Bombardier beetles made the news again this week. Creation scientists have long used them to challenge evolutionary theory. Can the Darwinians fight back?
Watch a funny video on National Geographic
of a barfing toad. The toad made the mistake of sneaking up on a bombardier beetle and snatching it with its tongue before the beetle could fire its weapons. It’s not hard to imagine what happened inside the toad’s stomach, because a few minutes later, the toad gags and vomits out the beetle, practically turning its stomach inside out to get rid of the pest which, though sticky with gastric juices, is none the worse for wear and crawls away.
The amazing bombardier beetle is the “dinner date from hell,” the article quips. New Scientist says these beetles can survive for almost two hours before being spit out by any predator unlucky enough to gulp them down. Japanese scientists proved it was the bug’s cannons that forced the vomit response, because beetles that had already fired their weapons were not regurgitated.
Creationists have long used the bombardier beetle as a challenge to evolution since the days of Duane Gish and Robert Kofahl in the 1960s and 1970s. Jobe Martin talked about them in his films, Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution. How could such a system evolve by a Darwinian process? Unless the entire mechanism were in place, the bug would blow itself to bits. The secular articles admit that it’s a remarkable “shock and awe” defense mechanism. National Geographic explains,
Bombardier beetles aren’t especially rare; more than 500 species live on every continent except Antarctica, and all of them create a toxic brew of chemicals in a special chamber at the bottom of their abdomen.
The molecules are mixed together at the last minute and react to form hydrogen peroxide and another class of compounds called benzoquinones, along with huge amounts of heat and pressure. Both chemicals are irritants and can damage skin and lungs.
Thanks to the shape of the chamber, this boiling foul mixture is ejected with a huge force.
Luc Bussiere at The Conversation is similarly intrigued by these bugs. He includes slow-motion video of the beetle firing its weapons. You can see that the eruption comes out well-aimed and in spurts. The explosion actually creates smoke. Could this evolve?
In Spacecraft Earth, Dr Henry Richter describes the creation challenge presented by the bombardier beetle, which he calls one of his favorite examples of creatures that defy evolution.
This amazing insect uses two separate chambers in its abdomen, one for the explosive (hydrogen peroxide) and one for the detonator (hydroquinone). These chemicals must be kept separate and in a deactivated state. When they are mixed in the combustion chamber, they must be activated at just the right time, in the right amounts, and in the right way, or else the bug will be a victim of its own weapon, unable to reproduce. How could such a system evolve? Everything had to work right from the beginning, or no offspring would see the light of day to pass along the lucky discovery.
He quotes Lyell Rader’s 1998 book for additional details:
Bombardier beetle (Wikimedia Commons)
All of these systems have to be in flawless working conditions for the beetle to survive. The cannons without the explosives would be meaningless. One chemical without the other would not explode. Both chemicals, without the inhibitor, would blow the beetle to bits. Without the anti-inhibitor, the beetle would be unable to trigger the explosion at all. Without the storage chambers, it wouldn’t have the chemicals on hand when needed. Without strongly reinforced, heat-proof combustion tubes and cannons, the heat generated by the explosion would cook the beetle.
But most amazing of all is the hair trigger communications system. The beetle identifies a potential enemy; waits until the enemy gets its mouth open; pulls the anti-inhibitor like a firing pin on a rifle; aims its cannons; and sends a scalding blast of noxious gas from its tail into the mouth of the aggressor, curbing its appetite for any more beetles. These five functions must be perfectly timed to a fraction of a second.
Richter adds more detail illustrating the irreducible complexity of this creature:
There’s more to this story. High speed cameras have shown that the beetle fires a rapid series of shots rather than one explosive burst. This gives the bug finer control over the explosion, preventing the recoil that would send it flying. The beetle can also aim its heat weapon precisely over a wide range of angles. All these controls require additional ‘brain software’ for their use.
It’s no wonder, Richter says (pp 79-80), that creationists have enjoyed pointing to the bombardier beetle as a challenge to evolution. (As for the evolutionist quibble that the chemicals are not explosive, see Gish’s response quoted here.)
The Darwinian Response
Evolutionists must certainly be aware that creationists have long used the bombardier beetle as evidence against evolution. Let’s look in the three pro- evolution articles for their comeback arguments:
National Geographic: “bombardier beetle species may have evolved the ability to survive toads’ digestive system…” New Scientist: “In another experiment, the researchers found bombardier beetles are more likely to survive after 20 minutes in a toad stomach than 14 other beetle species. This suggests they have evolved a tolerance for toad digestive juices.” The Conversation: “The diverse getaway tactics of animals are a testament to the fascinating creativity of evolution…. we should be mindful that evolutionary innovation can produce remarkable adaptations.“
#77: Pinguinite To: Liberator (#41)
That is no small amount of difference. Most arguments are about issues where the parties agree on 90% of the facts, but on this one, the agreement is hardly more than that planet earth and life both exist.
To me, starting with the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God" and building a scientific model around it is flawed for the simple reason that (at least most people) have never established any valid, objective reason for accepting the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God". You talk about strata being evidence of the Great Flood, but secular science also says there have been many great floods throughout geologic history, including the Black sea being flooded within weeks by a breach of the barrier separating it from the Mediterranean sea (which may have been the event upon which the story of the Biblical flood was based).
I don't see creationists argue that the universe is smaller than science says, and for me it seems quite reasonable that the universe is as old as it is large.
I am glad that my particular beliefs do not depend on evolution being factual or not. That we have an immortal soul, or stated accurately, we ARE immortal souls, and that what we HAVE for a short time are mortal bodies, which are far inferior to souls, that our human nature & origins adds NOTHING to our value as souls. Nothing at all.
Liberator, this all comes back to belief systems. Debating about evolution is a red herring. That's not what creationists are really arguing about. What they are instead arguing about is that the Bible is literally the "Word of God". That's what it's really about. As long as a creationist believes that, no amount of discussion about evolution will convince him/her otherwise, and for any secular scientist, no amount of debate about evolution will convince him/her that each species miraculously appeared by divine command.
So if you really want to convince anyone about creationism, you have to convince people that the Bible is the Word of God. Period. That's it.
Now we've had some of that discussion in the past and I've issued my challenges on this point. You promised to get back to me several times and it's up to you if you ever do. I have not judged and will not judge you for not doing so and set no time limit at all, even if you never do. But I will say this: I have yet to find a single person who has ever made any real effort at all to debunk my perspective on this subject, much less even come close to succeed in doing so, even though I have come to the arena a number of times. Under my model, God is more patient, more forgiving, never judges, never gets angry and so on. And yet there is full accountability for how we live, and a real purpose to life and for the existence of the universe and everything in it. And it doesn't matter if evolution is true or not or how old the universe. In fact the universe itself, for all it's wonder, is a mere tool created for a greater end. It all fits together so much better. Perfectly really.
So if and when you want to come to the floor on the REAL topic here, I'm game. Until then, arguing/debating about evolution vs creationism is, I will say most politely, a waste of time.
Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-10 21:40:14 Reply Private Reply
#78: VxH To: Pinguinite, redleghunter, no gnu taxes, a pole (#77)
When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?
That is the time scale in which DNA/RNA, and the associated cellular machinery, operate to effect the natural selection and creation of species.
The unanswered question then remains: where did DNA/RNA come from?
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 21:52:45 Reply Private Reply
#79: no gnu taxes To: VxH (#78)
Without millions and billions of years, evolutionary history completely falls apart. Here are just a few of many credible evidences from various branches of science that tell of a world much younger than evolutionists claim. Evidence 1 Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds
Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.
Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.
Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!
For more information, see Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. To learn more about diamonds and their formation, read this article by Dr. Andrew Snelling.
Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon
The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.
If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!
For more information, see Lunar Recession (based on this article) as well as The Age of the Universe, Part 2. We also recommend Video on Demand: Our Created Moon.
Evidence 3 Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field
Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.
Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)
However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.
For more information, see The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth and section two of The Age of the Universe, Part 2.
Evidence 4 Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue
In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!
According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.
Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?
To learn more, see “Ostrich-Osaurus” Discovery? and The Scrambling Continues. We also recommend the article Fossilized Biomaterials Must Be Young by Brian Thomas of ICR.
Evidence 5 Anthropology: Human Population Growth
It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.
A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!
Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!
For a better look at these calculations, see Billions of People in Thousands of Years?.
Evidence 6 Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata
When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.
There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.
This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.
To find out more, see Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured.
Does the age of the earth really matter?
While each of these evidences reveals reasons why the earth cannot be billions of years old, the real issue is not the age of the earth. Instead, the real issue is authority. God’s infallible Word must be our ultimate authority, not the unstable foundation of human reasoning. Are we trying to fit our interpretations of the world (e.g., evolution) into Scripture, or will we simply let God speak for Himself through His Word?
If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis, why should we believe when Scripture says that faith in Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation? (Romans 10:9; Acts 4:12; John 14:6)
But when we take Scripture as written, it’s clear that the earth can’t be more than a few thousand years old—and from a biblical worldview, the scientific evidence agrees!
no gnu taxes posted on 2018-02-10 21:59:36 Reply Private Reply
#80: no gnu taxes To: VxH (#78)
no gnu taxes posted on 2018-02-10 22:03:08 Reply Private Reply
#81: VxH To: no gnu taxes (#80)
Every massive object exists in a gravitational well.
Shocking and awing the sheeple with buzzwords does not unexist observable reality.
Time is a derivative function of state change which progresses relative to E in the inertial frame in which it is observed.
How long is a "day" in the context of the moment when E=0 made the transition to E=(All the energy that exists in the universe)?
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:25:50 Reply Private Reply
#82: VxH To: no gnu taxes (#79)
Did the literal King of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:27:17 Reply Private Reply
#83: A K A Stone To: VxH (#78)
God made a finished product. So you are incorrect. What you said proves absolutely nothing.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:35:03 Reply Private Reply
#84: rlk To: Liberator (#37)
evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory... And creationalists are just as desperate to pursue theirs.
rlk posted on 2018-02-10 22:36:12 Reply Private Reply
#85: A K A Stone To: VxH (#78)
So god created plants. Then it was dark for billions of years. No that doesn't work.
You're trying to make the Bible fit into your tiny minuscule bit of knowledge you have.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:36:47 Reply Private Reply
#86: VxH To: no gnu taxes (#79)
Can you articulate your "beliefs" without plagarizing and parroting?
https://www.google.com/search? q=This+is+a+major+problem+for+evolutionists+who+believe+these+rock+layers+were +laid+down+gradually
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:37:45 Reply Private Reply
#87: VxH To: A K A Stone (#85)
Just like Genesis says:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:40:24 Reply Private Reply
#88: A K A Stone To: Pinguinite (#77)
That is far from the truth.
If the Bible said one thing and we observed other things then we wouldn't believe it. At least I wouldn't.
But the Bible fits perfectly with the natural world we observe.
And it has more then a couple of youtube vidoes behind it.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:42:44 Reply Private Reply
#89: A K A Stone To: VxH (#87)
Genesis says the earth was with out form and void. Not what you quoted.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:43:54 Reply Private Reply
#90: VxH To: A K A Stone (#89)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:45:18 Reply Private Reply
#91: A K A Stone To: VxH (#87)
If there is a god and he can create light. Then he can create it already shining on the earth. Comprende Now if you don't believe in God then I can see how you think it is a bunch of nonsense either way. But you seem to say you believe. So you are putting up unnecessary stumbling blocks and making it conform to your errant thinking.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:46:02 Reply Private Reply
#92: VxH To: A K A Stone (#91)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:48:01 Reply Private Reply
#93: A K A Stone To: VxH (#90)
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:48:09 Reply Private Reply
#94: VxH To: A K A Stone (#93)
What does this mean?
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:49:42 Reply Private Reply
#95: A K A Stone To: VxH (#92)
You have to add to scripture to make your pet theory work. I stick to the text. You must not have to much faith in God being able to deliver his word to his people purely.
That is ok it is on your skin not mine. Think what you want. I don't care.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:50:17 Reply Private Reply
#96: A K A Stone To: VxH (#94)
You don't need that to understand the Bible.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:50:54 Reply Private Reply
#97: VxH To: A K A Stone (#96)
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:51:58 Reply Private Reply
#98: A K A Stone To: VxH (#94)
Here maybe this will help.
Remember the earth was without form and void at the time.
You're wrong.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 22:52:22 Reply Private Reply
#99: VxH To: A K A Stone (#95)
"Fallible and uninspired have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible"
Did the literal king of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:55:16 Reply Private Reply
#100: VxH To: A K A Stone (#98)
You mean like in the plasma at T=0+1?
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 22:57:05 Reply Private Reply
#101: A K A Stone To: VxH, redleghunter (#99)
It would seem so from Ezekiel below.
Mortal, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; and worked in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from among the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade, you profaned your sanctuaries. So I brought out fire from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever (Ezekiel 28:12- 19).
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 23:01:44 Reply Private Reply
#102: A K A Stone To: VxH (#100)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 23:04:58 Reply Private Reply
#103: VxH To: A K A Stone (#101)
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:07:34 Reply Private Reply
#104: redleghunter To: VxH, A K A Stone, Liberator (#87)
Correct. What AKA was saying is true. A finished product. Meaning the light from the farthest star was created from source to our solar system.
Why would God keep everyone in the dark for billions of light years?
Important to point out that there is purpose in God's creation and we see it in Genesis 1:1:
In the beginning (time) God created (causation and purpose) the heavens ( space) and the earth (matter). For big bang types it's all there.
redleghunter posted on 2018-02-10 23:10:02 Reply Private Reply
#105: redleghunter To: VxH (#103)
It's both.
redleghunter posted on 2018-02-10 23:11:55 Reply Private Reply
#106: A K A Stone To: VxH (#103)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 23:15:38 Reply Private Reply
#107: VxH To: A K A Stone (#106)
Nope. I don't hate "Jews".
And I'm certainly less anti-Semitic than the folks perched in New Bolostan who seem to think they're superior to their fellow semites... who happen to descend from Ishmael instead of Isaac.
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:25:53 Reply Private Reply
#108: VxH To: redleghunter (#104)
Yep.
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:27:07 Reply Private Reply
#109: A K A Stone To: VxH (#107)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 23:27:10 Reply Private Reply
#110: VxH To: redleghunter (#104)
The Sun isn't billions of light years from the Earth which, thanks to Galileo, we also know, contrary to the Catholic (that's a big C) dogma of the time, isn't at the center of the Universe.
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:31:10 Reply Private Reply
#111: VxH To: A K A Stone (#109)
From which tribe?
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:31:34 Reply Private Reply
#112: Pinguinite To: A K A Stone (#88)
The capability people have to believe things that are not true is absolutely enormous and can hardly be overstated. So much so that people willingly die out of belief systems that are in error. Any highly experienced forum participant should have at least some appreciation for that fact.
Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-10 23:34:19 Reply Private Reply
#113: VxH To: Pinguinite (#112)
Or kill out of them.
Which, makes Thomas Jefferson and Co.'s "Infidel of every denomination" notion, constituted in the 1st amendment, a rather appealing alternative.
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:39:08 Reply Private Reply
#114: Pinguinite To: redleghunter (#104)
So are you suggesting that God created stars and galaxies up to billions of light years away, then created all the light between them to simulate the way it would be if the light had actually traveled on its own for billions of years?
This would include creating the light of, say, supernovas in far away galaxies that we estimate happened one million years ago? Only they didn't actually happen because the universe is only 6000 years old?. It was just an illusion God created, perhaps because He was too impatient to wait billions of years for it to happen naturally?
Was the plan to fool scientists into thinking the universe was older than 6k years? Surely, God is NOT the author of confusion or deception!
Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-10 23:46:40 Reply Private Reply
#115: Pinguinite To: VxH (#113)
Indeed. We would find far more people willing to kill for what they believe than we would people willing to die for what they believe.
A sad commentary that is.
Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-10 23:49:10 Reply Private Reply
#116: VxH To: Pinguinite, redleghunter (#114)
Must be the same reason he created the Vostok ice layers.
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:50:10 Reply Private Reply
#117: VxH To: A K A Stone (#109)
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Israel are the most advanced in the Middle East, and one of the most advanced in Asia.[1] Although same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1988, the former law against sodomy had not been enforced since a court decision of 1963.[2]
https://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel
So, who legalized Sodomy there in 1963 then?
VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:57:38 Reply Private Reply
#118: Tooconservative To: VxH (#117)
Pretty much had to be the Sanhedrin (supreme court), not the Knesset (legislature).
Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-11 02:29:26 Reply Private Reply
#119: no gnu taxes To: VxH (#81)
Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.
Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.
In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.
no gnu taxes posted on 2018-02-11 08:51:17 Reply Private Reply
#120: no gnu taxes To: VxH (#94)
I wonder if you know what it means.
It essentially tells us that a certain amount of energy is contained in a certain amount of mass.
Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds, and this energy is relatively small. Much more energy can be created by breaking the nucleus of an atom which has much more mass.
What this has to do with God creating earth is beyond me. Go tell God he is too stupid to know how to properly create a universe.
no gnu taxes posted on 2018-02-11 09:02:32 Reply Private Reply
#121: Pinguinite To: no gnu taxes (#119)
While the difference in time flow depending on the "depth" of an observer in a "gavity well" is often overlooked (the speed at which something falls into a black hole is one example, as it would be an increasingly slow process from the perspective of an outside observer), the amount, as noted in your post, is very tiny today. And yes, the conventional view of the expanding universe holds it was much more dense at the time of the big bang.
However, to suggest earth was in a gravity well so strong that light starting a journey traveling just one million years ago (not to mention some 12 billion (as measured in today's years which scientists believe they have captured) would mean the earth was in one hell of a gravity well, making time flow 1000 x slower on earth than in the rest of the universe. And that this was the case when the universe was just 1/13,000ths younger than it is now. For that reason, I say that on it's face, it is a preposterous theory.
I'd say there is a lot more than "details" to work out. These scientists have a monumental task on their hands, and it sounds to me like trying to come up with results that fit a desired conclusion, which real scientists do not do.
Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-11 10:58:00 Reply Private Reply
#122: Liberator To: Pinguinite (#77)
Yes, it's time we catch up.
As to this subject and current commentary, there are still a few tidbits that can legitimately be discussed.
Liberator posted on 2018-02-11 12:59:00 Reply Private Reply
#123: VxH To: no gnu taxes (#120)
No, it's released by breaking electron or nuclear bonds - not created.
Obviously.
In the beginning... God said let there be light, and BANG! the Universe was.
Now, again, how long was a day in the context of the transition between E=0 and E=(Total Universal Energy), in the corresponding time period between T0 and T0+1?
VxH posted on 2018-02-11 15:18:24 Reply Private Reply
#124: no gnu taxes To: VxH (#123)
created, released
It's just a semantics argument.
no gnu taxes posted on 2018-02-11 15:21:58 Reply Private Reply
#125: VxH To: no gnu taxes (#120)
Maybe you do, but "physics" does not.
The localized effects of the eigenstate of any system would've been relatively the same within the bounds of the corresponding manifold coordinate system.
VxH posted on 2018-02-11 15:25:43 Reply Private Reply
#126: VxH To: no gnu taxes (#124)
LOL.
All the energy in the universe was Created at T=0
FAIL.
VxH posted on 2018-02-11 15:28:23 Reply Private Reply