted in it occur about 7455 years ago?

I believe so.

did you expect me not to agree with that statement?
if yes, why?




-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 11:05 PM on September 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:05 PM on September 23, 2009 :
The Crab Nebula is 6500 light years away, did the supernova that resulted in it occur about 7455 years ago?

I believe so.

did you expect me not to agree with that statement?
if yes, why?


Lets try for the real meat. What about stars ect. that we observe that are over 10,000 years away? The oldest known observed object was found a few months ago, and is around 13 billion light years away.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:22 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, now I follow your train of thought (it seems REALLY obvious in retrospect)

No, I do not believe the light of this star (the one that is 13 billion light years away) we see in the sky  originated from that star 13 billion years ago.

now, before you say "Got Ya!" and start pointing fingers, let me explain

according to Genesis:
on the first day God said "let there be light"
but not until the fourth day did he create stars!

so God puts light in the universe BEFORE he makes the stars that produce the light. without the stars as a point of origin, God could put the light wherever he wants to. even on a direct line to earth (in relation to a star 13 Billion light years away).


would be happy to answer any more questions about this if needed. But I also have a question for you
is the amount of stars in the universe finite or infinite?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 06:15 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 08:35 AM on September 22, 2009 :


I use the quote to illustrate the point that, just because the universe is working the way it is working now that doesn't prove it has always been working like that.
Especially in regards to 'the beginning'


Comments like this lead me to believe you are YEC and would not accept an age older than 6000 years.  Apparently you do, which is interesting.  What do you think the condition of Earth was 7455 years ago?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:59 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 06:15 AM on September 24, 2009 :

so God puts light in the universe BEFORE he makes the stars that produce the light. without the stars as a point of origin, God could put the light wherever he wants to. even on a direct line to earth (in relation to a star 13 Billion light years away).


This seems inconsistent with your statement.  If the star was created already exploded 6000 years ago, then light created in transit to the earth showing the star prior to it's explosion, was a deception.  Did a star explode 7455 years ago?

would be happy to answer any more questions about this if needed. But I also have a question for you
is the amount of stars in the universe finite or infinite?


There are a finite number of stars within the visible event horizon of the universe.  If inflationary theory is correct, it is unknown and possibly unknowable how many stars exist beyond our event horizon.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:09 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 06:15 AM on September 24, 2009 :
No, I do not believe the light of this star (the one that is 13 billion light years away) we see in the sky  originated from that star 13 billion years ago.


Got Ya! (point finger)

I guess my next question is do you think that the galaxy (not star fyi) is actually 13 billion light years away?

according to Genesis:
on the first day God said "let there be light"
but not until the fourth day did he create stars!

so God puts light in the universe BEFORE he makes the stars that produce the light. without the stars as a point of origin, God could put the light wherever he wants to. even on a direct line to earth (in relation to a star 13 Billion light years away).


Light is not uniform in its properties. From the light we get from the star we can tell things like, what is its composition, the temperature, how old it is, how big it is, how massive it is ect. I find it amazing that you think God created the light that would match perfectly with each individual star and galaxy we see.

Working off the Biblical assumption that God cannot deceive, it is very deceitful in His creation. We can measure things like parallax and show that light source X started out a few million years ago. You may say it is not deceitful as it is written in the Bible, but it doesn't say that the light is starlight. All it says is that light was created and it separated day and night. So there shouldn't have been any lights in the night sky until the forth day.

would be happy to answer any more questions about this if needed. But I also have a question for you
is the amount of stars in the universe finite or infinite?


I say finite. What that number would be, no idea beyond really big.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 09:08 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:09 PM on September 24, 2009 :
[quote
There are a finite number of stars within the visible event horizon of the universe.  If inflationary theory is correct, it is unknown and possibly unknowable how many stars exist beyond our event horizon.


[sarcasm]Hmmm,Something that is unknown!
this must mean that God did it, evolution is a fallacy and that creationism is the one truth then.[/sarcasm]




-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 09:09 AM on September 24, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 07:59 AM on September 24, 2009 :
Comments like this lead me to believe you are YEC and would not accept an age older than 6000 years.  Apparently you do, which is interesting.
I do not know the age of the universe. But if I was to guess (note that word), then I would say somewhere around 10 thousand and 15 thousand years ago.

What do you think the condition of Earth was 7455 years ago?
I believe it was something closer to the garden of Eden setting.

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:09 AM on September 24, 2009 :
This seems inconsistent with your statement.  If the star was created already exploded 6000 years ago, then light created in transit to the earth showing the star prior to it's explosion, was a deception.  Did a star explode 7455 years ago?
As said, I don't believe the world was created 6000 years ago.
but if we were to substitute in numbers closer to my estimation (or guess), then the answer to your question is this:
I guess it is a deception in the sense that it was meant to look like it came from the star although it didn't.
the same way Adam and Eve would have been made to look like any other normal human. despite the fact they skipped their entire childhood.

as was the intended message in my (out of context) quote:
God can put the universe in motion at some finite point in time in such a manner  that it looks like it has already been around for a while.

There are a finite number of stars within the visible event horizon of the universe.  If inflationary theory is correct, it is unknown and possibly unknowable how many stars exist beyond our event horizon.
Ok
before I continue with this train of thought I need some more information (and the internet isn't cooperating):
- how long does it take for a star to form?
- how long does it take for a galaxy to form?

Quote from Fencer27 at 09:08 AM on September 24, 2009 :
I guess my next question is do you think that the galaxy (not star fyi) is actually 13 billion light years away?
Yes. I have no reason to think otherwise

I find it amazing that you think God created the light that would match perfectly with each individual star and galaxy we see.
not only did he create the light to match the stars. he created the stars themselves and the atoms they are made of.
personally I find it amazing you can attribute the existence of life to chance
(Derwood, both Fencer27 and I know our amazement in each others beliefs are not considered scientific evidence)

Working off the Biblical assumption that God cannot deceive
what on earth gave you that idea?

it doesn't say that the light is starlight. All it says is that light was created and it separated day and night. So there shouldn't have been any lights in the night sky until the forth day.
no it does not say it was star light. because on day one there where no stars.
as for the night sky of the fourth day... lets think about your claim that the light is NOT created in transit:

before evening passed and morning came, God looked up to where he created the stars and thought "Hmm...until the light from those stars get here, this is just as bad as day three. I wish I thought of that before I made the light !". God was not amused.




-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:07 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:07 PM on September 24, 2009 :

as was the intended message in my (out of context) quote:
God can put the universe in motion at some finite point in time in such a manner  that it looks like it has already been around for a while.


So if the universe can be created with the appearance of history, we could have all been created last Thursday with complete memories of our pasts.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:20 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E, I would say you're contradicting yourself.  First you say that it is your belief that the universe is 10,000 - 15,000 years old.  Then later on you agree with Fencer that the most distant quasars that we see are 13 billion years old.

It seems like what you're saying is that God can make anything appear as he wants.  He can make the universe look far older than it really is.  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:22 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:22 PM on September 24, 2009 :
First you say that it is your belief that the universe is 10,000 - 15,000 years old.  Then later on you agree with Fencer that the most distant quasars that we see are 13 billion years old.

I think you will find that I agreed that it is 13 Billion light years away.
Not 13 Billion years old.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 03:03 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E:

I think you will find that I agreed that it is 13 Billion light years away.
Not 13 Billion years old.


But because that most distant quasar/galaxy is 13 billion light years away, that means we're seeing it as it was 13 billion years ago.

You see, in adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible, Creationists are not only denying evolution, but they are also denying basic fundamental principles in other scientific fields as well.  Out goes astronomy, out goes geology, out goes physics, out goes chemistry, etc, etc, etc.

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, the formation of a new solor system 430 light-years away.  As our ability to view the cosmos becomes more detailed, we're finding that planetary formation is a common by-product of stellar formation.

With so many billions and billions of stars in our own Milky Way galaxy alone, odds are that there are a fair number of them that lie within the Goldilocks zone of habitability - where liquid water exists.  And there's a possiblity that liquid water can exist on planets outside the Goldilocks zone too.  Nature has a way of surprising us.  As the late Arthur C Clarke once said 'The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.'  

So it would stand to reason that there are probably many planets that in an orbit around their star that have liquid water.  Do they also contain life?

Given that we're discovering that organic molecules are common in space, and that life got a foothold on earth shortly after the heavy bombardment of meteors/comets ceased, it would seem reasonable that many worlds would indeed harbor life also.

We're now entering an era when we will now be able to get answers to some of these intriguing questions.  

And what are the religious implications of all this?  For one thing, it would show that earth does not hold such a unique place in the universe afterall.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 06:35 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:07 PM on September 24, 2009 :
Ok
before I continue with this train of thought I need some more information (and the internet isn't cooperating):
- how long does it take for a star to form?
- how long does it take for a galaxy to form?


It depends on the type of star, but it is in the millions of years. Galaxies are composed of stars, so while the mater in the galaxy was there, I doubt it would be considered a galaxy until there were stars, so millions of years as well I suppose.

Quote from Fencer27 at 09:08 AM on September 24, 2009 :
I guess my next question is do you think that the galaxy (not star fyi) is actually 13 billion light years away?
Yes. I have no reason to think otherwise


So the galaxy is there, but we have never seen it. But we know that it is there because God put some photons on the exact trajectory with the right spectrum and elongation of the wave to make it appear as if it came from a very young, distant galaxy that supports ideas like big bang and an old Earth/universe.

he created the stars themselves and the atoms they are made of.


I agree with that statement, just that I also think that God used natural mechanisms to achieve this.

personally I find it amazing you can attribute the existence of life to chance


I think life was inevitable, but how we got here was mainly natural, and we can find out how God did it through understanding the natural.

Working off the Biblical assumption that God cannot deceive
what on earth gave you that idea?


God does not lie, deceiving is considered a lie and a sin. Since God is holy (separate from sin) He cannot sin, therefore He cannot lie. However, I am aware that God does "lie" in the Bible, but the way that it is done is what we would call a white lie. God does this to keep peace and harmony, the greater good is achieved. It can be compared to hiding Jews in Nazi Germany and when the SS comes around lying about it. I can comment more on the idea of sin, lying and God if you want, but for now I'll leave it at that.

no it does not say it was star light. because on day one there where no stars.
as for the night sky of the fourth day... lets think about your claim that the light is NOT created in transit:

before evening passed and morning came, God looked up to where he created the stars and thought "Hmm...until the light from those stars get here, this is just as bad as day three. I wish I thought of that before I made the light !". God was not amused.


I'm afraid I don't follow. I don't think God created the stars randomly as decoration after creating these so called lights. Please clarify or rephrase the idea you want to get across to me, thanks.

(Edited by Fencer27 9/25/2009 at 06:56 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:37 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 06:35 AM on September 25, 2009 :
So it would stand to reason that there are probably many planets that in an orbit around their star that have liquid water.  Do they also contain life?

Given that we're discovering that organic molecules are common in space, and that life got a foothold on earth shortly after the heavy bombardment of meteors/comets ceased, it would seem reasonable that many worlds would indeed harbor life also.


Indeed, one of the byproducts of nova's is carbon, the backbone of life! It seems reasonable to conclude that a star with .4-4 Earth masses in the habitable zone will contain all the necessary elements and conditions to start life.

And what are the religious implications of all this?  For one thing, it would show that earth does not hold such a unique place in the universe afterall.  


For me, one of the main motifs of Christianity is being humble in all aspects. Which would mean that our place in the universe might not be so special as you say.

As to what the discovery of life would have on religion, I think it depends what type of life do we find. If all we find are microbes for example, I don't see anything too special happening, although the religious right will probably have a fit. But if we find a species that is comparable or better than us, than I can see much more radical changes to religion.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:55 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 06:35 AM on September 25, 2009 :
because that most distant quasar/galaxy is 13 billion light years away, that means we're seeing it as it was 13 billion years ago.
reread the last 4 posts and you will see that there is still some disagreement over that.

With so many billions and billions of stars in our own Milky Way galaxy alone, odds are that there are a fair number of them that lie within the Goldilocks zone of habitability - where liquid water exists.
that is the start of the list. But you forgot to mention:
- the radiation from the star needs to be low enough
- both light and temperature have to be balanced
- the atmosphere needs to be thick enough to protect the planet against most meteors
- the atmosphere needs to not be so thick (dense) that it crushes everything (like on Venus)
- the electromagnetic field cant be too strong
- the atmosphere can't be poisonous
- the water can't be poisonous
- the tilt of the planets axis has to be just right
- the change in temperature between night and day can't be too dramatic
- the planet has to be geologicly stable
- etc.

So it would stand to reason that there are probably many planets that in an orbit around their star that have liquid water.  Do they also contain life?
as mentioned above. the existence of liquid water is not the only pre-requisite for life

Given that we're discovering that organic molecules are common in space, and that life got a foothold on earth shortly after the heavy bombardment of meteors/comets ceased, it would seem reasonable that many worlds would indeed harbour life also.
in an infinite universe there are infinite chances for the existence of life. But in a finite universe, the chances of finding a planet the fulfils All of those pre-requites it is far less likely.


Fencer27, only in your last two posts did I realise that you are one of those people who go for the compromise. who believe God created the universe using Evolution.
when I get time I will dig up a thread that will tell you why you can't sit the fence.

Quote from Fencer27 at 06:37 AM on September 25, 2009 :
So the galaxy is there, but we have never seen it. But we know that it is there because God put some photons on the exact trajectory with the right spectrum and elongation of the wave to make it appear as if it came from a very young, distant galaxy
there are actually two point I want to make here, but couldn't decide how to split the quote.
1) technically we never see anything Except the photons.
you can't even see your hand in front of your face. you only see the light bouncing off your hand
2) the whole concept of creationisim is that God created everything. that means EVERYTHING !
so I have trouble seeing why you make the argument that God couldn't (or didn't) place the light on a trajectory to earth?

Working off the Biblical assumption that God cannot deceive
what on earth gave you that idea?
God does not lie, deceiving is considered a lie and a sin. Since God is holy (separate from sin) He cannot sin, therefore He cannot lie. However, I am aware that God does "lie" in the Bible, but the way that it is done is what we would call a white lie. God does this to keep peace and harmony, the greater good is achieved.
actually a good reply
I was trying to find the verse where it says what displeases the lord most is when people cause discourse and trouble amongst the fellow man.
but, unfortunately, I couldn't find it. (it is late and I am sleepy).
and the existence of this light we see does not cause discourse. (not outside of this debate at least)
Nor is it even deceiving us. he created the light, we see the light. how we interoperate the light into distance and time scales are our own problem.


as for the night sky of the fourth day... lets think about your claim that the light is NOT created in transit:

before evening passed and morning came, God looked up to where he created the stars and thought "Hmm...until the light from those stars get here, this is just as bad as day three. I wish I thought of that before I made the light !". God was not amused.

I'm afraid I don't follow. I don't think God created the stars randomly as decoration after creating these so called lights. Please clarify or rephrase the idea you want to get across to me, thanks.
once again, multiple points I want to put across
1) The Bible tells us why he put the stars in the sky: "let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years"
2) as well as to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years" it also says he put the starts, sun and moon in the sky is to "let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth".
I know the stars specificity may not give much 'light' (brightness), but if we can't see them then we can't use them to mark seasons and days and years.

so it just stands to reason that when God made the stars (and their light). he put the light in transit. that way we could actually see and use the stars for their intended purpose

and finally, I agree with your statement on what would happen if we found aliens.
But personally, I don't think we are going any 'aliens' bigger than a single microbe.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 09:43 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 09:43 AM on September 25, 2009 :

2) the whole concept of creationisim is that God created everything. that means EVERYTHING !
so I have trouble seeing why you make the argument that God couldn't (or didn't) place the light on a trajectory to earth?


Because it requires a deceptive God.  This idea has been rejected by Christian theology, but you apparently accept it.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:52 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because it requires a deceptive God.  This idea has been rejected by Christian theology, but you apparently accept it.

my last post described how God is not being deceptive
Nor is it even deceiving us. he created the light, we see the light. how we interoperate the light into distance and time scales are our own problem.


my post ALSO describes how it is just not logical for God to create the light 13 Billion light years away
as well as to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years" it also says he put the starts, sun and moon in the sky is to "let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth".
I know the stars specificity may not give much 'light' (brightness), but if we can't see them then we can't use them to mark seasons and days and years.

so it just stands to reason that when God made the stars (and their light). he put the light in transit. that way we could actually see and use the stars for their intended purpose



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 10:05 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:05 AM on September 25, 2009 :
my last post described how God is not being deceptive


In your opinion.  It is an extremely unpopular viewpoint among theologians, creationist or otherwise.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:03 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

Orion

With so many billions and billions of stars in our own Milky Way galaxy alone, odds are that there are a fair number of them that lie within the Goldilocks zone of habitability - where liquid water exists.


that is the start of the list. But you forgot to mention:
- the radiation from the star needs to be low enough
- both light and temperature have to be balanced
- the atmosphere needs to be thick enough to protect the planet against most meteors
- the atmosphere needs to not be so thick (dense) that it crushes everything (like on Venus)
- the electromagnetic field cant be too strong
- the atmosphere can't be poisonous
- the water can't be poisonous
- the tilt of the planets axis has to be just right
- the change in temperature between night and day can't be too dramatic
- the planet has to be geologicly stable
- etc.


No, I didn't mention those other conditions.  Some of them would have an impact.  However, I think your list shows a decidedly earth-centric bias that I have seen on Creationists websites before.  The arguement that everything needs to be just so.


- the radiation from the star needs to be low enough

Stars come in different sizes.  But let's consider stars close to 1 solar mass.  There are plenty of those.  Trillions upon trillions throughout the universe.


- both light and temperature have to be balanced

See answer above.


- the atmosphere needs to be thick enough to protect the planet against most meteors

Ture.  An atmosphere is handy.  No question.  It also helps to block out harmful solar radiation.


- the atmosphere needs to not be so thick (dense) that it crushes everything (like on Venus)

True again.  I wouldn't want to live on Venus!


- the electromagnetic field cant be too strong

On a planet with similar earth mass, I don't think that would be a problem.  Besides, what are the reasons a strong magnetic field would be detrimental to life?


- the atmosphere can't be poisonous

Define poisonous.  Life on earth certainly began without free oxygen in the atmosphere.  We would not have been able to survive in it.  It was life that changed the atmosphere of the earth over an immense period of time.


- the water can't be poisonous

Certainly not.


- the tilt of the planets axis has to be just right

Why?  I would think that the eccentricity of the orbit would have a greater impact.


- the change in temperature between night and day can't be too dramatic

The atmosphere would help creating a stable temperature.  Besides, look at the extreme temperature range that bacteria have been found in - from freezing to near boiling point of water.  


- the planet has to be geologicly stable

What do you mean by geologically stable?  You mean no volcanoes, no earthquakes, no plate tectonics?  Plate tectonics probably had a big role in the evolution of life.  For example, plate tectonics probably helped in mixing minerals and gases in the ocean.  So I think life would actually be hampered by a planet that was geologically stable.

Even with all the other requirements, I would say that there are plenty of planets where life has started and evolved.  

Whose to say that life can't evolve under extreme conditions, if the necessary ingredients are present?

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:16 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 09:43 AM on September 25, 2009 :
as mentioned above. the existence of liquid water is not the only pre-requisite for life


Let's not forget Jupiter, it functions as a gravitational pull on loose asteroids so most don't become close to becoming NEOs.

Fencer27, only in your last two posts did I realise that you are one of those people who go for the compromise. who believe God created the universe using Evolution.
when I get time I will dig up a thread that will tell you why you can't sit the fence.


It is not fence sitting, but a sound theological position. Why do you think the vast majority of Jewish and Christian (ordained) preachers accept things like evolution and big bang. It is because the two are not in conflict.


1) technically we never see anything Except the photons.
you can't even see your hand in front of your face. you only see the light bouncing off your hand


While I guess it is technically true, none of those photons came from any star or galaxy. Yet God distinctively made them so to appear as if they were stars in such a way that would support an old universe starting from a singularity.

2) the whole concept of creationisim is that God created everything. that means EVERYTHING !


Actually the whole concept of creationism is an offshoot of the fundamentalist movement started no more than 200 years ago. Which relies on the inherency of the Bible as God's word and a literal reading of Genesis with the concept of special creation.

so I have trouble seeing why you make the argument that God couldn't (or didn't) place the light on a trajectory to earth?


Because I see that as being deceptive, we are not seeing the photons from the light source. Yet everything about the lights points to stars thousands, millions, and billions of light years away.

actually a good reply


Thanks, I knew Bible study would come in handy one day.

Nor is it even deceiving us. he created the light, we see the light. how we interoperate the light into distance and time scales are our own problem.


You make it sound like we interpret the stars to be millions of light years away when we can interpret them to be a few light years away. We know the distance through science. The most basic way is parallax, which is purely mathematical.

so it just stands to reason that when God made the stars (and their light). he put the light in transit. that way we could actually see and use the stars for their intended purpose


That makes God deceptive, because we know if the universe is 10K years old we shouldn't see half the stars we see today. So why didn't God make all the stars the same distance away from Earth and create light as to be instantaneous like many ancient cultures thought, including the ancient Hebrews if you want to take a literal reading of the Bible.

and finally, I agree with your statement on what would happen if we found aliens.
But personally, I don't think we are going any 'aliens' bigger than a single microbe.


While we may never find it, I find it inconceivable to think that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. There are so many stars in our galaxy alone, and there are clusters of galaxies, and clusters of clusters of galaxies, to say that we are the only ones of intelligence is beyond me.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 3:47 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 1:16 PM on September 25, 2009 :


- the water can't be poisonous

Certainly not.


Earth's original ocean no doubt started as a solution of water, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and formaldehyde.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:50 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

A-E


- the atmosphere needs to not be so thick (dense) that it crushes everything (like on Venus)


True again.  I wouldn't want to live on Venus!


Actually, think about it for a minute.  A very thick atmosphere might not necessarily rule life out.  Look at the high pressures sea life lives under.  Crushing for humans, yet whales, penguins, and seals can dive thousands of feet under water.  Lot of other critters way down there too.  So high pressures do not necessarily rule life out.  What if Venus were farther away from the sun so that it received less solar energy?  It wouldn't be such a hell-planet.  Who knows?

So anyway, early life on earth got started in an atmosphere that humans could not live in, and water we could not drink.

Facinating!

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:12 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 
Quote from orion at 10:12 PM on September 25, 2009 :What if Venus were farther away from the sun so that it received less solar energy?  It wouldn't be such a hell-planet.  Who knows?

It wouldn't matter because Venus'  is mostly CO2 which gives a tremendous greenhouse effect.  

[b]Quote from Apoapsis at 10:12 PM on September 25, 2009 :[b/]Earth's original ocean no doubt started as a solution of water, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and formaldehyde.


Ammonia kills bacteria by the raising the PH.

Hydrogen cyanide is a colorless, extremely poisonous, and highly volatile liquid that boils slightly above room temperature at 26 °C (78.8 °F)Wikipedia

Formaldehyde polymerizes in water without a stabilizer.

So you have no ozone, lots of radiation, volcanoes blowing greenhouse gases into  the atmosphere--a poisonous ocean with cyanide gas coming out of it!  And this is where life started!  No wonder only 40% of Americans believe Darwinism.












(Edited by AFJ 9/26/2009 at 10:54 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:48 PM on September 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AF3

So you have no ozone, lots of radiation, volcanoes blowing methane, nitrogen, and CO2 in the atmosphere.  And this is where life started.  


It is a well known fact that there was no free oxygen in the early earth atmosphere when life started.  That's not a show stopper.


No wonder only 40% of Americans believe Darwinism.


You sure you don't want to join us?  :0)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:01 PM on September 26, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is a well known fact that there was no free oxygen in the early earth atmosphere when life started.

what you should have said is
"It is a well accepted assumption amongst Evolutionists that is taken as fact that there was no free oxygen in the early earth atmosphere when life started."

But, admittedly, it does fit.
all evolutionist had to do was redesign the entire chemical and biological make-up of the entire Earth for it to fit their theory.



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 12:25 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

what you should have said is
"It is a well accepted assumption amongst Evolutionists that is taken as fact that there was no free oxygen in the early earth atmosphere when life started."


No, from examination of rocks we know there was no free oxygen in the early earth atmosphere.  Oxygen is a very reactive element.  For example, iron percipitates out of ocean water when there is free oxygen available.  This is one way we can measure what oxygen levels were on the ancient earth - by measuring iron oceanic sediments.

Here's a short article from Sci-Am:
 Oxygen in the Early Earth's Atmosphere

It's hard to keep oxygen molecules around, despite the fact that it's the third-most abundant element in the universe, forged in the superhot, superdense core of stars. That's because oxygen wants to react; it can form compounds with nearly every other element on the periodic table. So how did Earth end up with an atmosphere made up of roughly 21 percent of the stuff?

The answer is tiny organisms known as cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae. These microbes conduct photosynthesis: using sunshine, water and carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates and, yes, oxygen. In fact, all the plants on Earth incorporate symbiotic cyanobacteria (known as chloroplasts) to do their photosynthesis for them down to this day.

For some untold eons prior to the evolution of these cyanobacteria, during the Archean eon, more primitive microbes lived the real old-fashioned way: anaerobically. These ancient organisms—and their "extremophile" descendants today—thrived in the absence of oxygen, relying on sulfate for their energy needs.

But roughly 2.45 billion years ago, the isotopic ratio of sulfur transformed, indicating that for the first time oxygen was becoming a significant component of Earth's atmosphere, according to a 2000 paper in Science. At roughly the same time (and for eons thereafter), oxidized iron began to appear in ancient soils and bands of iron were deposited on the seafloor, a product of reactions with oxygen in the seawater.


So, yes, we know there was no free oxygen in the early earth's atmosphere.  Basic chemistry tells us that must be so, and the rocks prove it.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:13 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:25 AM on September 27, 2009 :
But, admittedly, it does fit.
all evolutionist had to do was redesign the entire chemical and biological make-up of the entire Earth for it to fit their theory.


Do you want us to ignore what we've learned from the rest of the solar system?  

These chemicals rain down on us all the time, including sugars, amino acids, and many more complicated chemicals.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:32 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.