That’s because it’s in Adamic script, like they used before the deluge! 
Good one, Poly! 
200th post…WooHoo only 805 to go to catch the Flat Earth thread. Think it’ll make it?
Tracer -
If brown dwarfs aren’t made of the leftovers of a supernova (like white/black dwarfs) then what the hell ARE they made of? I’ll admit that I’d heard of brown dwarfs (dwarves?) but I assumed that they were what happened when a white dwarf had radiated out almost all of it’s energy.
I’m not entirely sure whether I’ve missed the point completely here but if I’m sort-of-on-the-right-track then what the hell are they?
“You can have the afternoon off when you die” - Edmund Blackadder
For one, white dwarfs (and the hypothetical black dwarfs) aren’t the remnants of a supernova, they’re the remnants of a red giant. Neutron stars are the remnants of supernovae.
For another, no, despite having “dwarf” in their name, neither brown dwarfs, nor red dwarfs, nor luminosity class V “dwarfs”, nor luminosity class VI sub-dwarfs, are stellar remnants.
Brown dwarfs are in fact “failed stars”, like Jupiter only bigger. They collapsed from an interstellar cloud of gas and dust like full-blown stars did, but were just too darn lightweight to ignite stable thermonuclear reactions in their cores. They “shine” very very dimly because they’re slooooooowly contracting over gazillions of years, which heats them up a little bit. (There may also be some radioactive materials in their cores which contribute to the heat, but most of it is due to gravitational collapse.)
These objects are theoretically more numerous than even the garden-variety red dwarf stars littering space throughout the galaxy. A brown dwarf may have up to 8% of the Sun’s mass and still not be able to ignite. This could very well account for all the “dark matter” in the galaxy.
Sounds like intersteller racism to me…
Sorry, could not resist.
Where the hell did the original debate go???
Am I the only one who’s noticed this? 
“You can have the afternoon off when you die” - Edmund Blackadder
Please disregard the above posting, I just realised that the original debate’s just at the top of this page.
“You can have the afternoon off when you die” - Edmund Blackadder
Forgive me if this has already been covered, but I had two questions for YEC’s:
1.) Why do galaxies rotate?
2.) How do you explain the observed phenomena of protein homology?
-Ben
I can try to shed some light on to your first question ‘why do galaxies rotate?’ but I can’t help with the second one.
From my understanding, galaxies rotate because of loads of poorly understood physical concepts that are applied to situations where they seem appropriate. Astrophysicists argue that gravitational pull cause spotaneous rotation, but I find this hard to understand.
Why should something falling inwards have any rotational motion at all? This question also applies to the formation of the Solar System. According to what I’ve seen/read, the formation of the Solar System from a spinning disc of matter around an early proto-Sun cannot explain the formation of the outer planets.
DrMatrix? Are you out there to wave the beam of knowledge through this cloud of utter…
Well, you get the idea. But I do need someone to explain this problem to me, because it’s been bugging me for a while now.
“You can have the afternoon off when you die” - Edmund Blackadder
I don’t know if I can explain why galaxies rotate (not sure I even know), but I hope to shed some light on why rotation arises.
Depends on your definition of “inwards”. If you mean “moving directly towards the center of gravity of the system, with no initial velocity component perpendicular to a line from the falling body to the center of gravity of the system and no forces tending to perturb the motion away from that line” then, yes, there would be no rotational motion. But that situation is incredibly unlikely.
Every body that is moving relative to whatever reference frame you choose has both a speed and a direction. Because the equations are linear with respect to the appropriate variables, we can consider that speed and direction as the sum of any number of speeds and directions that add up to the correct total speed and direction. It’s usually most convenient to consider two speeds and directions, one parallel to the line joining the moving body to the origin of the reference frame and one perpendicular to that line. And, just for convenience, pick the origin of the reference frame at the center of gravity of the system.
Angular momentum, in the absence of suitable external forces, is conserved. If the moving body initially has a non-zero speed perpendicular to the line connecting the body to the center of gravity of the system, then it will have an angular momentum. As the radius decreases, the rotational velocity must increase to maintain constant angular momentum.
Also, unless the distribution of matter is exactly homogeneous, as the body moves “inward” it will experience changes in the direction and magnitude of the total gravitational force. These changes can increase or decrease the rotation, but of all possible changes most of them increase the rotation. A random applied force has an equal chance of increasing or decreasing the rotation, but since the body is already moving the forces that increase the rotation tend to increase themselves, because for such forces the body must be moving generally towards the source of the force that increases the rotation.
This is, admittedly, a bit of arm-waving. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a good thought experiment right now, and the equations for as few as three bodies interacting are so hairy the we’ve never found a general solution. I do know that people have run computer simulations of large numbers of massive particles, with random initial velocities and gravitational interactions, and there’s a strong tendency for the system to wind up rotating. You might want to look at Galaxy Transformations or Cosmos in Fast Forward
jrf
Is it true that galaxies rotate clockwise if they are above the equator, and counter-clockwise if they are below?
Is it true that you can balance a galaxy on its head on a certain day each year?
Aircraft are the product of intellignt design, yet they evolved. Like the Wright Brothers, God first had to test basic design elements out in the real world before combining them into more complex design that, at first, can just barely function. After much experience, those that can keep cooking along become the basis for improved designs which become more divere as different needs and opportunities become apparant to the Designer. Vital elements are preserved but made more efficient to accomdate new innovations like a centralized control system and circulating energy source. Then the thing became computerized and the computers had be programmed, again acording tp past experience. Let’s just speculate that God has been somehow progamming DNA step by step, but that He isn’t so magical that He could insantaneously design, test, and revise each of the vast numbers of design elements in the plant and amimal kingdoms–all in virtual reality–and then actually build only finished designs. God has infinite patience, and given the millions of species evolving simultaneously, cut Him some slack. If it took God 4 billion years of hard work then He might appreciate you acknowledging it.
So, “Omniscient” and “Omnipotent” means that He couldn’t get it right from the beginning?
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
Zu diesem Projekt ist derzeit noch kein Abstract verfügbar.
What “beginning”?
A Flatlander tries to measure a “line”. It keeps winding back to where he started. Scratching his head, he asks, “Where does this thing begin?”
Lib:
When sqweels’ God
I find that to be an odd limitation for a Supreme Being.
And sqweels, what does DNA have to do with aircraft? (Oh, wait, you were only making an analogy.)
Fair enough, Doctor.
I suppose I was a bit gunshy from the weird argument I’ve seen around that if God is bot omniscient and omnipotent, man cannot have free will. I see that your observation holds in the case of sqweels, but as you can see by the Flatlander, it does not hold generally.
Sorry.
I don’t know nuthin’ about no Free Wills. You may notice that I decline to participate in those threads.
I do have a very poorly reasoned concept of the Free Will / Predestination question that I do not have the terminology to express clearly. Basically, if I believe I have freedom of thought and action, and all observers in my frame of reference agree with that, then for any human intent or purpose I am not an automaton.
Not that this has anything to do with the “God as R&D department” idea.
On the other hand, if it took Marduk a massive battle against Tiamat, He might like a little appreciation from you.
I should also point out that the question was addressed specifically to young-earth creationists.
-Ben
Seriously. I submit that God is not 100% omnipotent and omnicient, and perhaps it’s rather presumtuous to assume that He is. If God knows everything that’s going to happen before anything happens, then what’s the point in making it happen? The entire history of the universe would be instantaneous! (sort of like relationships these days) I think God is having fun watching events unfold. And learning, yes, God *learns[/].