(August 31, 2014 at 2:27 am)snowtracks Wrote: without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place. afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

(September 8, 2014 at 11:42 am)Chuck Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 7:03 am)Brakeman Wrote: Heavy Metals are elemental not mineral. Breaking down an element requires nuclear forces. You can biochemically combine elements but you are not "breaking them down."

When speaking of heavy metal, geochemists don't usually mean the atoms. Very few heavy metals are ever found in nature as pure elements. They are almost always found combined with other elements in characteristic molecules and minerals. When geochemist say heavy metal, they often mean the characteristic molecule or mineral in which the said metal is usually found..

My post clearly said that you can combine the heavy metals with other elements, perhaps you could do that biologically but it wouldn't be a significant method, still yet, bacteria cannot break down the element itself.

If you read his original post above, it seems he's making a case for the original heavy metals to be broken down originally by bacteria into the natural mineral compounds of which I can think of no examples for heavy metals. Perhaps he could be crudely describing a mythical creation of lighter metals from the heavy ones? What ever the case, it doesn't match reality of heavy metals on earth. The metallic compounds of the heavy metals certainly did not originate biologically.
Gold, Lead, and Mercury compounds do not originate from bacterial action and whether they become soluble in some solution has nothing to do with god, dark matter, and woo, it has to do with chemistry.

---

(August 31, 2014 at 2:27 am)snowtracks Wrote: without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place. afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

(September 8, 2014 at 11:42 am)Chuck Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 7:03 am)Brakeman Wrote: Heavy Metals are elemental not mineral. Breaking down an element requires nuclear forces. You can biochemically combine elements but you are not "breaking them down."

When speaking of heavy metal, geochemists don't usually mean the atoms. Very few heavy metals are ever found in nature as pure elements. They are almost always found combined with other elements in characteristic molecules and minerals. When geochemist say heavy metal, they often mean the characteristic molecule or mineral in which the said metal is usually found..

My post clearly said that you can combine the heavy metals with other elements, perhaps you could do that biologically but it wouldn't be a significant method, still yet, bacteria cannot break down the element itself.

If you read his original post above, it seems he's making a case for the original heavy metals to be broken down organically by bacteria into the natural mineral compounds of which I can think of no examples processes for heavy metals. Perhaps he could be crudely describing a mythical creation of lighter metals from the heavy ones? What ever the case, it doesn't match reality of heavy metals on earth. The metallic compounds of the heavy metals certainly did not originate biologically. They are naturally found as compounds with oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur, among a few others, and these combinations occurred well before cellular life.
Gold, Lead, and Mercury compounds do not originate from bacterial action and whether they become soluble in some solution has nothing to do with god, dark matter, and woo, it has to do with chemistry.

stars have already gone through several cycles, the first ones fused hydrogen and helium to form heavier elements that astrophysics called metals. subsequent stars used these metals to form smaller, and hence longer-lived stars suitable to form rocky planets. the ashes of these smaller generation of stars enriched earth with the chemical form of metals; i.e., iron, nickel, moly, copper, etc. high concentration of these metals are poisonous to advanced life in soluble form. various forms of bacteria over a billion years fed on diluted soluble metal compounds converting these compounds into insoluble forms. the decayed residues of the bacteria yielded the concentrated ores.
so this bacteria activity over a billion years worked on the earth’s environment, made it safe for advanced life and produced ore deposits which without would have assured stone age isolation for homo sapiens sapiens.

(September 8, 2014 at 6:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 11:42 am)Chuck Wrote: When speaking of heavy metal, geochemists don't usually mean the atoms. Very few heavy metals are ever found in nature as pure elements. They are almost always found combined with other elements in characteristic molecules and minerals. When geochemist say heavy metal, they often mean the characteristic molecule or mineral in which the said metal is usually found. So when chemist say breaking down heavy metal, they don't mean nuclear fission. They mean chemically taking apart the characteristic molecules in which the heavy metals are found.

huh?!

wiki Wrote:A heavy metal is any metal or metalloid of environmental concern. The term originated with reference to the harmful effects of cadmium, mercury and lead, all of which are denser than iron. It has since been applied to any other similarly toxic metal, or metalloid such as arsenic,[4] regardless of density.[5] Commonly encountered heavy metals are chromium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium, silver, cadmium, antimony, mercury, thallium and lead. More specific definitions of a heavy metal have been proposed; none have obtained widespread acceptance.[6]

I see elements, not compounds...


Also, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...6108002668

Quote:This paper presents the results of modeling the distribution of eight critical heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc) in topsoils using 1588 georeferenced samples from the Forum of European Geological Surveys Geochemical database (26 European countries)....

That's from a geochemist's paper.... all I see is elements.


For a moment, there, I thought my nuclear fusion bias was working up... but... nope!

I majored in geological engineering. I should know. The term "heavy metal" is often used as jargon to refer to compounds with metal elements in them, not the metal elements themselves. When we said breakdown heavy elements, we don't necessarily even mean breaking down compounds into simpler compounds. Some times we just mean transferring the metal element form one compound which has certain specific property in question to another that doesn't.

---

(September 9, 2014 at 2:14 am)snowtracks Wrote: stars have already gone through several cycles, the first ones fused hydrogen and helium to form heavier elements that astrophysics called metals. subsequent stars used these metals to form smaller, and hence longer-lived stars suitable to form rocky planets. the ashes of these smaller generation of stars enriched earth with the chemical form of metals; i.e., iron, nickel, moly, copper, etc. high concentration of these metals are poisonous to advanced life in soluble form. various forms of bacteria over a billion years fed on diluted soluble metal compounds converting these compounds into insoluble forms. the decayed residues of the bacteria yielded the concentrated ores.
so this bacteria activity over a billion years worked on the earth’s environment, made it safe for advanced life and produced ore deposits which without would have assured stone age isolation for homo sapiens sapiens.

Tell me, do you think the sun is one solar mass because your imaginary god knew a star with one solar mass will shine in a color that happen to suit the sensitivity of the human eye, and so benevolently caused the sun to be made that way?

Or is the sun one solar mass simply because it happen to be one solar mass, and human eye evolution then found the advantage of having an eye that happen to see best in the available light?

(September 9, 2014 at 2:48 am)Chuck Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 6:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote: huh?!


I see elements, not compounds...


Also, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...6108002668

That's from a geochemist's paper.... all I see is elements.


For a moment, there, I thought my nuclear fusion bias was working up... but... nope!

I majored in geological engineering. I should know. The term "heavy metal" is often used as jargon to refer to compounds with metal elements in them, not the metal elements themselves. When we said breakdown heavy elements, we don't necessarily even mean breaking down compounds into simpler compounds. Some times we just mean transferring the metal element form one compound which has certain specific property in question to another that doesn't.

---

(September 9, 2014 at 2:14 am)snowtracks Wrote: stars have already gone through several cycles, the first ones fused hydrogen and helium to form heavier elements that astrophysics called metals. subsequent stars used these metals to form smaller, and hence longer-lived stars suitable to form rocky planets. the ashes of these smaller generation of stars enriched earth with the chemical form of metals; i.e., iron, nickel, moly, copper, etc. high concentration of these metals are poisonous to advanced life in soluble form. various forms of bacteria over a billion years fed on diluted soluble metal compounds converting these compounds into insoluble forms. the decayed residues of the bacteria yielded the concentrated ores.
so this bacteria activity over a billion years worked on the earth’s environment, made it safe for advanced life and produced ore deposits which without would have assured stone age isolation for homo sapiens sapiens.

Tell me, do you think the sun is one solar mass because your imaginary god knew a star with one solar mass will shine in a color that happen to suit the sensitivity of the human eye, and so benevolently caused the sun to be made that way?

Or is the sun one solar mass simply because it happen to be one solar mass, and human eye evolution then found the advantage of having an eye that happen to see best in the available light?

one question has the word 'imaginary', the other 'evolution' so I can't tell you.

(September 9, 2014 at 2:14 am)snowtracks Wrote: stars have already gone through several cycles, the first ones fused hydrogen and helium to form heavier elements that astrophysics called metals. subsequent stars used these metals to form smaller, and hence longer-lived stars suitable to form rocky planets. the ashes of these smaller generation of stars enriched earth with the chemical form of metals; i.e., iron, nickel, moly, copper, etc. high concentration of these metals are poisonous to advanced life in soluble form. various forms of bacteria over a billion years fed on diluted soluble metal compounds converting these compounds into insoluble forms. the decayed residues of the bacteria yielded the concentrated ores.
so this bacteria activity over a billion years worked on the earth’s environment, made it safe for advanced life and produced ore deposits which without would have assured stone age isolation for homo sapiens sapiens.

It's really funny that you'll pay lip service to science when you think it agrees with you, but just recently you've demonstrated that you don't understand basic scientific terminology when you used the old "it's just a theory not a fact!" canard against evolution.

Why should anyone trust your claims as they regard science when you can't even get the language right?

(September 10, 2014 at 12:44 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(September 9, 2014 at 2:48 am)Chuck Wrote: I majored in geological engineering. I should know. The term "heavy metal" is often used as jargon to refer to compounds with metal elements in them, not the metal elements themselves. When we said breakdown heavy elements, we don't necessarily even mean breaking down compounds into simpler compounds. Some times we just mean transferring the metal element form one compound which has certain specific property in question to another that doesn't.

---

Tell me, do you think the sun is one solar mass because your imaginary god knew a star with one solar mass will shine in a color that happen to suit the sensitivity of the human eye, and so benevolently caused the sun to be made that way?

Or is the sun one solar mass simply because it happen to be one solar mass, and human eye evolution then found the advantage of having an eye that happen to see best in the available light?

one question has the word 'imaginary', the other 'evolution' so I can't tell you.

Of course not, but the effort to disguise the deer in the head light reflex is amusing.

(September 8, 2014 at 1:41 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(August 31, 2014 at 7:25 am)Chas Wrote: You need to read an actual science book - not some woo-woo book by non-scientists.

Do you actually believe bacteria break down heavy metals? Do you even science?

This article claims that bacteria do in fact break down heavy metals.

Attack of the Rock-Eating Microbes!
Some bacteria break down minerals, while others make them
[url=http://www.phschool.com/science/science_...ating.html

No. They break down minerals.

(September 6, 2014 at 8:24 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 6, 2014 at 1:14 am)snowtracks Wrote: l
the contemporary scientific enterprise is locked in to interpreting data to fit into a naturalism framework which means all theories, discoveries, and phenomenon must explained materialistically or make an appeal to the future. so what else could he say even if he thought otherwise? naturalistic researchers, scientists, authors will never interpret data, observation that won't have a materialistic conclusion. for instance - "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." -Richard Dawkins. interesting to read what they say, but the conclusion won't be philosophically unbiased.

In the past science was all about looking for evidence of god and trying to explain his creation.

It moved away from that when it became clear that the requirement for a divine creator was and would most likely never be found, in fact "materialistic" answers were all that was required for everything.

I am in fact unsure how a non-materialistic view of the universe could explain anything at all in any meaningful way

while you neanderthals have been mucking in the intellectual mud, a world class atheist thinker says the ID crowd is correct about the mind and consciousness existing and naturalism/ materialism is royally whacked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos
this is obvious stuff, so how did the board members get their minds tricked so easily?

Professor of Philosphy, hmmmm, I'm sure he'll have a real working scientific model that he's tested with repeatable results and had them peer reviewed....

Meanwhile, Addy Pross and the gang are just sitting in their systems chemistry labs thinking things up.

Where the universe came from doesn't interest me the least, its where its going that I am concerned with.