Post Reply
Page 3 of 16  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 Next
Switch to Forum Live View For all - Evidence for Jehovah's existence and His personality
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 10:13PM #21
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Hmm - the latter post had the latter portion chopped off!


The chopped off excerpt 2 G


Is it just chance that a slight change in the arrangement of atomic particles yields such a rich variety of elements? And what about the forces that hold the atomic particles together?


H.  Once scientists perceived the order of the periodic table, they predicted the existence of missing elements.  Now there are no gaps - all the elements 1 to 92 have been discovered!


Excerpt:


As of the time of publication, scientists have produced elements 93 and larger, up to and including element 118. Predictably, these elements still fit the pattern of the periodic table.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 14, 2012 - 10:35PM #22
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Link 3 - www.watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_03...


Article "The Earth - was it founded by chance?"


A.  Solar system's "habitable zone" allowing for liquid water - excerpt:


TO AVOID extremes of temperature, the earth must orbit at the correct distance from the sun. In other solar systems, planets have been detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the 'habitable zone'—that is, they are capable of sustaining liquid water. But even these so-called habitable planets may still not be suitable for human life. They must also rotate at the right speed and be the right size.


There is much more - Note rotation speed (3B) is mentioned as is planetary size (3C)


B. Rotation speed - feel free to post in depth on this.   I will add more detail than in the article:


Many planets rotate far different from earth's 24 hour rotation speed.  What would happen if earth rotated every 48 hours, for example?  In that case, the temperature variance from low to high would be roughly doubled.  Thus in a continental climate one would have the variance changed from a low of 45 and high of 65 to a low of 35 (with the possibility of frost) and a high of 75.


What of longer rotation speed?   Say one month, for example.   In that case the low would be roughly 30 times the present - i.e. a low of -150 F and a high of 212 F!   It is quite possible that one would not just see the sun rise, but hear it as the ice thawed and then boiled!   Water rushing (with icebergs) onto superheated ground and then violently turned to steam!


C. Planetary size - smaller


If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere 


D. Planetary size - larger


 But what if the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?


Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook Environment of Life, "the delicate balance between the gases of the atmosphere would be upset."


E.  Oxygen percentage in atmosphere


 If its level were to increase by 1 percent, forest fires would break out more frequently.


F.  CO2 (carbon dioxide) percentage in atmosphere


if the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide kept increasing, we would suffer the consequences of an overheated earth.


to be continued -

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2012 - 12:28AM #23
Kemmer
Posts: 16,649

In the 20th century, despite the world wars and plagues, etc., the population doubled roughly every 35 years.   How long would it take to go from a population of 2 to the current roughly 7 billion at this rate?


Now, I leave it to you all for now to do the math.   I will simply state that it would have taken considerable less than 6,000 years - but considering the narrowing of the gene pool in the last catastrophe at the Noachian flood - 6,000 years is a reasonable time to reach the current population.



And how do you explain the irrefutable and artifact evidence of human presence in the Americas 30,000 years ago, I wonder. 


In this case, it's not a matter of doctored "math", but common sense and "hard copy" artifacts.


If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere



Your grasp of basic astronomical facts is completely colored by the WT, I find.   If a planet or moon has an atmosphere, it isn't likely to drift off into space after deciding the planet is too small to keep it tethered.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2012 - 6:29AM #24
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Feb 15, 2012 -- 12:28AM, Kemmer wrote:


In the 20th century, despite the world wars and plagues, etc., the population doubled roughly every 35 years.   How long would it take to go from a population of 2 to the current roughly 7 billion at this rate?


Now, I leave it to you all for now to do the math.   I will simply state that it would have taken considerable less than 6,000 years - but considering the narrowing of the gene pool in the last catastrophe at the Noachian flood - 6,000 years is a reasonable time to reach the current population.



And how do you explain the irrefutable and artifact evidence of human presence in the Americas 30,000 years ago, I wonder. 


In this case, it's not a matter of doctored "math", but common sense and "hard copy" artifacts.


If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere



Your grasp of basic astronomical facts is completely colored by the WT, I find.   If a planet or moon has an atmosphere, it isn't likely to drift off into space after deciding the planet is too small to keep it tethered.




Kemmer - You have failed to document or link your assertions.  While I have already stated that most scientists believe man has been here more than 6,000 years, I have also given you lines of evidence that conflict with this.   These lines of evidence were not presented from our literature, btw.   You have failed to address one single line of evidence which I posted.


Your second assertion is totally false - it is against what scientists have reported concerning planetary atmospheres.   Our literature stated that smaller planets, like Mars, would lose their atmospheres. 


So, do you claim Mars never had an atmosphere????


I seem to recall quite the opposite - but I will post documentation in my next post.  Please also attempt to document your post.


Thank you in advance.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2012 - 6:40AM #25
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Kemmer - on your false assertion that planets smaller than earth would not lose their atmospheres as a result of lower gravity as if our literature reported inaccurately on this example of fine tuning, I point you to the evidence from Mars which is smaller than earth.


I will be posting outside links in support of what our literature states as you all respond on each specific line of evidence.   E.g., concerning the history of the Martian atmosphere:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars


Excerpt:


History


Mars' atmosphere is believed to have changed over the course of the planet's lifetime, with evidence suggesting the possibility that Mars had large oceans a few billion years ago.[7] As stated in the Mars Ocean Hypothesis, atmospheric pressure on the present day Martian surface only exceeds that of the triple point of water (6.11 hectopascals (0.0886 psi)) in the lowest elevations; at higher elevations water can exist only in solid or vapor form. Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F), significantly lower than what is needed to sustain liquid water. However, early in its history Mars may have had conditions more conducive to retaining liquid water at the surface.


Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker Martian atmosphere include:

  • Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a significant percentage of the atmosphere;[8]
  • Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind;[9] and
  • On-going removal of atmosphere due to electromagnetic field and solar wind interaction.[8]
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2012 - 6:51AM #26
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Kemmer - It is not my knowledge which is lacking on this subject but is yours.  As my above quote of Wikipedia shows, Mars once had a thicker atmosphere which has since drifted off into space - so your assertion such is not likely is a false assertion.


Of course, planets smaller than Mars are even more likely to lose their atmospheres over time.


The weight of gas molecules is obviously linked to whether planetary gravity will hold that gas in said planetary atmosphere.  The CO2 molecule is relatively heavy, the H2 molecule is the lightest.  Even on earth H2 escapes - however, most other gas molecules stay on earth - thank Jehovah!


Of course, our link only gave you the basic fact.   Wikipedia has added detail. 


For example, the triple point of water on Mars involves air pressure and gravity.


Of course, the fact that the solar wind also strips the atmosphere from planets (this would be true in all solar systems, btw) is an important added detail.  Thus this involves other cases of fine tuning on earth - as I have already posted a little on how our earth is shielded from the solar wind - when I posted on the northern lights above.


So, are you prepared to argue that Mars did not have a thicker atmosphere in the past or did not have water in the past?


I will post more soon on this - zeroing in on the role of gravity as that is the specific point you deny.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2012 - 7:06AM #27
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Kemmer - To help you catch up with current scientific data on planetary atmospheres on planets smaller than earth - see this link concerning recent discoveries about how Mars has lost and is losing its atmosphere:


science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at...


In contrast, you should also consult why Venus has retained its atmosphere - Venus is similar in size to earth.   Of course, it lacks many other details of fine tuning and is not suitable for life for those other reasons.


Of course, the fact that Venus has a thick atmosphere while Mars has lost much of its atmosphere is not simply due to gravity - however, gravity certainly plays a role.


With Mars, as the above link proves, it is the specific properties of the Martian magnetic field - properties which thankfully are not the case with earth's magnetic field - that are causing chunks of the Martian atmosphere to be lost.   See the link for details.


Now, feel free to try to prove that our literature was wrong - thus far I have found it is your post which is faulty - not our literature.


And the main point of our article is simply strenghthened when more detail is examined - as even more examples of how earth is fine tuned for life emerge - in the latter case by the specific properties of earth's magnetic field.


I might add that the closer a planet is to the star, the stronger the solar wind will be.  Clearly, since Venus is closer to the sun and Mars is further from the sun, it is not just the solar wind that is involved with the retention of planetary atmospheres either - gravity is just one of the many ways earth is fine tuned for life!

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2012 - 8:55AM #28
Kemmer
Posts: 16,649

Kemmer - You have failed to document or link your assertions.  While I have already stated that most scientists believe man has been here more than 6,000 years, I have also given you lines of evidence that conflict with this.   These lines of evidence were not presented from our literature, btw.   You have failed to address one single line of evidence which I posted.


Your second assertion is totally false - it is against what scientists have reported concerning planetary atmospheres.   Our literature stated that smaller planets, like Mars, would lose their atmospheres.


So, do you claim Mars never had an atmosphere????


I seem to recall quite the opposite - but I will post documentation in my next post.  Please also attempt to document your post.



Sorry, but I didn't think any "links" were necessary for the Martian atmospheric business.  I thought it was common knowledge among the informed that there was a catastrophic event--perhaps being struck by a massive meteor, comet, or asteroid--which ripped away Mars' atmosphere.  Mars-originating meteorites have been found in the ice on Antarctica.


If smaller planets can't seem to retain their atmospheres, how can scientists even contemplate terraforming them??


 Our literature stated that smaller planets, like Mars, would lose their atmospheres.



I have no doubt that your "literature" does say that, considering the other strange stuff your "literature" contains.  Perhaps there were Martians who refused to become JWs and "Jehovah" stripped away their atmosphere as punishment?  Laughing



Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker Martian atmosphere include:

  • Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a significant percentage of the atmosphere;[8]
  • Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind;[


How is it that Mars' atmosphere was "stripped away" by the solar wind, yet Earth which is much closer to the sun escaped damage?


I think it best that your "literature" stay away from Science because creationism negates everything that can be said about the natural universe.


I might add that the closer a planet is to the star, the stronger the solar wind will be.  Clearly, since Venus is closer to the sun and Mars is further from the sun, it is not just the solar wind that is involved with the retention of planetary atmospheres either - gravity is just one of the many ways earth is fine tuned for life!



I don't even know how to respond to such scattershot theories.  Sorry.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2012 - 9:10AM #29
Newtonian
Posts: 12,196

Kemmer - I see you did not read my link to NASA and ignored the currently proven cause of depletion of the martian atmosphere.  Granted, some believe meteor impact was involved - but the actual observational evidence is the solar wind as well as "umbrellas" in the Martian electromagnetic field.


Our point is that earth is fine tuned for life - the fact that earth's magnetic field does not have such "umbrellas" is simply another case of how earth is fine tuned for life.


I suggest you catch up with current scientific discoveries on this - I gave you the link to NASA - I suggest you read it more carefully.


And, of course, the lower the gravity, the easier it is for the solar wind to strip away planetary atmosphers.


And you also have ignored the relative weight of gas molecules - I posted CO2 is heavier than H2O and H2 is the lightest - you have ignored this.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 15, 2012 - 9:13AM #30
Kemmer
Posts: 16,649

And you also have ignored the relative weight of gas molecules - I posted CO2 is heavier than H2O and H2 is the lightest - you have ignored this.



You expected me to comment on this obvious fact?  Is that part of your theory that "lighter" gases are unaffected by gravity??


Now, feel free to try to prove that our literature was wrong - thus far I have found it is your post which is faulty - not our literature.



Oh jeez, I guess if I really wanted to know more about astrophysics, I really should be reading the Watchtower, right?  Undecided


In contrast, you should also consult why Venus has retained its atmosphere - Venus is similar in size to earth.   Of course, it lacks many other details of fine tuning and is not suitable for life for those other reasons.



Do you even know anything about Venus apart from its similar size??  Creationists are ipso facto incapable of understanding reality in the natural world, I find.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 16  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook