Science question for college about carbon based life

I don't know how to quote a post but this is in reply to JAR in which he saidWell, almost all of your post is OT, but it's so wrong that I have to respond.
and some stars at the far reaches of the universe are moving at a speed that is a considerable fraction of the speed of light slowing down time for them.Again, please get some very very basic info before you print something like that on a term paper. It will just get you a great big zero as a grade. We have some great threads here on time and relativity as well as several members that actually work in the field.I got that out of my text book. This is not a christian college and like I said it teaches that the universe is 15 billion years old. This came out of the text book in my Physics class, the other class I am taking during the discussion of the dopler effect which is how thay determined the speeds of galaxys with red shift and all that. I will quote"The vast majority of galaxies - and certainly all of those father from us than about 3 million light-years (MLY) - are moving away from us and are doing so with velocities that are, in many cases, significant fractions of the speed of light."This is from my physics text book entitled Inquiry Into Physics fifth edition. Authors: Vern J. Ostdiek and Donald J. Bord Page 228 in the physics potpourri section. So I think this is a very reliable source. I however when I get a chance I will investigate further.

Right, but that's apparent movement caused by the expansion of space. Not acceleration, so they don't experience time dialation.

Never heard of those sites, can you send me the link for both AiG and ICR? I would appricate it

Hi kallcium, welcome to EvC forum. This quoting was done withYou can also use the peek button at the bottom of a post to see how it was done.

---

Getting back to the topic of Why carbon? Thanks Ringo I never thought of it like that.

Crashfrog, I dont totally understand what your saying. I have heard people say exantion of space but I understand space is really nothing and nothing cant expand. The exanding your seeing is the stars on the edges of the univers moving father away from each other. And for reasons I don't know they are accelerating. I read an interesting artice on space.com about a year ago talking about how even our galaxy is accelerating and that there will become a point in time billions of years from now that we will only be able to see light from start in our own galaxy, since the most other galaxys are moving away from us (yeah I know there are some moving toward or with us) and that the speed of light is not fast enough to reach us. Also there will be a point in time several billion years from that where we are aceelerating so fast that the atomic structures will begin to break apart. That was a scientific article in space.com not a christian site. I could go back and look for it but i dont know the name of the article or the date. I will try though.

Hmm, maybe they haven't gotten very far into the site yet. Have you seen where he says that T. rex probably breathed fire, the Loch Ness monster is real, and there are pterodactyls still living in Kenya?He put this and much more, even just on these placemats he printed up:
Click to see Dr. Dino placematsSeriously, even many young-earth creationists find Hovind embarrassing. Not a good idea to use him as a source for this paper.That said, I see no reason to make up a creationist answer for this particular question. The real answer is not contradicted by YEC beliefs nor anything in the bible. Just talk about the properties of carbon atoms, there's no need to talk about the "why." Unless you're looking for controversy where none really exists.

Sorry, Kallicum. We endeavour to keep each thread about a single topic. You are tending to wander all over.Ok I found the article it is the big rip theory at this web site Endless Void or Big Crunch: How Will the Universe End? | Space so if what they say is true (I know its only a theory) but it is that the galaxys including our own are accelerating either a constant acceleration or and increasing one, either way it is not the apperance of acceleration or even a constant or slowing speed. Now if you can explain this to me you are certainly welcome to. I do listen to other people and make my own opinion after hearing everything, especally on topics like these since no one can prove it either way.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-28-2006 06:04 PM

Oh its not a paper just a discussion question. Yeah I never have seen that. T-rex breathing fire, that is a little absurd. While I dont believe loch ness is real some reliable scientists seem to. Yeah that can be a little embarassing. I have read a lot into his site and agree with a lot of it, just never seen those kind of things. Now a dinosaur being know as a dragon or a beast.. maybe

The topic is carbon based life.Stick to it or the thread will be temporarily closed to remind everyone.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-28-2006 06:05 PM

off-topic - deletedThis message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-28-2006 07:06 PM

Ok so if carbon is best suited for life how did it get so pleniful. If it was made in stars then wouldn't there be an equal amount of all elements made. Or at least more of the lighter elements such as H He Li Be and B. If Carbon was made in stars then why would this planet be made mostly of Iron at least in the core and mantel. I would think Carbon being a lighter element than Iron would be more plentiful. For the young Earth Creationists is there an alternative to Carbon being made in stars? Any thing with a little science behind it?

Hydrogen and helium were formed at the time of the big bang in about a 3 to 1 ratio.The other elements are not formed equally by the nucleosynthesis processes in stars and supernovae.The abundance of elements is calculated from the understanding of the big bang and nucleosynthesis and the experimental measurements and the math agree very, very well. This is part of the support for the big bang experimentally.Iron is not all that common, you are mistaking the composition of the earth as representative of the composition of the elements formed in stars. Iron is, of course, concentrated in the earth because many lighter elements are driven off closer to the sun. It is different out in the cold where the gas giants are.Don't ask me about young earth creationists and science. There isn't any that I know of.see here for elemental ratios of solar system and earth: Origin of elements

For life to develop, it is necessary to have some carbon. The relative plentitude is irrelevant.And remember: we are only concerned with carbon on the earth's surface. Carbon anywhere else in the universe (or at the earth's core) is irrelevant to the formation of life on earth.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ok not to sound niave, which I'm sure you might think but according to that site it said that heavier elements need to be made in giant stars and is only possible there. Small and medium or average stars wont do. So how did these heavier elements come here in suffient quanities. For one the distance is so great and 2 in an explosion of a star the "star stuff" is spread apart in equal mass and directions so by the time it came here it seems to me that even after billions of years there really wouldn't be a significant amount it would be spread out over the vast distances of space