Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Plant evolution model

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:39:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
I'm curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met.
There's more than one conjecture, and at the moment they're still conjectures and not hypotheses. But one popular scientific conjecture is that the action of early cyanobacteria released enough oxygen from CO2 to swing the atmosphere over into a high-oxygen atmosphere that would eventually support plant respiration and transpiration. (E.g. see: [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...])

Like all scientific conjectures, this is more than a wild guess, in that cyanobacteria exist today, they're very hardy, they don't always need sunlight (although photosynthesis is a conjectured mechanism), they can liberate oxygen from CO2 and dissolved carbonates, and it's well-established that once plants became commonplace, they changed the earth's atmosphere forever after, so the idea of life changing the atmosphere is already accepted. What makes it only a conjecture though, has to do with finding ways to match the mechanism to falsifiable predictions about ancient geology.

There are some other conjectures too, but this is among the more popular.

I don't have a position on it myself, since there's no value in that. I simply note that it meets the necessary criteria to be a scientific conjecture, and that it's being explored.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:22:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

After your incredibly poor summary of your last thread I don't see why anyone should waste time discussing anything with you.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:30:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 5:39:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
I'm curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met.
There's more than one conjecture, and at the moment they're still conjectures and not hypotheses. But one popular scientific conjecture is that the action of early cyanobacteria released enough oxygen from CO2 to swing the atmosphere over into a high-oxygen atmosphere that would eventually support plant respiration and transpiration. (E.g. see: [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...])

Like all scientific conjectures, this is more than a wild guess, in that cyanobacteria exist today, they're very hardy, they don't always need sunlight (although photosynthesis is a conjectured mechanism), they can liberate oxygen from CO2 and dissolved carbonates, and it's well-established that once plants became commonplace, they changed the earth's atmosphere forever after, so the idea of life changing the atmosphere is already accepted. What makes it only a conjecture though, has to do with finding ways to match the mechanism to falsifiable predictions about ancient geology.

Well yes thats essentially part of a point I made in that for plants to even grow at all you need an established atmosphere but as you rightly point out we already know life changes the atmosphere, plant life even has a great effect on the atmosphere.
There are some other conjectures too, but this is among the more popular.

I don't have a position on it myself, since there's no value in that. I simply note that it meets the necessary criteria to be a scientific conjecture, and that it's being explored.
Well seems as though we have a case where where its unexplainable outside of creation.
Also this is not even possible anyway according to their own data.
"The presence of 2 a-methyl hopanes in sedimentary rocks more than 2.7 Gyr suggests that cyanobacteria were important primary producers well before 2.45 Ga (Brocks et al. 2003; Summons et al. 2006). Debate continues regarding the age of the oldest cyanobacteria (Schopf 1994, 2005; Brasier 2005), but it is likely that they were present at least 300 Myr before the end of the large MIF-S signals."
Now given the pure speculation and assumption that these bacteria should be 2.7 Gyr based off the presence of 2 a-methyl hopanes in sedimentary rocks that are that or older (which isnt even justified) their conclusion is what kills it.
"During stage 1, from 3.85 to 2.45 Ga, atmospheric O2 was almost certainly less than a few parts per million, except possibly during the period between 3.0 and 2.8 Ga."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:57:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 6:30:40 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 5:39:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
I'm curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met.
There's more than one conjecture, and at the moment they're still conjectures and not hypotheses. But one popular scientific conjecture is that the action of early cyanobacteria released enough oxygen from CO2 to swing the atmosphere over into a high-oxygen atmosphere that would eventually support plant respiration and transpiration. (E.g. see: [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...])

Well yes thats essentially part of a point I made in that for plants to even grow at all you need an established atmosphere but as you rightly point out we already know life changes the atmosphere, plant life even has a great effect on the atmosphere.
Yes, agreed.

There are some other conjectures too, but this is among the more popular.

I don't have a position on it myself, since there's no value in that. I simply note that it meets the necessary criteria to be a scientific conjecture, and that it's being explored.
Well seems as though we have a case where where its unexplainable outside of creation.
No, there is no case where a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable conjecture is acceptable scientifically. In order to make creation a valid scientific conjecture it would have to exhibit the qualities we can see in the conjecture about cyanobacteria, that is: it must be specific, detail the mechanisms, demonstrate that they're feasible given existing data, and show in principle at least how the conjecture could be falsified.

The people who want to conjecture creation (mostly nonscientists, but a few cynical scientists too) don't want to do that, so they automatically invalidate themselves from scientific discussion, and have to lurk at the fringes instead, posting to pseudoscientific blogs to avoid peer review, and (among the nonscientists) chucking rhetorical rocks at empirical epistemology.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 9:24:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 6:57:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:30:40 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 5:39:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
I'm curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met.
There's more than one conjecture, and at the moment they're still conjectures and not hypotheses. But one popular scientific conjecture is that the action of early cyanobacteria released enough oxygen from CO2 to swing the atmosphere over into a high-oxygen atmosphere that would eventually support plant respiration and transpiration. (E.g. see: [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...])

Well yes thats essentially part of a point I made in that for plants to even grow at all you need an established atmosphere but as you rightly point out we already know life changes the atmosphere, plant life even has a great effect on the atmosphere.
Yes, agreed.

There are some other conjectures too, but this is among the more popular.

I don't have a position on it myself, since there's no value in that. I simply note that it meets the necessary criteria to be a scientific conjecture, and that it's being explored.
Well seems as though we have a case where where its unexplainable outside of creation.
No, there is no case where a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable conjecture is acceptable scientifically. In order to make creation a valid scientific conjecture it would have to exhibit the qualities we can see in the conjecture about cyanobacteria, that is: it must be specific, detail the mechanisms, demonstrate that they're feasible given existing data, and show in principle at least how the conjecture could be falsified.
Well look we already know from the data in that paper that cyanobacteria is not responsible for providing an explaination as I quoted.
I think only just now are we seeing creation in the lab and how it's done like when I cited the paper on creating synthetic bacteria.

The people who want to conjecture creation (mostly nonscientists, but a few cynical scientists too) don't want to do that, so they automatically invalidate themselves from scientific discussion, and have to lurk at the fringes instead, posting to pseudoscientific blogs to avoid peer review, and (among the nonscientists) chucking rhetorical rocks at empirical epistemology.
I find that an interesting point because big bang theory is a creation theory for example.
Also all the science we have done to this point shows for example for plants to exist you NEED all the items I mentioned above.
Now we can all argue the order it was all done in however inevitably can't be gradually pieced together because it does not work.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 10:50:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 9:24:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:57:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:30:40 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 5:39:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
I'm curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met.
There's more than one conjecture, and at the moment they're still conjectures and not hypotheses. But one popular scientific conjecture is that the action of early cyanobacteria released enough oxygen from CO2 to swing the atmosphere over into a high-oxygen atmosphere that would eventually support plant respiration and transpiration. (E.g. see: [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...])

Well yes thats essentially part of a point I made in that for plants to even grow at all you need an established atmosphere but as you rightly point out we already know life changes the atmosphere, plant life even has a great effect on the atmosphere.
Yes, agreed.

There are some other conjectures too, but this is among the more popular.

I don't have a position on it myself, since there's no value in that. I simply note that it meets the necessary criteria to be a scientific conjecture, and that it's being explored.
Well seems as though we have a case where where its unexplainable outside of creation.
No, there is no case where a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable conjecture is acceptable scientifically. In order to make creation a valid scientific conjecture it would have to exhibit the qualities we can see in the conjecture about cyanobacteria, that is: it must be specific, detail the mechanisms, demonstrate that they're feasible given existing data, and show in principle at least how the conjecture could be falsified.
Well look we already know from the data in that paper that cyanobacteria is not responsible for providing an explanation as I quoted.
'We' know with what authority?

The difference between a conjecture and an hypothesis is that a conjecture is a sketch for how things might have occurred, but the specific details are still subject to variable input assumptions, while an hypothesis is an 'if... then...' statement testable and falsifiable by observation. A conjecture becomes a set of hypotheses by exploring possible scenarios, eliminating the unlikely ones, and fleshing out the specific details of the likely ones, and testing tolerances in support of quantified hypothecation later on. Since there are typically many different input assumptions, a single scenario doesn't normally eliminate a conjecture. Usually you have to explore multiple plausible scenarios to do so, and that's often done in dialogue with interested peers long before research moves toward experiment or systematic observation.

That process is under way. The cyanobacteria conjecture will either produce a range of testable hypotheses, each tied to a different plausible scenario with its own specific range of tolerances, or be abandoned for other conjectures.

With what competence are you pre-empting the outcome of that process, B? Why are you unable to wait until the process completes?

I think only just now are we seeing creation in the lab and how it's done like when I cited the paper on creating synthetic bacteria.
While I didn't see that citation, like you, I believe humans capable of engineering prokaryotes, given time and the current progress in microbiological technologies. Additionally, the extended idea that life can be engineered passively from prebiological molecules without interactive intervention is a viable scientific conjecture, and is being pursued. However the idea that life on Earth was engineered is not in itself a viable scientific conjecture, in that it doesn't offer to solve any problem we presently have, ignores what else we already know, and introduces new problems no proponent has any intention of solving.

Find an ancient laboratory in primordial rock, and that would offer a problem potentially solved by the conjecture of ancient microbiological engineering. But absent such a lab, what problem is being solved, and solved how, revealing what mechanisms?

The people who want to conjecture creation (mostly nonscientists, but a few cynical scientists too) don't want to do that, so they automatically invalidate themselves from scientific discussion, and have to lurk at the fringes instead, posting to pseudoscientific blogs to avoid peer review, and (among the nonscientists) chucking rhetorical rocks at empirical epistemology.
I find that an interesting point because big bang theory is a creation theory for example.
I think you're straining the definition of 'creation' to introduce a loaded association. Many astrophysicists say 'inception', which carries no such association.

Also all the science we have done to this point shows for example for plants to exist you NEED all the items I mentioned above.
Now we can all argue the order it was all done in however inevitably can't be gradually pieced together because it does not work.
I don't think that's for you to say, B, unless you are a paleomicrobiologist with a peer-reviewed research publication explaining why you believe it.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:13:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 10:50:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 9:24:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:57:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 6:30:40 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 5:39:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
I'm curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met.
There's more than one conjecture, and at the moment they're still conjectures and not hypotheses. But one popular scientific conjecture is that the action of early cyanobacteria released enough oxygen from CO2 to swing the atmosphere over into a high-oxygen atmosphere that would eventually support plant respiration and transpiration. (E.g. see: [http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...])

Well yes thats essentially part of a point I made in that for plants to even grow at all you need an established atmosphere but as you rightly point out we already know life changes the atmosphere, plant life even has a great effect on the atmosphere.
Yes, agreed.

There are some other conjectures too, but this is among the more popular.

I don't have a position on it myself, since there's no value in that. I simply note that it meets the necessary criteria to be a scientific conjecture, and that it's being explored.
Well seems as though we have a case where where its unexplainable outside of creation.
No, there is no case where a vague, opaque, unfalsifiable conjecture is acceptable scientifically. In order to make creation a valid scientific conjecture it would have to exhibit the qualities we can see in the conjecture about cyanobacteria, that is: it must be specific, detail the mechanisms, demonstrate that they're feasible given existing data, and show in principle at least how the conjecture could be falsified.
Well look we already know from the data in that paper that cyanobacteria is not responsible for providing an explanation as I quoted.
'We' know with what authority?
Its in their own words...they are just being honest about it.

The difference between a conjecture and an hypothesis is that a conjecture is a sketch for how things might have occurred, but the specific details are still subject to variable input assumptions, while an hypothesis is an 'if... then...' statement testable and falsifiable by observation. A conjecture becomes a set of hypotheses by exploring possible scenarios, eliminating the unlikely ones, and fleshing out the specific details of the likely ones, and testing tolerances in support of quantified hypothecation later on. Since there are typically many different input assumptions, a single scenario doesn't normally eliminate a conjecture. Usually you have to explore multiple plausible scenarios to do so, and that's often done in dialogue with interested peers long before research moves toward experiment or systematic observation.
Its no different than if someone comes up with a potential explaination and figure out the feasability of it. Then you move forward with how to show the idea is workable ect.

That process is under way. The cyanobacteria conjecture will either produce a range of testable hypotheses, each tied to a different plausible scenario with its own specific range of tolerances, or be abandoned for other conjectures.
Well yea something being a conjecture means essentially nothing in terms of its bearing on the subject. They did test it though and as they pointed out, cyanobacteria were around for possibly a billion years without producing any significant oxygen levels. According to their own data that is.

With what competence are you pre-empting the outcome of that process, B? Why are you unable to wait until the process completes?
I suppose for me and most people, there are about a hundred or maybe thousand different conjectures you could come up with to explaim everything each with unique variable pasibilities. Im just going off of what the authors wrote in the paper which was interesting and the out come was a fair one.

I think only just now are we seeing creation in the lab and how it's done like when I cited the paper on creating synthetic bacteria.
While I didn't see that citation, like you, I believe humans capable of engineering prokaryotes, given time and the current progress in microbiological technologies. Additionally, the extended idea that life can be engineered passively from prebiological molecules without interactive intervention is a viable scientific conjecture, and is being pursued. However the idea that life on Earth was engineered is not in itself a viable scientific conjecture, in that it doesn't offer to solve any problem we presently have, ignores what else we already know, and introduces new problems no proponent has any intention of solving.
It really depends on just how objective one wants to be. Sometimes a new Idea does require starting all over and throwing away up to hundreds of years of conclusions. I certainly couldnt say theres anything that compelling to dismiss current research on other explainations outside of creation because they provid marvelous insight where creationist have failed to generate. I think it takes an element though from any man be him a scientist or not to admit any explaination for how the past got us to the present isnt 100% concrete. Sometimes history is rewritten in a day. Creation really just seeks to solve the following. How did we get here? What process was used? E.g if God created the world well what process did he use? Can you form a being out of the contents of the earth? What happened to the dinosaurs? I think the list really goes om and on. Most of the time it just seems like everyone is talking about the same thing except one group is interjecting evolution into their theorys and another God into their theorys.
Heres that article btw. It was in science daily last week.
http://www.forbes.com...

Find an ancient laboratory in primordial rock, and that would offer a problem potentially solved by the conjecture of ancient microbiological engineering. But absent such a lab, what problem is being solved, and solved how, revealing what mechanisms?
Ay if there were grounds for such a thing, lets be on the lookout! But I do get the point.

The people who want to conjecture creation (mostly nonscientists, but a few cynical scientists too) don't want to do that, so they automatically invalidate themselves from scientific discussion, and have to lurk at the fringes instead, posting to pseudoscientific blogs to avoid peer review, and (among the nonscientists) chucking rhetorical rocks at empirical epistemology.
I find that an interesting point because big bang theory is a creation theory for example.
I think you're straining the definition of 'creation' to introduce a loaded association. Many astrophysicists say 'inception', which carries no such association.
Couldnt you agree thats just semantics?

Also all the science we have done to this point shows for example for plants to exist you NEED all the items I mentioned above.
Now we can all argue the order it was all done in however inevitably can't be gradually pieced together because it does not work.
I don't think that's for you to say, B, unless you are a paleomicrobiologist with a peer-reviewed research publication explaining why you believe it.
I didnt choose to discuss plants on accident my friend. Im no one significant, but its a huge passion of mine. I could though if it would satisfy you, go through and cite the leading botonist from around the world outlining the requirements for plant lifes existence, requirements ect. I dont know what the current models propose for the first speci
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 3:40:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

So why couldn't plants have evolved after there was an atmosphere, oxygen, and CO2? I don't see that the big problem is.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 2:13:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 3:40:54 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

So why couldn't plants have evolved after there was an atmosphere, oxygen, and CO2? I don't see that the big problem is.
It would take more than that. You also need the macro and micronutrients they require to make the sugars it feeds on through photosynthesis. Where are these nutrients comming from?
Sure one could argue such a thing, but where is this CO2 and oxygen comming from?
Another point here is where did seed ability come from? The first plant would have to be able to make seeds...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 2:56:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 2:13:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:40:54 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

So why couldn't plants have evolved after there was an atmosphere, oxygen, and CO2? I don't see that the big problem is.
It would take more than that. You also need the macro and micronutrients they require to make the sugars it feeds on through photosynthesis. Where are these nutrients comming from?

I am going to quote wikipedia on this one:
"the primary macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) the three secondary macronutrients: calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg) the micronutrients/trace minerals: boron (B), chlorine (Cl), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni)"

We know that earth has these elements everywhere. These elements are created in stars.

Sure one could argue such a thing, but where is this CO2 and oxygen comming from?
Another point here is where did seed ability come from? The first plant would have to be able to make seeds...

Oxygen and carbon naturally bond. In fact they do it so well it can be hard to pull them apart. Carbon and oxygen are created by stars and are everywhere in the solar system.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 3:24:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 2:56:11 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:13:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:40:54 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

So why couldn't plants have evolved after there was an atmosphere, oxygen, and CO2? I don't see that the big problem is.
It would take more than that. You also need the macro and micronutrients they require to make the sugars it feeds on through photosynthesis. Where are these nutrients comming from?

I am going to quote wikipedia on this one:
"the primary macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) the three secondary macronutrients: calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg) the micronutrients/trace minerals: boron (B), chlorine (Cl), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni)"

We know that earth has these elements everywhere. These elements are created in stars.
What would creating them in stars have anything to do with them getting to the earth, working their way into the dirt (how did this soil get here even) and being in a form easily absorbable to the first plants.

Sure one could argue such a thing, but where is this CO2 and oxygen comming from?
Another point here is where did seed ability come from? The first plant would have to be able to make seeds...

Oxygen and carbon naturally bond. In fact they do it so well it can be hard to pull them apart. Carbon and oxygen are created by stars and are everywhere in the solar system.
Thats fine but your not even answering how the CO2 got here stayed here so it could be absorbed by a plant for use.
Also the first plant needs to make seeds...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 5:11:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 3:24:14 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:56:11 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:13:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:40:54 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

So why couldn't plants have evolved after there was an atmosphere, oxygen, and CO2? I don't see that the big problem is.
It would take more than that. You also need the macro and micronutrients they require to make the sugars it feeds on through photosynthesis. Where are these nutrients comming from?

I am going to quote wikipedia on this one:
"the primary macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) the three secondary macronutrients: calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg) the micronutrients/trace minerals: boron (B), chlorine (Cl), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni)"

We know that earth has these elements everywhere. These elements are created in stars.
What would creating them in stars have anything to do with them getting to the earth, working their way into the dirt (how did this soil get here even) and being in a form easily absorbable to the first plants.

Because stars go supernova and spew out these elements. The earth is made out of these elements. Soil is created from rocks.

Sure one could argue such a thing, but where is this CO2 and oxygen comming from?
Another point here is where did seed ability come from? The first plant would have to be able to make seeds...

Oxygen and carbon naturally bond. In fact they do it so well it can be hard to pull them apart. Carbon and oxygen are created by stars and are everywhere in the solar system.
Thats fine but your not even answering how the CO2 got here stayed here so it could be absorbed by a plant for use.
Also the first plant needs to make seeds...

It formed from oxygen and carbon, and both of these elements are very common on earth, the solar system, and the universe in general.

Its stayed here because CO2 does not break apart easily and earth's gravity holds these elements here.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:15:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 5:11:49 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:24:14 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:56:11 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:13:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:40:54 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

So why couldn't plants have evolved after there was an atmosphere, oxygen, and CO2? I don't see that the big problem is.
It would take more than that. You also need the macro and micronutrients they require to make the sugars it feeds on through photosynthesis. Where are these nutrients comming from?

I am going to quote wikipedia on this one:
"the primary macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) the three secondary macronutrients: calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg) the micronutrients/trace minerals: boron (B), chlorine (Cl), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni)"

We know that earth has these elements everywhere. These elements are created in stars.
What would creating them in stars have anything to do with them getting to the earth, working their way into the dirt (how did this soil get here even) and being in a form easily absorbable to the first plants.

Because stars go supernova and spew out these elements. The earth is made out of these elements. Soil is created from rocks.
No doubt and the decay of other elements around the soil...so when a star goes supernova it spews out that entire list of micro and macro nitrients? I would love to see a link about that! All this would show is that the neccesary elements were around somewhere to get the earth and solar system the way they are. But that doesnt give you grounds to just up and say it all just started swiriling together "on accident" of course and formed into a habitable rock where life popped out of nowhere, maybe from the twilight zone, who knows?

Sure one could argue such a thing, but where is this CO2 and oxygen comming from?
Another point here is where did seed ability come from? The first plant would have to be able to make seeds...

Oxygen and carbon naturally bond. In fact they do it so well it can be hard to pull them apart. Carbon and oxygen are created by stars and are everywhere in the solar system.
Thats fine but your not even answering how the CO2 got here stayed here so it could be absorbed by a plant for use.
Also the first plant needs to make seeds...

It formed from oxygen and carbon, and both of these elements are very common on earth, the solar system, and the universe in general.
Yes but your not showing why CO2 would just build up here in such a way plants could spring up and it would just hang around here waiting for the plants...do you think you could plant a seed on mars as it is and expect it to grow?

Its stayed here because CO2 does not break apart easily and earth's gravity holds these elements here. Not true. It will be absorbed by the rock and ground below. Then theres this whole matter of oxygen you havent gotten around yet either.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 4:24:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:15:28 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 5:11:49 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:24:14 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:56:11 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:13:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:40:54 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

So why couldn't plants have evolved after there was an atmosphere, oxygen, and CO2? I don't see that the big problem is.
It would take more than that. You also need the macro and micronutrients they require to make the sugars it feeds on through photosynthesis. Where are these nutrients comming from?

I am going to quote wikipedia on this one:
"the primary macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) the three secondary macronutrients: calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg) the micronutrients/trace minerals: boron (B), chlorine (Cl), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni)"

We know that earth has these elements everywhere. These elements are created in stars.
What would creating them in stars have anything to do with them getting to the earth, working their way into the dirt (how did this soil get here even) and being in a form easily absorbable to the first plants.

Because stars go supernova and spew out these elements. The earth is made out of these elements. Soil is created from rocks.
No doubt and the decay of other elements around the soil...so when a star goes supernova it spews out that entire list of micro and macro nitrients? I would love to see a link about that! All this would show is that the neccesary elements were around somewhere to get the earth and solar system the way they are.

This should be a very easy claim to believe. We already know that stars fuse atoms together to make higher atoms. We also know that when a star goes super-nova it spews all its innards into space. Not very controversial.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...

But that doesnt give you grounds to just up and say it all just started swiriling together "on accident" of course and formed into a habitable rock where life popped out of nowhere, maybe from the twilight zone, who knows?

Its all about gravity. Matter by nature pulls other matter toward it even if the pull is very slight. So if there was just a whole bunch of gas in space enough to make a star, over a very long time it will start moving closer together until it became a smaller more concentrated ball. Eventually it would be so concentrated that the enormous mass would pull it into a star. We can actually see stars forming in nebula.

Sure one could argue such a thing, but where is this CO2 and oxygen comming from?
Another point here is where did seed ability come from? The first plant would have to be able to make seeds...

Oxygen and carbon naturally bond. In fact they do it so well it can be hard to pull them apart. Carbon and oxygen are created by stars and are everywhere in the solar system.
Thats fine but your not even answering how the CO2 got here stayed here so it could be absorbed by a plant for use.
Also the first plant needs to make seeds...

It formed from oxygen and carbon, and both of these elements are very common on earth, the solar system, and the universe in general.
Yes but your not showing why CO2 would just build up here in such a way plants could spring up and it would just hang around here waiting for the plants...do you think you could plant a seed on mars as it is and expect it to grow?

it would hang here waiting for plants. You would need life to evolve to the point that plants would eventually use the CO2.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 9:05:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 4:24:52 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:15:28 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 5:11:49 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:24:14 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:56:11 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/1/2016 2:13:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/1/2016 3:40:54 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:40:52 PM, bigotry wrote:
Im curious how its proposed the conditions for plant life were met. All plants some form of light, CO2, micro and macro nutrients oxygen and access to water. Photosynthesis for example requires all of these to take place. In a world without CO2 how did plant life begin? Obviously you need the plant life first or else you cant get oxygen to support further life development. Yet plants also need oxygen in the root zone to live as well.
It would also require an atmosphere thats already here as the sun would scorth and kill anything trying to sprout. The list of problems really goes on and on. How can evolution be the origin of plant life when taking something like inhabiting mars involves creating everything at once?

So why couldn't plants have evolved after there was an atmosphere, oxygen, and CO2? I don't see that the big problem is.
It would take more than that. You also need the macro and micronutrients they require to make the sugars it feeds on through photosynthesis. Where are these nutrients comming from?

I am going to quote wikipedia on this one:
"the primary macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) the three secondary macronutrients: calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg) the micronutrients/trace minerals: boron (B), chlorine (Cl), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni)"

We know that earth has these elements everywhere. These elements are created in stars.
What would creating them in stars have anything to do with them getting to the earth, working their way into the dirt (how did this soil get here even) and being in a form easily absorbable to the first plants.

Because stars go supernova and spew out these elements. The earth is made out of these elements. Soil is created from rocks.
No doubt and the decay of other elements around the soil...so when a star goes supernova it spews out that entire list of micro and macro nitrients? I would love to see a link about that! All this would show is that the neccesary elements were around somewhere to get the earth and solar system the way they are.

This should be a very easy claim to believe. We already know that stars fuse atoms together to make higher atoms. We also know that when a star goes super-nova it spews all its innards into space. Not very controversial.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Yes but as this article explained it would have to be from something with 10 times the mass of the sun...
If this was the source why doesnt mars or the moon or any other planet in the solar system have all the same traits in their rocks? Wheres the plant soil on mars? Lol its just perposterous to honestly believe some cosmic explosion released the neccesary micro and macro nutrient blends in a form and dosage just right for the first plants to form.

But that doesnt give you grounds to just up and say it all just started swiriling together "on accident" of course and formed into a habitable rock where life popped out of nowhere, maybe from the twilight zone, who knows?

Its all about gravity. Matter by nature pulls other matter toward it even if the pull is very slight. So if there was just a whole bunch of gas in space enough to make a star, over a very long time it will start moving closer together until it became a smaller more concentrated ball. Eventually it would be so concentrated that the enormous mass would pull it into a star. We can actually see stars forming in nebula.
Sure but your just literally guessing as to how it all occurs its more complex than a ball of smoke.
These are just the troubles you have with getting the materials here, let alone the materials being appropriated how they need to be for anything to access and use them.

Sure one could argue such a thing, but where is this CO2 and oxygen comming from?
Another point here is where did seed ability come from? The first plant would have to be able to make seeds...

Oxygen and carbon naturally bond. In fact they do it so well it can be hard to pull them apart. Carbon and oxygen are created by stars and are everywhere in the solar system.
Thats fine but your not even answering how the CO2 got here stayed here so it could be absorbed by a plant for use.
Also the first plant needs to make seeds...

It formed from oxygen and carbon, and both of these elements are very common on earth, the solar system, and the universe in general.
Yes but your not showing why CO2 would just build up here in such a way plants could spring up and it would just hang around here waiting for the plants...do you think you could plant a seed on mars as it is and expect it to grow?

it would hang here waiting for plants. You would need life to evolve to the point that plants would eventually use the CO2.

Again, it wouldnt just hang around...did you know we are emitting co2 into space? This over a small period of time and we are activley making the stuff! Its nonsense to actually think that it would stay on the earth and if it did wouldnt be absorbed into the earth anyway...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2016 12:51:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 9:05:16 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:24:52 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:15:28 PM, bigotry wrote:
No doubt and the decay of other elements around the soil...so when a star goes supernova it spews out that entire list of micro and macro nitrients? I would love to see a link about that! All this would show is that the neccesary elements were around somewhere to get the earth and solar system the way they are.

This should be a very easy claim to believe. We already know that stars fuse atoms together to make higher atoms. We also know that when a star goes super-nova it spews all its innards into space. Not very controversial.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Yes but as this article explained it would have to be from something with 10 times the mass of the sun...

I didn't see that in my article. Could you fill me in?

If this was the source why doesnt mars or the moon or any other planet in the solar system have all the same traits in their rocks?

There are a lot of conditions that affect how a planet turn out. Its size and distance has a strong impact on how it turns out. Also the larger elements are going to be closer to the core so when the star dies and its remnants are used to create a new star you are going to find rocky planets closer to the star and large gaseous further out. And that is exactly what we see. Just one example of the predictive power of these theories. In the real world you rarely find uniformity because there are just so many conditions that produce variation so I don't know why you expect it.

Wheres the plant soil on mars?

Plant soil requires liquid water and an atmosphere which Mars doesn't has. There is strong evidence Mars did have these things once and so may have had planet soil and maybe even life.

Lol its just perposterous to honestly believe some cosmic explosion released the neccesary micro and macro nutrient blends in a form and dosage just right for the first plants to form.

Plants can survive in a large variety of conditions so you will need to prove to see that the nutrients have to be in an exact blends for any planet to survive.

But that doesnt give you grounds to just up and say it all just started swiriling together "on accident" of course and formed into a habitable rock where life popped out of nowhere, maybe from the twilight zone, who knows?

Its all about gravity. Matter by nature pulls other matter toward it even if the pull is very slight. So if there was just a whole bunch of gas in space enough to make a star, over a very long time it will start moving closer together until it became a smaller more concentrated ball. Eventually it would be so concentrated that the enormous mass would pull it into a star. We can actually see stars forming in nebula.
Sure but your just literally guessing as to how it all occurs its more complex than a ball of smoke.

No, if you establish that the big bang happens then according to physics the gas is going to do this because of gravity. This theory has a lot of evidence. We can even see stars in different stages of formation in Nebula just like the theory predicts.

Yes but your not showing why CO2 would just build up here in such a way plants could spring up and it would just hang around here waiting for the plants...do you think you could plant a seed on mars as it is and expect it to grow?

it would hang here waiting for plants. You would need life to evolve to the point that plants would eventually use the CO2.

Again, it wouldnt just hang around...did you know we are emitting co2 into space?

You are ignoring the fact that CO2 is naturally created for example in fires and volcanic activity. You also have to show that CO2 would run out after 4 billion years at the rate it is escaping to space.

This over a small period of time and we are activley making the stuff! Its nonsense to actually think that it would stay on the earth and if it did wouldnt be absorbed into the earth anyway...

CO2 needs to be in their air for plants to use. Plants transfer CO2 to the ground after use.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 2:42:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/5/2016 12:51:50 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/2/2016 9:05:16 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 4/2/2016 4:24:52 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:15:28 PM, bigotry wrote:
No doubt and the decay of other elements around the soil...so when a star goes supernova it spews out that entire list of micro and macro nitrients? I would love to see a link about that! All this would show is that the neccesary elements were around somewhere to get the earth and solar system the way they are.

This should be a very easy claim to believe. We already know that stars fuse atoms together to make higher atoms. We also know that when a star goes super-nova it spews all its innards into space. Not very controversial.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Yes but as this article explained it would have to be from something with 10 times the mass of the sun...

I didn't see that in my article. Could you fill me in?
"Most of the heavy elements, are thought to be produced in stars that contain at least ten times as much matter as our Sun."
At LEAST


If this was the source why doesnt mars or the moon or any other planet in the solar system have all the same traits in their rocks?

There are a lot of conditions that affect how a planet turn out. Its size and distance has a strong impact on how it turns out. Also the larger elements are going to be closer to the core
Why are you stating this so casually as though it were fact? One could easily argue the smaller elements would be found closer to the core because they would slip through existing material easier.
so when the star dies and its remnants are used to create a new star you are going to find rocky planets closer to the star and large gaseous further out. And that is exactly what we see. Just one example of the predictive power of these theories. In the real world you rarely find uniformity because there are just so many conditions that produce variation so I don't know why you expect it.

Again everything you just listed are unproven assumption. You are positing this magical ability for a supernova to explode and start organizing materials in such a way that they make planets and other stars ect. Absolutely none of these statements have anything in the world to do with how our solar system and particuarly earths atmosphere and gaseous and solid contents formed to allow plant life a habitat it wouldnt spring from the ground and die from.

Wheres the plant soil on mars?

Plant soil requires liquid water and an atmosphere which Mars doesn't has.
You mean DOES have...
There is strong evidence Mars did have these things once and so may have had planet soil and maybe even life.
Absolutely but again why are there not detectable oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on mars if the gasses just attract their way to the planets created by this theoretic cosmic explosion? Why is earth somehow special?

Lol its just perposterous to honestly believe some cosmic explosion released the neccesary micro and macro nutrient blends in a form and dosage just right for the first plants to form.

Plants can survive in a large variety of conditions so you will need to prove to see that the nutrients have to be in an exact blends for any planet to survive.
Well let me ask you a basic question, where do you think Nitrogen (the most important element for above plant growth) comes from? Ill give you a little more insight here, elements like P for example are needed by all plants to at least some degree. Now if youv ever grown anything you would be aware that your element concoction below mixes and matches to make soils acidic or alkaline. P is an element which when it gets too alkaline forms with Ca taking away Ca from the plants supply and thus eventually leading to the death and deformity of said plant. Reading and familiarizing yourself with ANY botanical/chemisty information will let you know just what a balance all plants depend on. It is NOT the case any plant can be raised without any exposure to N P or K. Its not going to happen and at that even unless the ph is correct all the elements can be there and still get 0 growth! This random formation idea is not consistent with reality.

But that doesnt give you grounds to just up and say it all just started swiriling together "on accident" of course and formed into a habitable rock where life popped out of nowhere, maybe from the twilight zone, who knows?

Its all about gravity. Matter by nature pulls other matter toward it even if the pull is very slight. So if there was just a whole bunch of gas in space enough to make a star, over a very long time it will start moving closer together until it became a smaller more concentrated ball.
No this cant be true because why do we have 9 planets 1 sun? Why not 1 sun? Or maybe and ill give you this much 1 sun and 1 planet? Why moons? Im extrememly interested in this proven model that gravity itself will become a force out of nowhere and start shaping our solar system!
Eventually it would be so concentrated that the enormous mass would pull it into a star. We can actually see stars forming in nebula.
Sure but your just literally guessing as to how it all occurs its more complex than a ball of smoke.

No, if you establish that the big bang happens then according to physics the gas is going to do this because of gravity. This theory has a lot of evidence. We can even see stars in different stages of formation in Nebula just like the theory predicts.
That isnt predicting anything, thats taking something observeable and mashing the puzzle pieces together so your theory matches up to what you want the explaination to be. Theres absolutely no evidence everything in the cosmos had to form over billions pf years or slowly at all.

Yes but your not showing why CO2 would just build up here in such a way plants could spring up and it would just hang around here waiting for the plants...do you think you could plant a seed on mars as it is and expect it to grow?

it would hang here waiting for plants. You would need life to evolve to the point that plants would eventually use the CO2.

Again, it wouldnt just hang around...did you know we are emitting co2 into space?

You are ignoring the fact that CO2 is naturally created for example in fires and volcanic activity. You also have to show that CO2 would run out after 4 billion years at the rate it is escaping to space.
I know what the current "concensus" is and its that volcanoes brought up oxygen, not co2...
Your also assuming that somehow volcanic activity is enough to make enough breathable CO2 for plants. Again we can right now today observe and see co2 being emitted from us into space. Why would it be different if the cause was volcanoes?
These are observed principals not some kind of guess work.

This over a small period of time and we are activley making the stuff! Its nonsense to actually think that it would stay on the earth and if it did wouldnt be absorbed into the earth anyway...

CO2 needs to be in their air for plants to use. Plants transfer CO2 to the ground after use.
No they dont...if that was the case their roots would starve! But it is true that CO2 is heavier than O2. We see oxygen being absorbed into the earth so we knoe CO2 would also be absorbed by the earth. This is why you cant have some
Slow cumulative buildup. Youll simply never ever get to a working plant trying to piece things over a long period of time. Irregardless of how long everything has been here it had to form suddenly. All the known facts and observeable nature point to that. It just does.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2016 7:02:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 2:42:44 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Most of the heavy elements, are thought to be produced in stars that contain at least ten times as much matter as our Sun."
At LEAST

I see where the confusion is. It says that most of the elements are created by these stars not that being 10 times bigger is a requirement. You know that there are trillions of these stars in the universe. It is not that unlikely.

Why are you stating this so casually as though it were fact? One could easily argue the smaller elements would be found closer to the core because they would slip through existing material easier.

If the smaller elements started out at the outside and they slit through the existing material when the explosion happens easier then wouldn't that just push them farther outward? Your own statement proves scientists' reasoning.

Again everything you just listed are unproven assumption. You are positing this magical ability for a supernova to explode

We know that supernova explode. We see it in space. We have known they do for a very very long time.

and start organizing materials in such a way that they make planets and other stars ect.

Just like with supernova we have seen stars in the process of formation in nebula and stars with disks of material around them in different stages of forming planets. This formation does not happen magically but happens because of simple gravity. Everything is ultimately pulling itself together. Even this galaxy will one day merge with the Andromeda galaxy. The black hole at the center of this galaxy is slowly sucking stars into it.

Absolutely none of these statements have anything in the world to do with how our solar system

Planetary formation is central to the formation of the solar system.

and particuarly earths atmosphere and gaseous and solid contents formed to allow plant life a habitat it wouldnt spring from the ground and die from.

Atmospheres form because the earths gravity can attract gas from space. In the early solar system there was still a lot of gasses floating around and so this could have been done easily. Also the early earth would have been pounded with asteroids from the early solar system which have gasses in them. Also the early earth would have had a lot of volcanic activity which releases many gasses.

You mean DOES have...

Mars does not have very much liquid water. Without an atmosphere there will be no liquid water.

Absolutely but again why are there not detectable oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on mars if the gasses just attract their way to the planets created by this theoretic cosmic explosion? Why is earth somehow special?

Evidence suggests that since Mars had liquid water that it once did have an atmophere and a magnetic field. Yet a long time ago it lost its magnetic field and without this field the Sun's solar activity would have stripped it away. Mars is smaller than earth and something may have happened that shut it down in the early solar system. Scientists are still looking into that.

Well let me ask you a basic question, where do you think Nitrogen (the most important element for above plant growth) comes from? Ill give you a little more insight here, elements like P for example are needed by all plants to at least some degree. Now if youv ever grown anything you would be aware that your element concoction below mixes and matches to make soils acidic or alkaline. P is an element which when it gets too alkaline forms with Ca taking away Ca from the plants supply and thus eventually leading to the death and deformity of said plant. Reading and familiarizing yourself with ANY botanical/chemisty information will let you know just what a balance all plants depend on. It is NOT the case any plant can be raised without any exposure to N P or K. Its not going to happen and at that even unless the ph is correct all the elements can be there and still get 0 growth! This random formation idea is not consistent with reality.

I would think it forms in stars like everything else.

No this cant be true because why do we have 9 planets 1 sun? Why not 1 sun? Or maybe and ill give you this much 1 sun and 1 planet?

Actually 8 planets. Pluto is not a planet. There is nothing special about nine planets. We have found hundreds of other stars with planets and they have varying numbers of them.

Why moons? Im extrememly interested in this proven model that gravity itself will become a force out of nowhere and start shaping our solar system!

We don't even really know what gravity is. We know what it does and how it works. So we definitely can't explain where it came from. But just because something is unexplained does not mean that mythology must explain it.

That isnt predicting anything, thats taking something observeable and mashing the puzzle pieces together so your theory matches up to what you want the explaination to be.

Ill give you that.

Theres absolutely no evidence everything in the cosmos had to form over billions pf years or slowly at all.

But there is strong evidence that they did. That evidence starts with dating the universe to be 14.5 billion years old and the big bang. Once these are accepted planetary formation and stellar formation make far more sense.

I know what the current "concensus" is and its that volcanoes brought up oxygen, not co2...

No, we have observational evidence that volcanoes bring up hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 every year.

Your also assuming that somehow volcanic activity is enough to make enough breathable CO2 for plants. Again we can right now today observe and see co2 being emitted from us into space. Why would it be different if the cause was volcanoes?
These are observed principals not some kind of guess work.

Volcanoes bring up a lot of CO2 and you have yet to prove that the CO2 going into space is significant. In the early earth there would have been far more volcanic activity since it was just forming. CO2 forms very easily and there is no surprise that we see it everywhere even on other planets.

No they dont...if that was the case their roots would starve! But it is true that CO2 is heavier than O2. We see oxygen being absorbed into the earth so we knoe CO2 would also be absorbed by the earth. This is why you cant have some

Yes, some CO2 would get into the soil. Also the nutrition from the leaves can feed the roots.

Slow cumulative buildup. Youll simply never ever get to a working plant trying to piece things over a long period of time. Irregardless of how long everything has been here it had to form suddenly. All the known facts and observeable nature point to that. It just

We know that natural selection and mutations has produced an immense amount of complexity from genetic, fossil, and observational evidence. You simply have no basis for saying that can't.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 5:24:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 7:02:12 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/6/2016 2:42:44 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Most of the heavy elements, are thought to be produced in stars that contain at least ten times as much matter as our Sun."
At LEAST

I see where the confusion is. It says that most of the elements are created by these stars not that being 10 times bigger is a requirement. You know that there are trillions of these stars in the universe. It is not that unlikely.
Well first off, its saying that its thought these heavy elements are made in this way. Just in the same way its not known what exactly and in what portions of items are released from a star. But it just goes to show the inconsistency with the reality all these elements are here.

Why are you stating this so casually as though it were fact? One could easily argue the smaller elements would be found closer to the core because they would slip through existing material easier.

If the smaller elements started out at the outside and they slit through the existing material when the explosion happens easier then wouldn't that just push them farther outward? Your own statement proves scientists' reasoning.

Well if you know anything about chemisty (I only know enough to get by) you would know thats going to depend on the various charges at play, not gravity. Im not following this "explosion" idea you mentioned here.
Again everything you just listed are unproven assumption. You are positing this magical ability for a supernova to explode

We know that supernova explode. We see it in space. We have known they do for a very very long time.

You should have kept my quote together, the point is below which states the following
"and start organizing materials in such a way that they make planets and other stars Ect."

Just like with supernova we have seen stars in the process of formation in nebula and stars with disks of material around them in different stages of forming planets. This formation does not happen magically but happens because of simple gravity. Everything is ultimately pulling itself together. Even this galaxy will one day merge with the Andromeda galaxy. The black hole at the center of this galaxy is slowly sucking stars into it.
Heres the thing, we are watching this phenomena from here...and if we are referring to say something like the voyager missions voyager 1 finally got out of our own solar system in 2012...we dont know anything as to if planets are forming or what specific materials are in that area and how the materials are being put together.
(Ran out of space)

Absolutely none of these statements have anything in the world to do with how our solar system

Planetary formation is central to the formation of the solar system.

and particuarly earths atmosphere and gaseous and solid contents formed to allow plant life a habitat it wouldnt spring from the ground and die from.

Atmospheres form because the earths gravity can attract gas from space. In the early solar system there was still a lot of gasses floating around and so this could have been done easily. Also the early earth would have been pounded with asteroids from the early solar system which have gasses in them. Also the early earth would have had a lot of volcanic activity which releases many gasses.

You mean DOES have...

Mars does not have very much liquid water. Without an atmosphere there will be no liquid water.

Absolutely but again why are there not detectable oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on mars if the gasses just attract their way to the planets created by this theoretic cosmic explosion? Why is earth somehow special?

Evidence suggests that since Mars had liquid water that it once did have an atmophere and a magnetic field. Yet a long time ago it lost its magnetic field and without this field the Sun's solar activity would have stripped it away. Mars is smaller than earth and something may have happened that shut it down in the early solar system. Scientists are still looking into that.

Well let me ask you a basic question, where do you think Nitrogen (the most important element for above plant growth) comes from? Ill give you a little more insight here, elements like P for example are needed by all plants to at least some degree. Now if youv ever grown anything you would be aware that your element concoction below mixes and matches to make soils acidic or alkaline. P is an element which when it gets too alkaline forms with Ca taking away Ca from the plants supply and thus eventually leading to the death and deformity of said plant. Reading and familiarizing yourself with ANY botanical/chemisty information will let you know just what a balance all plants depend on. It is NOT the case any plant can be raised without any exposure to N P or K. Its not going to happen and at that even unless the ph is correct all the elements can be there and still get 0 growth! This random formation idea is not consistent with reality.

I would think it forms in stars like everything else.

No this cant be true because why do we have 9 planets 1 sun? Why not 1 sun? Or maybe and ill give you this much 1 sun and 1 planet?

Actually 8 planets. Pluto is not a planet. There is nothing special about nine planets. We have found hundreds of other stars with planets and they have varying numbers of them.

Why moons? Im extrememly interested in this proven model that gravity itself will become a force out of nowhere and start shaping our solar system!

We don't even really know what gravity is. We know what it does and how it works. So we definitely can't explain where it came from. But just because something is unexplained does not mean that mythology must explain it.

That isnt predicting anything, thats taking something observeable and mashing the puzzle pieces together so your theory matches up to what you want the explaination to be.

Ill give you that.

Theres absolutely no evidence everything in the cosmos had to form over billions pf years or slowly at all.

But there is strong evidence that they did. That evidence starts with dating the universe to be 14.5 billion years old and the big bang. Once these are accepted planetary formation and stellar formation make far more sense.

I know what the current "concensus" is and its that volcanoes brought up oxygen, not co2...

No, we have observational evidence that volcanoes bring up hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 every year.

Your also assuming that somehow volcanic activity is enough to make enough breathable CO2 for plants. Again we can right now today observe and see co2 being emitted from us into space. Why would it be different if the cause was volcanoes?
These are observed principals not some kind of guess work.

Volcanoes bring up a lot of CO2 and you have yet to prove that the CO2 going into space is significant. In the early earth there would have been far more volcanic activity since it was just forming. CO2 forms very easily and there is no surprise that we see it everywhere even on other planets.

No they dont...if that was the case their roots would starve! But it is true that CO2 is heavier than O2. We see oxygen being absorbed into the earth so we knoe CO2 would also be absorbed by the earth. This is why you cant have some

Yes, some CO2 would get into the soil. Also the nutrition from the leaves can feed the roots.

Slow cumulative buildup. Youll simply never ever get to a working plant trying to piece things over a long period of time. Irregardless of how long everything has been here it had to form suddenly. All the known facts and observeable nature point to that. It just

We know that natural selection and mutations has produced an immense amount of complexity from genetic, fossil, and observational evidence. You sim
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 5:33:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 7:02:12 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/6/2016 2:42:44 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Most of the heavy elements, are thought to be produced in stars that contain at least ten times as much matter as our Sun."
At LEAST

I see where the confusion is. It says that most of the elements are created by these stars not that being 10 times bigger is a requirement. You know that there are trillions of these stars in the universe. It is not that unlikely.

Why are you stating this so casually as though it were fact? One could easily argue the smaller elements would be found closer to the core because they would slip through existing material easier.

If the smaller elements started out at the outside and they slit through the existing material when the explosion happens easier then wouldn't that just push them farther outward? Your own statement proves scientists' reasoning.

Again everything you just listed are unproven assumption. You are positing this magical ability for a supernova to explode

We know that supernova explode. We see it in space. We have known they do for a very very long time.

and start organizing materials in such a way that they make planets and other stars ect.

Just like with supernova we have seen stars in the process of formation in nebula and stars with disks of material around them in different stages of forming planets. This formation does not happen magically but happens because of simple gravity. Everything is ultimately pulling itself together. Even this galaxy will one day merge with the Andromeda galaxy. The black hole at the center of this galaxy is slowly sucking stars into it.
Furthermore we dont know how long these objects have been in the state we see them in now or have any idea what state everything is in right now. We dont even know that planets are even forming as a result of an explosion or if they are forming at all. Its all speculative.

Absolutely none of these statements have anything in the world to do with how our solar system

Planetary formation is central to the formation of the solar system.
Again if you would just finish the quote...

and particuarly earths atmosphere and gaseous and solid contents formed to allow plant life a habitat it wouldnt spring from the ground and die from.

Atmospheres form because the earths gravity can attract gas from space. In the early solar system there was still a lot of gasses floating around and so this could have been done easily. Also the early earth would have been pounded with asteroids from the early solar system which have gasses in them. Also the early earth would have had a lot of volcanic activity which releases many gasses.
Ill give you a chance here. How much CO2 and O2 does the earth attract each year FROM space? Why should any of the gas only go to earth? Why not mars?
Is it honestly your position that random metor strikes provide enough co2 in the right areas for plants to utilize? Not sure where your getting this idea that volcanic activity is enough to supply CO2 to the correct areas of the planet where plants need it...havent bothered to address the O2 in the soil problem yet.

You mean DOES have...

Mars does not have very much liquid water. Without an atmosphere there will be no liquid water.

Absolutely but again why are there not detectable oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on mars if the gasses just attract their way to the planets created by this theoretic cosmic explosion? Why is earth somehow special?

Evidence suggests that since Mars had liquid water that it once did have an atmophere and a magnetic field. Yet a long time ago it lost its magnetic field and without this field the Sun's solar activity would have stripped it away. Mars is smaller than earth and something may have happened that shut it down in the early solar system. Scientists are still looking into that.

Well let me ask you a basic question, where do you think Nitrogen (the most important element for above plant growth) comes from? Ill give you a little more insight here, elements like P for example are needed by all plants to at least some degree. Now if youv ever grown anything you would be aware that your element concoction below mixes and matches to make soils acidic or alkaline. P is an element which when it gets too alkaline forms with Ca taking away Ca from the plants supply and thus eventually leading to the death and deformity of said plant. Reading and familiarizing yourself with ANY botanical/chemisty information will let you know just what a balance all plants depend on. It is NOT the case any plant can be raised without any exposure to N P or K. Its not going to happen and at that even unless the ph is correct all the elements can be there and still get 0 growth! This random formation idea is not consistent with reality.

I would think it forms in stars like everything else.

No this cant be true because why do we have 9 planets 1 sun? Why not 1 sun? Or maybe and ill give you this much 1 sun and 1 planet?

Actually 8 planets. Pluto is not a planet. There is nothing special about nine planets. We have found hundreds of other stars with planets and they have varying numbers of them.

Why moons? Im extrememly interested in this proven model that gravity itself will become a force out of nowhere and start shaping our solar system!

We don't even really know what gravity is. We know what it does and how it works. So we definitely can't explain where it came from. But just because something is unexplained does not mean that mythology must explain it.

That isnt predicting anything, thats taking something observeable and mashing the puzzle pieces together so your theory matches up to what you want the explaination to be.

Ill give you that.

Theres absolutely no evidence everything in the cosmos had to form over billions pf years or slowly at all.

But there is strong evidence that they did. That evidence starts with dating the universe to be 14.5 billion years old and the big bang. Once these are accepted planetary formation and stellar formation make far more sense.

I know what the current "concensus" is and its that volcanoes brought up oxygen, not co2...

No, we have observational evidence that volcanoes bring up hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 every year.

Your also assuming that somehow volcanic activity is enough to make enough breathable CO2 for plants. Again we can right now today observe and see co2 being emitted from us into space. Why would it be different if the cause was volcanoes?
These are observed principals not some kind of guess work.

Volcanoes bring up a lot of CO2 and you have yet to prove that the CO2 going into space is significant. In the early earth there would have been far more volcanic activity since it was just forming. CO2 forms very easily and there is no surprise that we see it everywhere even on other planets.

No they dont...if that was the case their roots would starve! But it is true that CO2 is heavier than O2. We see oxygen being absorbed into the earth so we knoe CO2 would also be absorbed by the earth. This is why you cant have some

Yes, some CO2 would get into the soil. Also the nutrition from the leaves can feed the roots.

Slow cumulative buildup. Youll simply never ever get to a working plant trying to piece things over a long period of time. Irregardless of how long everything has been here it had to form suddenly. All the known facts and observeable nature point to that. It just

We know that natural selection and mutations has produced an immense amount of complexity from genetic, fossil, and observational evidence. You simply have no basis for saying that can't.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 5:44:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/6/2016 7:02:12 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/6/2016 2:42:44 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Most of the heavy elements, are thought to be produced in stars that contain at least ten times as much matter as our Sun."
At LEAST

I see where the confusion is. It says that most of the elements are created by these stars not that being 10 times bigger is a requirement. You know that there are trillions of these stars in the universe. It is not that unlikely.

Why are you stating this so casually as though it were fact? One could easily argue the smaller elements would be found closer to the core because they would slip through existing material easier.

If the smaller elements started out at the outside and they slit through the existing material when the explosion happens easier then wouldn't that just push them farther outward? Your own statement proves scientists' reasoning.

Again everything you just listed are unproven assumption. You are positing this magical ability for a supernova to explode

We know that supernova explode. We see it in space. We have known they do for a very very long time.

and start organizing materials in such a way that they make planets and other stars ect.

Just like with supernova we have seen stars in the process of formation in nebula and stars with disks of material around them in different stages of forming planets. This formation does not happen magically but happens because of simple gravity. Everything is ultimately pulling itself together. Even this galaxy will one day merge with the Andromeda galaxy. The black hole at the center of this galaxy is slowly sucking stars into it.

Absolutely none of these statements have anything in the world to do with how our solar system

Planetary formation is central to the formation of the solar system.

and particuarly earths atmosphere and gaseous and solid contents formed to allow plant life a habitat it wouldnt spring from the ground and die from.

Atmospheres form because the earths gravity can attract gas from space. In the early solar system there was still a lot of gasses floating around and so this could have been done easily. Also the early earth would have been pounded with asteroids from the early solar system which have gasses in them. Also the early earth would have had a lot of volcanic activity which releases many gasses.

You mean DOES have...

Mars does not have very much liquid water. Without an atmosphere there will be no liquid water.
I dont know why you lean more on things we dont know and ignore the stuff we do. We know there was such a significant amount theres traces of it all over mars...
Why would only earth develop an atmosphere and not mars?

Absolutely but again why are there not detectable oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on mars if the gasses just attract their way to the planets created by this theoretic cosmic explosion? Why is earth somehow special?

Evidence suggests that since Mars had liquid water that it once did have an atmophere and a magnetic field. Yet a long time ago it lost its magnetic field and without this field the Sun's solar activity would have stripped it away. Mars is smaller than earth and something may have happened that shut it down in the early solar system. Scientists are still looking into that.
Of course and they will never have a difinitive answer because its not observeable. What is observeable is the stark contrast between mars and earth.

Well let me ask you a basic question, where do you think Nitrogen (the most important element for above plant growth) comes from? Ill give you a little more insight here, elements like P for example are needed by all plants to at least some degree. Now if youv ever grown anything you would be aware that your element concoction below mixes and matches to make soils acidic or alkaline. P is an element which when it gets too alkaline forms with Ca taking away Ca from the plants supply and thus eventually leading to the death and deformity of said plant. Reading and familiarizing yourself with ANY botanical/chemisty information will let you know just what a balance all plants depend on. It is NOT the case any plant can be raised without any exposure to N P or K. Its not going to happen and at that even unless the ph is correct all the elements can be there and still get 0 growth! This random formation idea is not consistent with reality.

I would think it forms in stars like everything else. So how does it suddenly just become bioavailable in the exact location plants show up? Correct ph, correct forms of said elements for uptake. We know many things that make this possible in the real world but in this fanciful picture of resorting to "well the stars did it" one can see the stark contrast between fiction and reality.

No this cant be true because why do we have 9 planets 1 sun? Why not 1 sun? Or maybe and ill give you this much 1 sun and 1 planet?

Actually 8 planets. Pluto is not a planet. There is nothing special about nine planets. We have found hundreds of other stars with planets and they have varying numbers of them.
I still call pluto a planet, its a 80s baby thing. But right, you said its all thanks to gravity giving form, why or how even would gravity form multiple separate planets around a single star?

Why moons? Im extrememly interested in this proven model that gravity itself will become a force out of nowhere and start shaping our solar system!

We don't even really know what gravity is. We know what it does and how it works. So we definitely can't explain where it came from. But just because something is unexplained does not mean that mythology must explain it.

That isnt predicting anything, thats taking something observeable and mashing the puzzle pieces together so your theory matches up to what you want the explaination to be.

Ill give you that.

Theres absolutely no evidence everything in the cosmos had to form over billions pf years or slowly at all.

But there is strong evidence that they did. That evidence starts with dating the universe to be 14.5 billion years old and the big bang. Once these are accepted planetary formation and stellar formation make far more sense.

I know what the current "concensus" is and its that volcanoes brought up oxygen, not co2...

No, we have observational evidence that volcanoes bring up hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 every year.

Your also assuming that somehow volcanic activity is enough to make enough breathable CO2 for plants. Again we can right now today observe and see co2 being emitted from us into space. Why would it be different if the cause was volcanoes?
These are observed principals not some kind of guess work.

Volcanoes bring up a lot of CO2 and you have yet to prove that the CO2 going into space is significant. In the early earth there would have been far more volcanic activity since it was just forming. CO2 forms very easily and there is no surprise that we see it everywhere even on other planets.

No they dont...if that was the case their roots would starve! But it is true that CO2 is heavier than O2. We see oxygen being absorbed into the earth so we knoe CO2 would also be absorbed by the earth. This is why you cant have some

Yes, some CO2 would get into the soil. Also the nutrition from the leaves can feed the roots.

Slow cumulative buildup. Youll simply never ever get to a working plant trying to piece things over a long period of time. Irregardless of how long everything has been here it had to form suddenly. All the known facts and observeable nature point to that. It just

We know that natural selection and mutations has produced an immense amount of complexity from genetic, fossil, and observational evidence. You simply have no basis for saying t
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 6:23:11 AM
Posted: 8 months ago


Why moons? Im extrememly interested in this proven model that gravity itself will become a force out of nowhere and start shaping our solar system!

We don't even really know what gravity is. We know what it does and how it works. So we definitely can't explain where it came from. But just because something is unexplained does not mean that mythology must explain it.
Well heres the thing and this is why most people need to wake up, gravity is merely a tool that is utilized for the purpose of holding everything together. It doesnt "do" anything in terms of forming objects. more insight into something like dark matter might reveal more on what is actually going on but Im more than willing to admit we know very little about the substance of these processes.

That isnt predicting anything, thats taking something observeable and mashing the puzzle pieces together so your theory matches up to what you want the explaination to be.

Ill give you that.

Theres absolutely no evidence everything in the cosmos had to form over billions pf years or slowly at all.

But there is strong evidence that they did. That evidence starts with dating the universe to be 14.5 billion years old and the big bang. Once these are accepted planetary formation and stellar formation make far more sense.
I disagree and do so because the age of anything tells you nothing about how it formed without seeing the process yourself. I posted an article for example on how scientist quite literally created synthetic bacteria only using basic basic dna. No one has ever been able to say evolve something in the lab by taking the neccesary elements for a bacterium and letting them sit there till they do something. But when a creator intervened boom you got life. Same with everything in space. Theres nothing at all that lends to the idea all these stars and galaxies took billions or even millions of years to form just because they are old. Its just another really quite baseless assumption. I even find it interesting we assign any age to the big bang beginning. I know its based on expansion rates (though correct me if Im wrong there) but when we limit it to just that we could easily be missing something else that makes it trillions of years old.

I know what the current "concensus" is and its that volcanoes brought up oxygen, not co2...

No, we have observational evidence that volcanoes bring up hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 every year.
Yes I found an article that said about 200 million tons annually. 8-30,000 daily. Bit I think this quote will put it in perspective...
" Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

Your also assuming that somehow volcanic activity is enough to make enough breathable CO2 for plants. Again we can right now today observe and see co2 being emitted from us into space. Why would it be different if the cause was volcanoes?
These are observed principals not some kind of guess work.
Its more than guess work to suggest volcanic activity is enough to support an ecosystem. It simply is not...and with all this co2 that being released supposedly in satisfactory amounts what about all the poision like SO2 that comes along with it? Doesnt it follow the gasses released arent exactly clean gasses for the use of plant life?

Volcanoes bring up a lot of CO2 and you have yet to prove that the CO2 going into space is significant. In the early earth there would have been far more volcanic activity since it was just forming.
Im actually quite curious how it has been demonstrated the earth formed through volcanic activity? You should also note from the info above that its actually not sognificant at all but also noting from above that if it was theres an equal amount pf poisionous gas in the air ready to also kill the first living plant trying to grow...
CO2 forms very easily and there is no surprise that we see it everywhere even on other planets.
Sure but not enough to provide plants what they need.

No they dont...if that was the case their roots would starve! But it is true that CO2 is heavier than O2. We see oxygen being absorbed into the earth so we knoe CO2 would also be absorbed by the earth. This is why you cant have some

Yes, some CO2 would get into the soil. Also the nutrition from the leaves can feed the roots.

You gotta have a plant first to even think of getting leaves as a cover crop for nitrogen supplies. The point there is that you need O2 just as much as CO2. Many people dont know but without oxygen in the root zone you will have 0 growth.
Slow cumulative buildup. Youll simply never ever get to a working plant trying to piece things over a long period of time. Irregardless of how long everything has been here it had to form suddenly. All the known facts and observeable nature point to that. It just

We know that natural selection and mutations has produced an immense amount of complexity from genetic, fossil, and observational evidence. You simply have no basis for saying that can't.
Actually we havent observed anything evolve, but that has nothing to do with plant life quite literally forming out of nowhere.
I would again point you to the sythetic bacteria that was created in the lab not evolved. Thus demonstrating creation in the lab. Scientists no longer need to posit some magical force that makes everything evolve over time. They can now with more than ease explain everything in a creation context that is consistent with observeable reality.
You have not explained anything towards any kind of a model that would support the first plants full life and ability to reproduce and make more plants to fill the earth. Remeber we need adequate CO2, O2, all micro and macro nutrients in a bioavailable form, ionic balances for the soil ph to support microbial life that can allow for nitrient uptake in the first place. Adequate lighting AND uv protection along with proper weather conditions and temperature. Every single one of these things has not just been demonstrated but is observeably known to be needed for any plant life to exist. Again gradually putting things together just wont work at all. Nevermind the other issue that the first plant has to replicate itself somehow. You cant have some intermediary form of a plant that only somewhat functions. Ill just stop right there.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 6:53:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:24:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
Well first off, its saying that its thought these heavy elements are made in this way. Just in the same way its not known what exactly and in what portions of items are released from a star. But it just goes to show the inconsistency with the reality all these elements are here.

We do know that higher elements are made in stars because this is a basic principal of nuclear fusion and stars work through nuclear fusion. We can also look at the light coming from stars to determine how much of each element they have. The stars have the amount of each element that is expected if the big bang happened and smaller elements fused into larger ones.

Well if you know anything about chemisty (I only know enough to get by) you would know thats going to depend on the various charges at play, not gravity. Im not following this "explosion" idea you mentioned here.

That is on the smaller scale. But when you are talking about objects of huge mass gravity is going to be far more powerful. For example a magnet's charge doesn't stop it from falling to the ground. The explosion is the death of the star.

Heres the thing, we are watching this phenomena from here...and if we are referring to say something like the voyager missions voyager 1 finally got out of our own solar system in 2012...we dont know anything as to if planets are forming or what specific materials are in that area and how the materials are being put together.

We do know what is in space from the light that is coming in. The light itself can be analysed because different elements return different colors of light. Scientists just recently used the powerful ALMA telescope to observe a new star form.
http://scitechdaily.com...

Once you believe in star formation, planet formation is very plausible as well because it is the same principal. Scientists have also found three planets in the process of formation around star LkCa 15.
http://www.sciencealert.com...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 7:02:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:33:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
Furthermore we dont know how long these objects have been in the state we see them in now or have any idea what state everything is in right now. We dont even know that planets are even forming as a result of an explosion or if they are forming at all. Its all speculative.

We can know how long stars have been alive because stars that are old tend to have more higher elements and are dimmer. Scientists have a lot of ways of estimating the age of different stars. We know stellar formation happens because gravity will make it happen. Its not speculation, it is going to happen no matter what.

Ill give you a chance here. How much CO2 and O2 does the earth attract each year FROM space? Why should any of the gas only go to earth? Why not mars?

A very small amount is attracted today. But in the early solar system there were a lot more free gasses. These elements did go to Mars but when it lost its magnetic field solar winds stripped its atmosphere away.

Is it honestly your position that random metor strikes provide enough co2 in the right areas for plants to utilize? Not sure where your getting this idea that volcanic activity is enough to supply CO2 to the correct areas of the planet where plants need it...havent bothered to address the O2 in the soil problem yet.

I am saying that meteors, gravitational attraction, volcanoes and more can produce Co2. There is an abundance of CO2 in the solar system because this molecule forms easily. I don't see why you think this element is a big problem.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 7:15:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 5:44:06 AM, bigotry wrote:
Mars does not have very much liquid water. Without an atmosphere there will be no liquid water.
I dont know why you lean more on things we dont know and ignore the stuff we do. We know there was such a significant amount theres traces of it all over mars...

You just said it. There are only traces. Earth has huge oceans.

Absolutely but again why are there not detectable oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on mars if the gasses just attract their way to the planets created by this theoretic cosmic explosion? Why is earth somehow special?

Evidence suggests that since Mars had liquid water that it once did have an atmophere and a magnetic field. Yet a long time ago it lost its magnetic field and without this field the Sun's solar activity would have stripped it away. Mars is smaller than earth and something may have happened that shut it down in the early solar system. Scientists are still looking into that.
Of course and they will never have a difinitive answer because its not observeable.

It is not observable because it happened in the past. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean you can't use evidence and clues to figure out what happened much like on a crime scene. Creationists also make claims about the past too.

What is observeable is the stark contrast between mars and earth.

Nature doesn't produce everything that is the same. That is the reason planets are different, the reasons rocks are different, and the reason mountains are different.

I still call pluto a planet, its a 80s baby thing. But right, you said its all thanks to gravity giving form, why or how even would gravity form multiple separate planets around a single star?

Same reason why it would form different stars in the same nebula. Because different regions of gas orbiting a star would begin pulling together because of gravity in different places. What do you think would happen?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 11:34:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 6:53:40 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:24:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
Well first off, its saying that its thought these heavy elements are made in this way. Just in the same way its not known what exactly and in what portions of items are released from a star. But it just goes to show the inconsistency with the reality all these elements are here.

We do know that higher elements are made in stars because this is a basic principal of nuclear fusion and stars work through nuclear fusion. We can also look at the light coming from stars to determine how much of each element they have. The stars have the amount of each element that is expected if the big bang happened and smaller elements fused into larger ones.
We can look at the stars with various scopes that highlight certain light spectrums and we can guess the amount of content that is there based on the light spectrum. However any multitude of things could interfere with a true reading considering the massive distance away they are. Again no one can honestly state as fact said start is exactly made up of ect. You would have to sample it. Same with planets even in our own solar system. Mars for example needed curiosity to get there and take samples. There are still even mysterys as to our own sun though Id certainly say we know to a extremely high degree what its made up of because we can take solar wind samples. We cant do that with anything a light year away let alone something millions or billions of light years away.

Well if you know anything about chemisty (I only know enough to get by) you would know thats going to depend on the various charges at play, not gravity. Im not following this "explosion" idea you mentioned here.

That is on the smaller scale. But when you are talking about objects of huge mass gravity is going to be far more powerful. For example a magnet's charge doesn't stop it from falling to the ground. The explosion is the death of the star.
I disagree that its only on the smaller scale because that is the only scale. Getting down to the atomic level everything has charges that affect everything. Gravity itself could be the result of a schematic of complex charges for all we know. But again this does little in explaining why we have 9 planets orbiting a sun.

Heres the thing, we are watching this phenomena from here...and if we are referring to say something like the voyager missions voyager 1 finally got out of our own solar system in 2012...we dont know anything as to if planets are forming or what specific materials are in that area and how the materials are being put together.

We do know what is in space from the light that is coming in. The light itself can be analysed because different elements return different colors of light. Scientists just recently used the powerful ALMA telescope to observe a new star form.
http://.com/astronomers-observe-the-birth-of-a-massive-star-in-the-milky-way/

Yes these spectrums can tell you whats there in theory but you dont have a control. Theres isnt a known star that we disected to know exactly what its made up of and then can say this is 100% the composition. Other stars and light can also interfere with any reading of a specific star as theres no way to keep the light separate.
Once you believe in star formation, planet formation is very plausible as well because it is the same principal. Scientists have also found three planets in the process of formation around star LkCa 15.
http://www.sciencealert.com...
"We were able to separate the light of the faint planet from the light of the much brighter star and to see that they were both growing and glowing in this very distinct shade of red."
I love that all this is inferred from a slightly different shade of red
""This was a perfect storm of an observational problem," one of the researchers, Peter Tuthill of the University of Sydney in Australia, told Stuart Gary at the ABC. "We"re trying to see very faint planets buried in the glare of the star."
As you can see this problem for example of this planet being buried in the glare of the star is indeed a problem when your going off straight light emission. Theres nothing stopping various layers of light distorting everything. To say we even know these are forming planets is misleading at best. This also still fails to show that these processes take millions or billions of years. It even said in this very article:
"Catching a planet in the making is an exciting first for astronomers because, of the nearly 2,000 exoplanets we"ve so far identified, none are in the process of formation."
Dont you find it interesting that of all the known exoplanets these are the first ones to be propossed as in the process of forming?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 11:42:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 7:02:26 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:33:02 AM, bigotry wrote:
Furthermore we dont know how long these objects have been in the state we see them in now or have any idea what state everything is in right now. We dont even know that planets are even forming as a result of an explosion or if they are forming at all. Its all speculative.

We can know how long stars have been alive because stars that are old tend to have more higher elements and are dimmer.
Its a nice assumption but how do you know that?
Scientists have a lot of ways of estimating the age of different stars. We know stellar formation happens because gravity will make it happen. Its not speculation, it is going to happen no matter what.
Sure but this still explains nothing in the way that the process will take millions of years.

Ill give you a chance here. How much CO2 and O2 does the earth attract each year FROM space? Why should any of the gas only go to earth? Why not mars?

A very small amount is attracted today. But in the early solar system there were a lot more free gasses. These elements did go to Mars but when it lost its magnetic field solar winds stripped its atmosphere away.
Not a big enough amount worth talking about apparently. Thats fine that when it all first started there were more gasses. This is only indicitive that life needed to form faster an earlier why these gasses were Present. As to the mars situ, So why wouldnt the same happen to earth? Why apply a different standard?

Is it honestly your position that random metor strikes provide enough co2 in the right areas for plants to utilize? Not sure where your getting this idea that volcanic activity is enough to supply CO2 to the correct areas of the planet where plants need it...havent bothered to address the O2 in the soil problem yet.

I am saying that meteors, gravitational attraction, volcanoes and more can produce Co2. There is an abundance of CO2 in the solar system because this molecule forms easily. I don't see why you think this element is a big problem.
Its not of relevant abundance to support life and if anything all these factors working together to form co2 is only showing some kind of purpose behind it.
But even at this, its probably very unlikely all these things even put together would ever provide enough clean air and sufficient composition of co2 for ppants to use
Yet alone the needed O2 you NEED in the soil.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 11:56:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 7:15:16 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/7/2016 5:44:06 AM, bigotry wrote:
Mars does not have very much liquid water. Without an atmosphere there will be no liquid water.
I dont know why you lean more on things we dont know and ignore the stuff we do. We know there was such a significant amount theres traces of it all over mars...

You just said it. There are only traces. Earth has huge oceans.
Certainly but the inconsistency for you comes in thinking earth could form oceans and in the very same solar system, mars simply doesnt have oceans. Thats only consistent with creation...but this point has little to do in the way of explaining or starting to explain how plants started to sping up on the earth.

Absolutely but again why are there not detectable oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on mars if the gasses just attract their way to the planets created by this theoretic cosmic explosion? Why is earth somehow special?

Evidence suggests that since Mars had liquid water that it once did have an atmophere and a magnetic field. Yet a long time ago it lost its magnetic field and without this field the Sun's solar activity would have stripped it away. Mars is smaller than earth and something may have happened that shut it down in the early solar system. Scientists are still looking into that.
Of course and they will never have a difinitive answer because its not observeable.

It is not observable because it happened in the past. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean you can't use evidence and clues to figure out what happened much like on a crime scene. Creationists also make claims about the past too.
Yes but these claims of the past are only done specutivley to explain the reality of how things really work and how they got here. We can observe a vast difference in all the planets surrounding just our sun, yet this is just inconsistent without some outside force intervening to make it so. I would point to your idea of gravity forming everything as a key point to why thats actually not possible.

What is observeable is the stark contrast between mars and earth.

Nature doesn't produce everything that is the same. That is the reason planets are different, the reasons rocks are different, and the reason mountains are different.
When you have the same materials involved in the same area they should form the same things.

I still call pluto a planet, its a 80s baby thing. But right, you said its all thanks to gravity giving form, why or how even would gravity form multiple separate planets around a single star?

Same reason why it would form different stars in the same nebula. Because different regions of gas orbiting a star would begin pulling together because of gravity in different places. What do you think would happen?
The same thing we see happened to the earth. That gravity condensed everything into a literal ball of rock. But we are saying a nebula explodes right? So now we have a central point in which gravity is going to start forming said stars and planets ect. Wouldnt it be expected we would form one object in the center? Its no different than a whirlpool really.