/sci/ - Science & Math

do you really have nothing better to do than make these dumbass threads everyday?

at least the panda guy is somewhat amusing.

>>4682012
>I read the article and realize that its 100% RIGHT so I think im going to try and troll OP.

Is OP serious or what?

>>4682019
Your gosh darn right I am. If you have a logical retort to the article then im all ears.

>>4682024
I won't read that shit. Answer this where gods come from?

What the shitting fuck? The processes leading to the state of modern Mercury have NOTHING to do with evolution whatsoever, it is strictly the domain of the geologists/cosmologists/phycisists.

Their actual contention is with Mercury being older then a few thousand years....they are insane and so are you.

oh btw, the bible never actually says that the universe or the earth are only 6000 years old. That number was reached by a man who added upp whom begat whom and rounding out the projectied lifespans of each person of pertenance within biblical geneology.

But as the bible is a book in which the fundamental laws of nature themself do not nesecarily apply (being that there is a diety within it that transcends all such laws) there is no actual reason to suggest that the lifespan of mythical figures from the bible were the same as modern man.

Even from a christian perspective, your entire article is fucking stupid.

I'm pretty sure planetary formation has nothing to really do with evolution as we know it.

And here we'll start a a long battle again.

Caffeine? tick
Time to waste? tick
Energy left? tick
Tulpa and qualia? tick for op

Here we go bro. Time to make OP cry!

>Mercury—of the nine known planets of our solar system
>nine known planets of our solar system
>nine known planets
>nine
/thread

>>4682031
>a man who added upp whom begat whom and
lol

>>4682036
How old is that shitty article?

it took me a few reads to figure out that the author didn't know what 'evolution' means.
at all.

thanks op, I loled out loud

Haha, this is great! No one is actually reading this article and even ATTEMPTING to disprove it! You are beaten with your own science, how beautiful!

>>4682045
Should I read that shit or go back to maths and shit?

>>4682056
maths

>>4682053
>You are beaten with your own science, how beautiful!
LOL science is the world stupid!

>>4682053
I like to be beaten with my own science.

>>4681999

>>4682058
How canadians call it?

Of all the times the word "evolution" appeared in the article, not once it was used correctly.

Bravo

>Mercury—the tiny planet that causes big problems for evolution

Fuck it, I'll come clean as this is getting me nowhere fast.
A fucking annoying christfag posted this on Facebook thinking he was ever so smart.
I read the article twice, and cant make heads or tails of that abomination of bullshit.
Thought I'd try posting here to see if anyone can help me fuck his shit right up. Guess I should have said this in the OP instead of a half arsed troll.
Oh well.

So the idea that the universe came from nothing is so ridiculous?

Where did God come from then?

>Christians: 0

Alright, briefly read the article.

First off, its from 2004, hence its use of "nine planets".

As far as I can tell the argument put forth is more or less this - Non-Creationists tend to over utilize the idea of collision events to account for discrepancies in a "gradual evolutionary process" model of planetary formation. It says that the moment a discrepancy occurs (i.e - Mercury's density or Uranus' tilt) from the general norm we associate with planetary formation, we use collision events to explain it away, rather than further examining potential flaws in the "gradual evolutionary process" model.

I assume by "gradual evolutionary processes" they mean accretion. Which is obviously not really related to biological evolution at all. And beyond that, if they're attempting to say that an almighty creator is more likely of an explanation for those discrepancies than collision events, or really any other explanation, then I think their argument is pretty flimsy. Is it more likely that large scale collision events occurred, or that an entity with no directly observable characteristics created the universe and those planets to be that way? Albeit neither are proven, simply because they haven't been observed, but the logic used to determine one as more valid over the other seems to point to a pretty obvious "more likely" answer.

>Evolutionists have admitted that the planet that we see today cannot be explained by gradual evolutionary processes!
no shit.

it's a strawman with multiple personalities

Refute with the following:

Relativistic orbits (and therefore certainly the relativistic n-body problem) are unstable.

Even the classical n-body problem is unsolved.

The behaviour of mercury is at best not yet fully understood and in all likelyhood, perfectly expected by existing theories.

Then tell him that either way, it's not relevant to a evolution.

>>4682082

/sci/ - your personal army for stupid pedantic Facebook bullshit

Kill yourself OP.

the argument is:

science doesn't explain it, therefore god.

>>4681999
You best be posting on 4chan from your bible op
else you have nothing to say about science

>>4681999
What is this bullshit? what mercury strange orbit has to do with evolution at all?

>>4681999
Christians being comedy gold since the begginig of times

Simultaneous lol and raeg.
It's so idiotic it's funny.
>conflating planetary accretion with biological evolution
I shiggy diggy doo dah

>>4682089
This is what most christfags don't seem to understand.

Where did god come from? From nothing? He was always there? Why is that acceptable for god but ridiculous for the universe?

The main issue I have with things like this is that they like to try and tear down the currently established theories, but put up absolutely nothing to replace them.

We know that our theories can't explain everything yet. That's why we make more observations, to fill in the gaps and help develop better theories. Saying 'You haven't answered these questions yet, therefore everything you think is completely wrong' just seems daft.