tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post115904629239791347..comments2023-07-08T06:13:19.344-07:00Comments on biblioblography: LIFE FROM ABOVEKrystalline Apostatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159305091426050352006-09-26T14:11:00.000-07:002006-09-26T14:11:00.000-07:00BF:So I kinda look at the internet creation sites ...BF:<BR/><B>So I kinda look at the internet creation sites like I do the tele-evangelical shows; unrepresentative and sometimes embarrassing.</B><BR/>I take it you're unimpressed w/Hovind?<BR/>Have you tried contacting any of these folks, point out their errors?<BR/>At the risk of being a gentleman, here's a site that seems to be far more scientific in its approach:<BR/>http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/<BR/>I think this is a prime example of what your side of the fence needs to do in order to be taken seriously. <BR/>There's an interesting post at http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/interesting_paul_nelson_post.php - where a contributor to the Panda's Thumb actually AGREES w/a post of an ID advocate. <BR/>This is something I've been saying all along (albeit others have said it better): ID needs to contribute, & do research, instead of generating negative PR. <BR/><BR/>As a sidenote, I found this at thedesignmatrix, found it interesting:<BR/>http://lincei-celebrazioni.it/pubblicazioni/rendicontiFMN/rol/visabs.php?lang=en&type=fis&fileId=104Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159299857080999282006-09-26T12:44:00.000-07:002006-09-26T12:44:00.000-07:00K-Apostate: “Why do you stay away from ‘net creati...K-Apostate:<BR/><BR/><I> “Why do you stay away from ‘net creationists?</I><BR/><BR/>Internet creationists seem to be contaminated with Hovindian ad argumentium. That is, they get copies of his un-copyrighted material and treat it like it’s some earth shaking devastation to evolution. In addition, most of the argumentation is out dated (such as moon dust etc...) Many creationist sites are just parroting others; there is no independent research being conducted or distinguishing conclusions. Though, I haven’t done much exploring so I could be wrong. So I kinda look at the internet creation sites like I do the tele-evangelical shows; unrepresentative and sometimes embarrassing.SteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159292259867237772006-09-26T10:37:00.000-07:002006-09-26T10:37:00.000-07:00mxracer:Yeah, I tend to use the terms matter & ene...mxracer:<BR/>Yeah, I tend to use the terms matter & energy interchangeably now, which I shouldn't.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159279562820001512006-09-26T07:06:00.000-07:002006-09-26T07:06:00.000-07:00KA:that the big bang was (supposed) to be a conden...KA:<B>that the big bang was (supposed) to be a condensation of matter before it exploded. Where did the matter come from, then? </B>Don't forget matter can be created from energy, and vice versa. The ingredient of the bang was energy in slightly non-uniform regions. <BR/><BR/>The early universe did undergo nucleosynthesis, as it cooled, creating matter.<BR/><BR/>Matter <I>is</I> energy as governed by E=mc^2. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and is eternal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159239045212694342006-09-25T19:50:00.000-07:002006-09-25T19:50:00.000-07:00Aaron:Oy, I'd forgotten all about it!;)Aaron:<BR/>Oy, I'd forgotten all about it!;)Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159226552567241202006-09-25T16:22:00.000-07:002006-09-25T16:22:00.000-07:00Hey KA,I finally posted a reply to the book list. ...Hey KA,<BR/><BR/>I finally posted a reply to the book list. Here it is! <BR/><BR/>http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-got-tagged-by-ka.htmlAaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159212775688835292006-09-25T12:32:00.000-07:002006-09-25T12:32:00.000-07:00BF:Are there creationist using Hoyle’s quotes inap...BF:<BR/><B>Are there creationist using Hoyle’s quotes inappropriately? I usually stay away from internet creationist material. Can you point me to some examples? </B><BR/>I’ve seen it used before on blogversations. Answering genesis quotes him, but qualifies the background. It may or may not be inappropriate in some instances. Why do you stay away from ‘net creationists?<BR/><B>Do you have a source quote where a physicist of note says matter and energy is eternal (post 1980’s)? </B><BR/>Hey, no fair! I asked 1st! ;)<BR/><B> I don’t think physicists make this claim. The problem is they can only extrapolate matter and energy within time/space (T). So as far back as one can go is T = 0 (or as close to 0 as they can get). Making assertions of anything T -1 is idle speculation within testable science (at least at this point). So I don’t think one can assert that matter/energy always existed without stepping outside of testability. However, it is still a possibility. </B><BR/>I think it’s a fair presupposition until proven otherwise. You have to remember, that the big bang was (supposed) to be a condensation of matter before it exploded. Where did the matter come from, then? <BR/><B>Panspermia is an interesting theory. I am not sure how this is falsifiable or testable, but this theory still has some difficult problems to overcome (origins, distances etc…).</B><BR/>It’s still being looked at, & researched. A big problem is contamination, because most meteors/meteorites impact the earth & pick up microbes (as per the Orgueil metorite). It’s difficult, but not impossible, to test & falsify. If I recall rightly, earth is constantly bombarded w/interstellar fragments. 1 is likely to get thru occasionally? Who’s to say that 1 of these didn’t punctuate the equilibrium of the florinella (sp?) of the Cambrian explosion? With or w/o ET microbes? <BR/>That’s just idle speculation, BTW.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159209628700695292006-09-25T11:40:00.000-07:002006-09-25T11:40:00.000-07:00K-Apostate:“Here is the answers.com entry (I have ...K-Apostate:<BR/><BR/><I>“Here is the answers.com entry (I have boldened the context dropping of the ID/creationists, by the way)”</I><BR/><BR/>Are there creationist using Hoyle’s quotes inappropriately? I usually stay away from internet creationist material. Can you point me to some examples? <BR/><BR/><I>“There are a few problems with some of the info – it states in a few places that the big bang theory (the term Hoyle coined while criticizing it) stipulates that ‘everything came out of nothing’ (which isn’t my understanding at all…I have consistently maintained that matter/energy has always existed, and have asked multiple times for a source quote where ANY physicist of note says this: de nada.”</I><BR/><BR/>Do you have a source quote where a physicist of note says matter and energy is eternal (post 1980’s)? I don’t think physicists make this claim. The problem is they can only extrapolate matter and energy within time/space (T). So as far back as one can go is T = 0 (or as close to 0 as they can get). Making assertions of anything T -1 is idle speculation within testable science (at least at this point). So I don’t think one can assert that matter/energy always existed without stepping outside of testability. However, it is still a possibility. <BR/><BR/>Panspermia is an interesting theory. I am not sure how this is falsifiable or testable, but this theory still has some difficult problems to overcome (origins, distances etc…).SteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159205811227377862006-09-25T10:36:00.000-07:002006-09-25T10:36:00.000-07:00Here is a link on nano-organisms from Mars. I'm no...Here is a link on nano-organisms from Mars. I'm not sure if this is the same woman. If I saw a picture of the woman I could say for sure<BR/><BR/>http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s20156.htm<BR/><BR/>http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/news30.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159202880034535252006-09-25T09:48:00.000-07:002006-09-25T09:48:00.000-07:00SNTC:http://www.answers.com/ALH%2084001"In Septemb...SNTC:<BR/>http://www.answers.com/ALH%2084001<BR/>"In September 2005, Vicky Hamilton of the University of Hawaii at Manoa presented an analysis of the origin of ALH84001 using data from the Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey spacecraft orbiting Mars. According to the analysis, Eos Chasma in the Valles Marineris canyon appears to be the source of the meteorite [6]. The analysis was not conclusive, in part because it was limited to parts of Mars not obscured by dust."<BR/>Is that what you mean?Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159196882557450972006-09-25T08:08:00.000-07:002006-09-25T08:08:00.000-07:00SNTC-The fossils they found in a meteorite?SNTC-<BR/><BR/>The fossils they found in a meteorite?Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159195391568687902006-09-25T07:43:00.000-07:002006-09-25T07:43:00.000-07:00About a year ago I watched a program about nano-or...About a year ago I watched a program about nano-oragnisms on mars that a woman discovered. Has anyone else heard or know anything about it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159161837820652152006-09-24T22:23:00.000-07:002006-09-24T22:23:00.000-07:00mxracer:Well, we are all made of ordinary matter, ...mxracer:<BR/><B>Well, we are all made of ordinary matter, good enough for me.</B><BR/>That made me chuckle deeply, I don't know why.<BR/><BR/>stardust:<BR/><B>There is not one thing in the entire vast universe that remains as it is.</B><BR/>Thx for coming by. You should drop in more often.<BR/>Everything in flux, nothing in stasis.<BR/><BR/>I recall, well over a decade ago, reading a newspaper article in the S.F Chronicle about 'space aliens' in our drinking water. Can't find it on the 'net now (because I google about a zillion hits on all the UFOists out there). <BR/>6 mos. later, the Nat'l Enquirer pasted it across their headline.<BR/>I find this an interesting idea. Problem is, in current pop culture, when you mention alien microorganisms, everyone thinks you're a loon. Thx to movies like 'It came from outer space!', MIB, X-Files. <BR/>Of course there are limits.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159146353784693962006-09-24T18:05:00.000-07:002006-09-24T18:05:00.000-07:00The remains of stars are what make all the other e...The remains of stars are what make all the other elements beside hydrogen and helium (or that's what I remember from my last Astronomy class), so I guess 'we are made of stardust' is accurate.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159143686400517722006-09-24T17:21:00.000-07:002006-09-24T17:21:00.000-07:00From an essay I wrote some years ago while taking ...From an essay I wrote some years ago while taking an astronomy course in college. It's a cool way of thinking about the no beginning and no end concept:<BR/><BR/>"We Are Stardust"<BR/><BR/>There is not one thing in the entire vast universe that remains as it is. Every thing, living or inanimate, changes. Some say even the universe itself will at some point in the incomprehensible infinity contract inside itself, swallowing every atom and molecule up, then will be born again with the next "big bang" and our recycled particles will begin anew.Stardusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10560872454564355114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159140733082400922006-09-24T16:32:00.000-07:002006-09-24T16:32:00.000-07:00Well, we are all made of ordinary matter, good eno...Well, we are all made of ordinary matter, good enough for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159140642335207282006-09-24T16:30:00.000-07:002006-09-24T16:30:00.000-07:00SNTC:Or is there another term for people who belie...SNTC:<BR/><B>Or is there another term for people who believe that the universe is all made of the same stuff?</B><BR/>Exogenesist? ;)Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1159135238014937032006-09-24T15:00:00.000-07:002006-09-24T15:00:00.000-07:00Ka Thanks, that was a very interesting piece of in...Ka <BR/>Thanks, that was a very interesting piece of information. I wounder if Carl Sagan could be concidered a panspermatist? "we are all made of stardust." Or is there another term for people who believe that the universe is all made of the same stuff?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com