Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars

Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Marcus. -> Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/25/2008 6:27:10 PM)
LOS ANGELES — Why is Mars two-faced? Scientists say fresh evidence supports the theory that a monster impact punched the red planet, leaving behind perhaps the largest gash on any heavenly body in the solar system. Today, the Martian surface has a split personality. The southern hemisphere of Mars is pockmarked and filled with ancient rugged highlands. By contrast, the northern hemisphere is smoother and covered by low-lying plains. Three papers in Thursday's journal Nature provide the most convincing evidence yet that an outside force was responsible. According to the researchers, an asteroid or comet whacked a young Mars some 4 billion years ago, blasting away much of its northern crust and creating a giant hole over 40 percent of the surface. Story Continued

evry1needsgod -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/25/2008 9:40:43 PM)
quote: According to the researchers, an asteroid or comet whacked a young Mars some 4 billion years ago HAHA!!!!! I laugh HYSTERICALLY when I hear so-called "intelligent" individuals throw out ridiculously large numbers such as "some 4 billion years ago." That's ludicrous. Does anyone else find humor in this? Probably not...but I'll have fun laughing by myself, unless drmark wants to join in. [:D]

Aristocrat -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/25/2008 9:51:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: According to the researchers, an asteroid or comet whacked a young Mars some 4 billion years ago HAHA!!!!! I laugh HYSTERICALLY when I hear so-called "intelligent" individuals throw out ridiculously large numbers such as "some 4 billion years ago." That's ludicrous. Does anyone else find humor in this? Probably not...but I'll have fun laughing by myself, unless drmark wants to join in. [:D] Why is it so ridiculous? If God is truly eternal, 4 billion years is not a ridiculously large number. In fact, it's a drop in the eternal bucket of existance.

EcclesFruitcake -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/25/2008 10:06:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: According to the researchers, an asteroid or comet whacked a young Mars some 4 billion years ago HAHA!!!!! I laugh HYSTERICALLY when I hear so-called "intelligent" individuals throw out ridiculously large numbers such as "some 4 billion years ago." That's ludicrous. Does anyone else find humor in this? Probably not...but I'll have fun laughing by myself, unless drmark wants to join in. [:D] Should we laugh at the 100 billion neurons in your brain too? [;)]

iluvatar -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/25/2008 10:32:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: According to the researchers, an asteroid or comet whacked a young Mars some 4 billion years ago HAHA!!!!! I laugh HYSTERICALLY when I hear so-called "intelligent" individuals throw out ridiculously large numbers such as "some 4 billion years ago." That's ludicrous. Does anyone else find humor in this? Probably not...but I'll have fun laughing by myself, unless drmark wants to join in. [:D] So it's ludicrous to think that a celestial body has been around for 4 billion years, but it's not ludicrous to think that animals created tracks and burrows in the middle layers of sediment as it was being deposited by a global extinction-causing flood? The YEC evidence thread has been quiet for a couple days. -Dan.

evry1needsgod -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/25/2008 11:40:07 PM)
quote: Why is it so ridiculous? If God is truly eternal, 4 billion years is not a ridiculously large number. In fact, it's a drop in the eternal bucket of existance. The number itself is not funny. What's funny it thinking you can somehow prove the universe has been around for this long! 4 billion, 5 billion, 10 billion, 6000 years... Scientists love thorowing out big numbers. It makes them look (hold your breath for this one) "SMART." OOOOOO AHHHHH clap clap!!!! [8D] quote: So it's ludicrous to think that a celestial body has been around for 4 billion years, but it's not ludicrous to think that animals created tracks and burrows in the middle layers of sediment as it was being deposited by a global extinction-causing flood? The YEC evidence thread has been quiet for a couple days. Keep that in the thread where it belongs. I guess I should apologize for not continuing to throw myself into the lion's den? NOT! [;)] p.s. I also find it hilarious how quickly the attacks came after my first post on this thread! Nearly a half hour produced quite a show. [:D] I guess I kind of did that for a test, and it worked! This "age of the universe/earth" is a pretty personal belief to some.

Method -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/25/2008 11:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod The number itself is not funny. What's funny it thinking you can somehow prove the universe has been around for this long! 4 billion, 5 billion, 10 billion, 6000 years... Scientists love thorowing out big numbers. It makes them look (hold your breath for this one) "SMART." OOOOOO AHHHHH clap clap!!!! [8D] I am quite experienced with big numbers, but in a totally opposite sense. I am a microbiologist. We regularly deal with populations in the range of 10^9 (billions) per milliliter. A liter of broth can contain around 10^12. It's not that big of a deal once you get used to it. The fact of the matter is that scientists love throwing around ACCURATE numbers. And the "proof" of the age of the universe is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. It's not as if they just made it up. If you disagree with the age then show how their methodology is wrong. quote: Keep that in the thread where it belongs. I guess I should apologize for not continuing to throw myself into the lion's den? NOT! [;)] Are you saying that creationism should be protected from criticism? quote: p.s. I also find it hilarious how quickly the attacks came after my first post on this thread! Nearly a half hour produced quite a show. [:D] I guess I kind of did that for a test, and it worked! This "age of the universe/earth" is a pretty personal belief to some. Personally, I think it is a good thing that bad science is confronted right away.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 1:29:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod HAHA!!!!! I laugh HYSTERICALLY when I hear so-called "intelligent" individuals throw out ridiculously large numbers such as "some 4 billion years ago." That's ludicrous. Does anyone else find humor in this? Probably not...but I'll have fun laughing by myself, unless drmark wants to join in. [:D] Most of it is speculation.

Method -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 1:37:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Most of it is speculation. The predicted and measured power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background is not speculation, and it is this data that is used to calculate the age of the universe.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 2:12:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method The predicted and measured power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background is not speculation, and it is this data that is used to calculate the age of the universe. All of which assumes the initial state of the universe. Besides, I don't deny the notion that there is some evidence that's difficult to explain within a 6K year old Earth (though I do believe the Earth is about 6K or so). I also think there is some evidence that is difficult to explain within an old Earth as well.

Method -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 2:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize All of which assumes the initial state of the universe. Not at all. The Big Bang model hypothesized what the initial state was, and from that hypothesis predicted the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. That prediction proved to be correct to within a few percent.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 2:15:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Not at all. You always assume initial state.

Method -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 2:19:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method Not at all. You always assume initial state. The Big Bang model hypothesizes the initial conditions. From that hypothesis the model makes specific predictions, and those predictions are found to be true with a few percent. If the assumptions are wrong then the predictions would be wrong, would they not? Accurate predictions indicate accurate hypotheses.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 2:32:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method The Big Bang model hypothesizes the initial conditions. You are still assuming initial state. quote: If the assumptions are wrong then the predictions would be wrong, would they not? Not necessarily. That's why they're called assumptions. Before the Big bang, you had people come up with the static universe hypothesis, you had people come up with the steady state universe, etc... The problem is that you have all these people coming up with opposing naturalistic hypothesis making opposite predictions, basically almost covering the entire pool of all possible predictions (different people making different predictions). If you cover the pool of all possible predictions, no matter what the evidence, it's always possible to come up with some model that explains the emergence of the universe within certain assumptions. Humphry and Gentry, for example, have models that explain the universe (or "predict" what we know) within the model of a young universe. Heck, before it was known that the universe was expanding, Einstein came up with the Static Universe hypothesis. That turned out to be wrong. Then they came up with the big bang and the steady state universe. The steady state universe was an attempt to resurrect an infinitely existing universe and it failed. Then they came up with the oscillating universe (or rubber band theory) as another attempt to resurrect a universe with no beginning. When it was discovered that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, that failed too. It's not that a certain way of looking at things (ie: the assumption that the universe is really old) predicts anything, it's that there are many possible models within such an assumption that can explain different combinations of evidence. On the other hand, there are many possible models within a young universe that can also explain different combinations of evidence.

Method -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 2:41:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method The Big Bang model hypothesizes the initial conditions. You are still assuming initial state. Only for the purposes of the hypothesis. quote: Not necessarily. That's why they're called assumptions. Before the Big bang, you had people come up with the static universe hypothesis, you had people come up with the steady state universe, etc... These theories were cast aside once Pezias and Wilson discovered the CMB. Steady state was in trouble already given the fact that the model had to incorporate expansion which would require the continual production of energy. The Big Bang model had the advantage of predicting the CMB and needing no outside energy entering the system. quote: The problem is that you have all these people coming up with opposing naturalistic hypothesis making opposite predictions, basically almost covering the scope of all predictions. And the theories which made the incorrect predictions (e.g. Steady State) were rejected. quote: If you cover the scope of all predictions, no matter what the evidence, it's always possible to come up with some model that explains the emergence of the universe within certain assumptions. And the evidenced model should also make risky predictions that should be further tested. The Big Bang model did just that. Not only did it predict the existence of the CMB, which was confirmed in the 60's (if memory serves) it also predicted the spectrum of the CMB which was not verified until the last few years with the WMAP data. The Big Bang model also makes other predictions that will be tested in the future, and the model may very well need to be adjusted as new evidence comes to the forefront. Such is the way of theories, but the exact opposite of the religious dogma which you want forced into science classes. quote: Humphry and Gentry, for example, have models that explain the universe (or "predict" what we know) within the model of a young universe. Their model is falsified by the lack of a blueshift from distant galaxies. In fact, we observe the exact opposite, a redshift. quote: Heck, before it was known that the universe was expanding, Einstein came up with the Static Universe hypothesis. That turned out to be wrong. Then they came up with the big bang and the steady state universe. The steady state universe was an attempt to resurrect an infinitely existing universe and it failed. Then they came up with the oscillating universe (or rubber band theory) as another attempt to resurrect a universe with no beginning. When it was discovered that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, that failed too. It's not that a certain way of looking at things (ie: the assumption that the universe is really old) predicts anything, it's that there are many possible models within such an assumption that can explain different combinations of evidence. On the other hand, there are many possible models within a young universe that can also explain different combinations of evidence. What is your complaint, exactly? That science has gotten things wrong and thrown out or adjusted those views as new evidence comes to light? Egads, HOW TERRIBLE!!!! Olber's paradox had been a part of physics for quite a while. If the universe is not expanding and infinite then the night sky should be blazing with light. It isn't. Therefore, the universe either has to be expanding or finite. Einstein chose finitie and added in his cosmological constant to directly counteract gravity, for no other reason than to keep the universe static. This also cured the perturbation problems with a static universe. A static universe is balanced like a pin on it's point. The slightest perturbation from a perfectly balanced universe will result in a Big Crunch. An expanding universe cured all of these paradoxes. The Hubble redshift data confirmed it. The CMB data falsified an eternal and expanding universe. The spectrum of the CMB confirmed the predictions of the BB model put forth by Gamow in the 1950's. It's a very nice, tidy picture when you look at the history of it. PS: We were both in ADDED BY EDIT mode. I will wait till tomorrow to respond.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 2:53:28 AM)
quote: And the evidenced model should also make risky predictions that should be further tested. Creationists models do make predictions. quote: The Big Bang model did just that. They had a bunch of different models predicting opposite things. Again, it's possible for an assumption (ie: OET) to cover a large combination of evidence. quote: The Big Bang model also makes other predictions that will be tested in the future, The same is true for creationist models. Different creationist models have got some things right and other things wrong. Same is true for Big bang or any other model the secular community puts out. quote: and the model may very well need to be adjusted as new evidence comes to the forefront. Such is the way of theories, Same is true for creationist models as well. quote: but the exact opposite of the religious dogma which you want forced into science classes. The only dogma here is the notion that naturalistic processes are responsible for everything and that all tax funded models should conform to naturalism. I am encouraging academic freedom, you are encouraging naturalistic dogma to be tax funded. Academic freedom is not dogmatic. Suppressing academic freedom in favor of naturalistic nonsense is dogmatic.

Aristocrat -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 10:51:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod p.s. I also find it hilarious how quickly the attacks came after my first post on this thread! Nearly a half hour produced quite a show. [:D] I guess I kind of did that for a test, and it worked! This "age of the universe/earth" is a pretty personal belief to some. You consider these comments on a discussion board 'attacks'?

drj11 -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 11:55:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: According to the researchers, an asteroid or comet whacked a young Mars some 4 billion years ago HAHA!!!!! I laugh HYSTERICALLY when I hear so-called "intelligent" individuals throw out ridiculously large numbers such as "some 4 billion years ago." That's ludicrous. Does anyone else find humor in this? Probably not...but I'll have fun laughing by myself, unless drmark wants to join in. [:D] Perhaps you want to continue this argument back in my evidence for a young earth thread.... creationism isnt fairing to well over there.

drj11 -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 12:01:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod Keep that in the thread where it belongs. I guess I should apologize for not continuing to throw myself into the lion's den? NOT! [;)] Actually, with the confidence you and other creationists continually assert that your beliefs are actually reasonable, one would think you would relish the opportunity. However, the discussion doesnt seem to be going in creationism's favor, and I predict most will shrink from the challenge of actually trying to make a case.

evry1needsgod -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 4:13:28 PM)
quote: Are you saying that creationism should be protected from criticism? No, I'm saying individuals should be protected from biased attacks on their knowledge when one claims it's religion, not science. What is the point of debating in a SCIENCE folder when the debate turns to religion, not science. Let me ask you a question. If one starts a thread, targeting a certain group, asking them to present evidence for a certain topic, then attack that science when one presents it, would you continue??? I doubt it. If you did, you would be a fool, because you continued in a trap set for you. I didn't see the point in continuing, so I left. That is called wisdom. If a group of Christians attack an Atheist for his beliefs, he is under no obligation to continue. If you got a problem with that, take it up with someone who cares, but enough of the childishness. If you want to debate a YEC, debate their science, not their religion. Keep the debates in their respective folders. quote: Actually, with the confidence you and other creationists continually assert that your beliefs are actually reasonable, one would think you would relish the opportunity. However, the discussion doesn't seem to be going in creationism's favor, and I predict most will shrink from the challenge of actually trying to make a case. Oh nice, when a creationists attempts to provide evidence in his favor, and you deny all evidence he provides by calling it religious dogma, then what is the point for him staying? I don't get it. This is the "SCIENCE and Origins" folder, where the only thing accepted is SCIENCE, and if you want to debate with YEC's, should you not take his science seriously??? And when that YEC leaves the debate because his science is being labeled unfairly, you call them wimps. You are a very kind person... cough cough. Creationists welcome criticism, but the last time I checked, it is the evolutionists who whimper in the corner whenever a teacher asks to teach evidence of the Flood. Bettawrekonize nailed it on the head with this... quote: The only dogma here is the notion that naturalistic processes are responsible for everything and that all tax funded models should conform to naturalism. I am encouraging academic freedom, you are encouraging naturalistic dogma to be tax funded. Academic freedom is not dogmatic. Suppressing academic freedom in favor of naturalistic nonsense is dogmatic. I have to pay good money for my kids to go to high school and hear their biology teacher preach evolution, without ANY criticism. Now you tell me...how is this true science? I thought science involves criticism of piers? Piers who agree with each other is hardly criticism.

evry1needsgod -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 4:17:40 PM)
quote: Perhaps you want to continue this argument back in my evidence for a young earth thread.... creationism isnt fairing to well over there. Stop lying to yourself drj11. Just because your thread receives no attention does not mean your target audience is stupid, even though thats what you'd like to think. Keep on lying to yourself, that will get you through life! I hope that wasn't your strategy in becoming a Doc. [;)]

essentialsaltes -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 4:45:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod it is the evolutionists who whimper in the corner whenever a teacher asks to teach evidence of the Flood. No, it is earth scientists (among others) who object. And with good reason. quote: I have to pay good money for my kids to go to high school and hear their biology teacher preach evolution, without ANY criticism. Now you tell me...how is this true science? Do you object to your kids' chemistry teachers teaching about atoms, without any criticism? Or physics teachers teaching about gravity, without any criticism? quote: I thought science involves criticism of piers? Piers who agree with each other is hardly criticism. That's right. There is no longer any serious, scientific debate about evolution. Just as there is no longer any serious debate about heliocentrism or the atomic theory. Scientists save their criticism for hypotheses and theories that are not well-established.

GroupW -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 4:59:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize You are still assuming initial state. The assumption of an initial state is not bad in and of itself. Just for the humorous content and to prove a point. Let's assume that the majority of doors that I encounter are closed. On the basis of the assumption of this initial state of my office building, I would hypothesis a series of repeated bumps on the head were I to close my eyes and start walking through doorways. There are approximately 24 doors in my building. Having done this (hypothetically - I'm not a total idiot), I wake up from my concussion-related dilirium with approximately 23 bumps on my head. The medical evidence in this case would indicate that my theory of most doors being closed is accurate, precisely because my assumption of the initial state was accurate. That said, some further testing would be in order - for example, did I in fact walk into 23 doors, or was it 23 walls? That's a secondary and testable hypothesis. I can retrace my steps and attempt to open the door and walk through it. If I do that and do not wake up with 46 bumps on my head, then I can proceed further. If, however, I wake up with 46 contusions, then I have to go back and reexamine my assumption on the original state as well as my original hypothesis.

evry1needsgod -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 5:01:59 PM)
quote: Do you object to your kids' chemistry teachers teaching about atoms, without any criticism? Or physics teachers teaching about gravity, without any criticism? Well, if they would teach these instead of their evolution dogma, I'd have no problem with it, but it seems they are obsessed with their beliefs in evolution. Truly sad... quote: hat's right. There is no longer any serious, scientific debate about evolution. You're blind. Take off your evolution goggles, and put on an unbiased pair of glasses. Until you do this, you will never learn anything new that does not agree with you. This is a prime example of evolution tyranny. You simply refuse to open your eyes to unbiased facts and/or interpretations, but this is your choice, and I will leave you to your naivety.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Scientists think big impact caused two-faced Mars (6/26/2008 5:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: Do you object to your kids' chemistry teachers teaching about atoms, without any criticism? Or physics teachers teaching about gravity, without any criticism? Well, if they would teach these instead of their evolution dogma, I'd have no problem with it, but it seems they are obsessed with their beliefs in evolution. Truly sad... It's clear that you are the one obsessed with evolution. You only want 'criticism' in the curriculum with respect to evolution. So don't pretend you're concerned about 'true science' and criticism. You don't care how physics and chemistry are taught, just biology. quote: quote: That's right. There is no longer any serious, scientific debate about evolution. You're blind. Take off your evolution goggles, and put on an unbiased pair of glasses. Until you do this, you will never learn anything new that does not agree with you. Why beholdest thou the goggles that are on thy brother's eye, but considerest not the welding mask that covers thine own eyes?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI