forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,14:43) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42) | blah blah blah...
so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?
Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion. Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).
Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe. Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.
Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began. Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion. Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.
Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts. Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html
Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.
Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.
Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools. One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.
Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'. I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist? really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.
Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Espańola de Paleontología: 115–22.
Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician. Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.
The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence. The first is called the carbon anomaly. It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers. Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age. Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)
The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event. Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.
Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years. I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.
Is that sufficiently precise?
I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.
I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know. I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons. |
Oh yes, I did talk about the Big Bang... in terms of an explosion. Had nothing to do with genetics, the endocrine system, or phenotypes. BTW: Do you want to state it correctly or shall we just call that one a draw? You learned something (hopefully) and I learned something.
How about forastero? You still think something exploded (either a chemical, nuclear, or sub-nuclear high speed exothermic reaction) to cause the Big Bang?
Oh yeah, the rest of my quote describes the Cambrian. Curiously, there several references to peer-reviewed work in there. And I think, IIRC, that those are my words, explaining the definition of the Cambrian Era. When I type "Cambrian" into google, I get lots of geologic era links, several fossil links, a school district in West Jose, a granite countertop company, but no biomes... I wonder why that is?
BTW: As I recall, you brought up uniformitarianism and made the claim that radiometric dating is invalid because of... what? and your evidence is...? |
Actually, you had had looked into some billions of years-old crystal ball chronologies when I said:
Its pseudoempericism to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years. Plus, please tell me how this type of radiometric dating
Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:
-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......
I gave you many quotes from top scientists who claimed "explosion" including from your own links. Plus the priest that developed the Big Bang theory said it was an explosion and Einstein concurred that the priest was right.
Again for the fifth time, try googling Cambrian and benthic
What geologic columns? You can find stratigraphic relatively in recent terms but uplifting destroys, mixes and or contaminates very ancient stratigraphy. Even Cenozoic sites are a jumbled hodgepodge dated by preconceived ideas. Even De Vince knew that. Just look at a geological map. Its a mosaic spread out horizontally in all kinds of crazy looking mosaics based on index fossils, which were supposedly originally dated by depth. This is circular reasoning. Plus, we are finding living index fossils all the time
|
