Science Disproves Evolution



 Religions > Atheism > Science Disproves Evolution

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Pahu"
Date: 18 Jul 2007 01:42:57 PM
Object: Science Disproves Evolution
Heavy Elements
Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin
of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium,
and lithium.) The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside
stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify,
because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed.
However, a vast region of gas containing the mass of
300,000,000,000,000 suns has been found that is quite rich in iron and
other heavy elements. The number of nearby visible stars is a thousand
times too small to account for the heavy elements in that huge region
(a). Heavy elements are even abundant in nearly empty regions of space
that are farthest from stars and galaxies (b).
Most hydrogen atoms weigh one atomic mass unit, but some, called heavy
hydrogen, weigh two units. If everything in the universe came from a
big bang or a swirling gas cloud, heavy hydrogen should be uniformly
mixed with normal hydrogen. It is not (c). Comets have twice the
concentration of heavy hydrogen as oceans. Oceans have 10-50 times the
concentration as the solar system and interstellar matter.
a . "Given that the cluster apparently comprises few galaxies, yet
contains a large amount of iron, a new type of astronomical object is
implied by our results. A revision of theoretical models of the metal
[heavy element] enrichment process in galaxy clusters may therefore be
required," M. Hattori et al., "A Dark Cluster of Galaxies at Redshift
z=1," Nature, Vol. 388, 10 July 1997, p. 146.
b . Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "Heavy-Element Enrichment
in Low-Density Regions of the Intergalactic Medium," Nature, Vol. 394,
2 July 1998, pp. 44-46.
c . "In both cases, the scatter of the observed values [of heavy
hydrogen] is quite large and seems to reach a factor of 10. Although
it is already surprising to see such variations within ~1000 pc from
the sun, this looks unbelievable within only 30 pc from the sun." [1
pc (or parsec) = 3.258 light-years] A. Vidal-Madjar, "Interstellar
Helium and Deuterium," Diffuse Matter in Galaxies, editors J. Audouze
et al. (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983), pp. 77-78.
http://www.creationscience.com/
.

User: "SteveTBM®"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 18 Jul 2007 02:43:31 PM
"Pahu" <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184784177.509476.9790@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Heavy Elements

Evolutionists historically study evolution.
.

User: "Brian E. Clark"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 19 Jul 2007 11:09:10 AM
In article <1184784177.509476.9790
@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Pahu said...

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin
of heavy elements.

Of course: evolutionists are usually biologists,
not nuclear chemists or physicists.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.

User: "Budikka666"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 19 Jul 2007 04:37:16 PM
On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Heavy Elements

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin
of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium,
and lithium.)

That's why scientists *don't* explain then that way you fucking
monumental ignoramus. That's why scientists explain them as a result
of supernovae.

The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside
stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify,
because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed.

Thats' why scientists use spectroscopic analysis, you fundamental
dipshit.
Get an education before you even think of opening your idiotic mouth
in a.a. any more. Got it?
Budikka
.

User: "Conspiracy of Doves"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 19 Jul 2007 12:13:20 PM
On Jul 18, 2:42 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Heavy Elements

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin
of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium,
and lithium.) The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside
stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify,
because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed.
However, a vast region of gas containing the mass of
300,000,000,000,000 suns has been found that is quite rich in iron and
other heavy elements. The number of nearby visible stars is a thousand
times too small to account for the heavy elements in that huge region
(a). Heavy elements are even abundant in nearly empty regions of space
that are farthest from stars and galaxies (b).

Most hydrogen atoms weigh one atomic mass unit, but some, called heavy
hydrogen, weigh two units. If everything in the universe came from a
big bang or a swirling gas cloud, heavy hydrogen should be uniformly
mixed with normal hydrogen. It is not (c). Comets have twice the
concentration of heavy hydrogen as oceans. Oceans have 10-50 times the
concentration as the solar system and interstellar matter.

a . "Given that the cluster apparently comprises few galaxies, yet
contains a large amount of iron, a new type of astronomical object is
implied by our results. A revision of theoretical models of the metal
[heavy element] enrichment process in galaxy clusters may therefore be
required," M. Hattori et al., "A Dark Cluster of Galaxies at Redshift
z=1," Nature, Vol. 388, 10 July 1997, p. 146.

b . Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "Heavy-Element Enrichment
in Low-Density Regions of the Intergalactic Medium," Nature, Vol. 394,
2 July 1998, pp. 44-46.

c . "In both cases, the scatter of the observed values [of heavy
hydrogen] is quite large and seems to reach a factor of 10. Although
it is already surprising to see such variations within ~1000 pc from
the sun, this looks unbelievable within only 30 pc from the sun." [1
pc (or parsec) = 3.258 light-years] A. Vidal-Madjar, "Interstellar
Helium and Deuterium," Diffuse Matter in Galaxies, editors J. Audouze
et al. (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983), pp. 77-78.

http://www.creationscience.com/

How does any of this have anything to do with evolution?
Life didn't even exist yet in the time period you are talking about.
.

User: "Conspiracy of Doves"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 19 Jul 2007 10:08:11 AM
On Jul 18, 2:42 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Heavy Elements

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin
of heavy elements. (A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium,
and lithium.) The other 100+ elements supposedly formed deep inside
stars and during stellar explosions. This theory is hard to verify,
because stellar interiors and explosions cannot be carefully analyzed.
However, a vast region of gas containing the mass of
300,000,000,000,000 suns has been found that is quite rich in iron and
other heavy elements. The number of nearby visible stars is a thousand
times too small to account for the heavy elements in that huge region
(a). Heavy elements are even abundant in nearly empty regions of space
that are farthest from stars and galaxies (b).

Most hydrogen atoms weigh one atomic mass unit, but some, called heavy
hydrogen, weigh two units. If everything in the universe came from a
big bang or a swirling gas cloud, heavy hydrogen should be uniformly
mixed with normal hydrogen. It is not (c). Comets have twice the
concentration of heavy hydrogen as oceans. Oceans have 10-50 times the
concentration as the solar system and interstellar matter.

a . "Given that the cluster apparently comprises few galaxies, yet
contains a large amount of iron, a new type of astronomical object is
implied by our results. A revision of theoretical models of the metal
[heavy element] enrichment process in galaxy clusters may therefore be
required," M. Hattori et al., "A Dark Cluster of Galaxies at Redshift
z=1," Nature, Vol. 388, 10 July 1997, p. 146.

b . Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "Heavy-Element Enrichment
in Low-Density Regions of the Intergalactic Medium," Nature, Vol. 394,
2 July 1998, pp. 44-46.

c . "In both cases, the scatter of the observed values [of heavy
hydrogen] is quite large and seems to reach a factor of 10. Although
it is already surprising to see such variations within ~1000 pc from
the sun, this looks unbelievable within only 30 pc from the sun." [1
pc (or parsec) = 3.258 light-years] A. Vidal-Madjar, "Interstellar
Helium and Deuterium," Diffuse Matter in Galaxies, editors J. Audouze
et al. (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983), pp. 77-78.

http://www.creationscience.com/

What does any of this have to do with evolution?
.

User: "Nosterill"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 19 Jul 2007 08:49:36 AM
On Jul 18, 7:42 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Heavy Elements

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin
of heavy elements.

Could this be because their field of expertise is evolution, as
opposed to cosmology?
I'm an optical designer by trade and I would have difficulty
explaining whole swathes of pharmacology. By your reasoning, this
disproves optics!
.

User: "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN."

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 19 Jul 2007 11:37:05 AM
On Jul 18, 7:42 pm, Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Heavy Elements

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin
of heavy elements.

Pahu, every time you tell a lie, God kills a kitten.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 18 Jul 2007 08:11:23 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:42:57 -0700, Pahu wrote:

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin of
heavy elements.

Well, since it isn't physics, that makes sense.
Idiot.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.

User: "George"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 19 Jul 2007 03:21:57 PM
Pahu wrote:

Heavy Elements

Nothing to do with evolution and more to do with Astronomy with second
and third generation stars.
Are all creationists really this stupid ?
.
User: "Christopher A.Lee"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 19 Jul 2007 03:58:33 PM
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:21:57 -0700, George <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:


Pahu wrote:

Heavy Elements


Nothing to do with evolution and more to do with Astronomy with second
and third generation stars.
Are all creationists really this stupid ?

Yes.
.


User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"

Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution 18 Jul 2007 09:20:22 PM
moron:

Evolutionists historically have had difficulty explaining the origin
of heavy elements.

Morontheists historically have had difficulty displaying any kind of
intelligence or education.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER