Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Shared wisdom between both East and West. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?169784-Books-that-matter-Analects-of-Confucius
Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Shared wisdom between both East and West. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?169784-Books-that-matter-Analects-of-Confucius
We do not yet understand biological emergence, dark energy, the quantum wave function collapse, and we cannot reconcile general relativity with quantum theory.
And yet I am not aware of one legitimate scientist who has thrown their hands up in defeat and pronounced it is too hard to figure out and it must have been a result of divine intervention.
The odds are we will use our faculties of reason to ultimately find physical and chemical principles that have good explanatory power.
The realm of the inexplicable shrinks decade after decade.
From the metaphysical angle, the better question is: where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from? Why is their order rather than chaos underlying them? Why is there something rather than nothing?
If you want to go searching for providential creation, that is where I suggest starting.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No shit, INT.
The exact age of the Earth is unknown, but it's approximate age is measured to be 4.7 billion years. Do you have an alternative view? Any links to support it?
https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/q1152.html
How old is the Earth?
Radioactive dating using uranium decay to lead gives an age near 4.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 0.1 billion years either way. The oldest rocks recovered from ancient geological strata are about 3.9 billion years old or thereabouts. The oldest moon rock samples from the lunar highland regions are about 4.2 billion years old. And meteorite samples recovered from many localities indicate ages of 4.5-4.9 billion years for the minerals, or dust grains. Presumably, this meteoritic material dates from a time when the solar system was just forming, and the planets had not as yet begun to appear. The oldest signs of life in the form of fossil bacteria, date from about 3.8 billion years and indicate that life began to appear on the surface of the Earth within about 500 million years after the planet had begun to form a stable crust that allowed radioactive isotopes to be trapped, and allow the possible of radioactive dating to yield ages near 4.5-4.7 billion years.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/earth/in-depth/
Potential for Life
Earth has a very hospitable temperature and mix of chemicals that have made life possible here. Most notably, Earth is unique in that most of our planet is covered in water, since the temperature allows liquid water to exist for extended periods of time. Earth's vast oceans provided a convenient place for life to begin about 3.8 billion years ago.
Why does INT always state the obvious?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
He's a little anxious to look smart and appear sane.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
What I meant was the less you know about the inner workings and integrated complexity found even in the most ‘primitive’ cells, the more one realizes what, exactly, is being asked of an abiogenesis *theory*.
And I’m afraid you have it backwards: in Darwin’s day it was a simple matter of natural selection acting on blobs of protoplasm. With the advent of election microscopy and the bio molecular sciences it’s become apparent that those little ‘blobs’ have operational codes that we can only describe as a kind of software along with some pretty nifty nano machinery.
It’s become decidedly more difficult to conceive—not less. I’m not saying give up, my point is they have a pretty steep mountain to climb. And minds shouldn’t be closed to the prospect that it’s impossible to climb.
I don’t know about anyone else, but mine is still wide open. Let the chips fall where they may.
Into the Night
Verified User
None of what they did is 'planetary science'.Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepler.
Copernicus pushed the theory of the solar centric. He was wrong. The Sun is not the center of the universe, but just another star.
Tycho Brae built some marvelous instruments for watching the sky, including planets, stars, moons, etc. His data was instrumental for Kepler's work.
Galileo observed moons around Jupiter, and thus falsified the theory of the terracentric universe. Not planetary science.
Kepler used the orbit of mars to build general theories of orbits of anything. No planetary science.
Try again.
Into the Night
Verified User
....and....?
You asked the question. I answered.
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA. I already did. I will do it again since you apparently missed it the last time.
For Natural Selection to take place, you must have a variety to select from. Natural selection, however tends to reducing variety. So where does the variety come from? You can't suspend natural selection for even a moment.
Into the Night
Verified User
Incomplete answer.
Let me guess, there is no such thing as orbital mechanics?
Into the Night
Verified User
For everything, not just planets.
Explain.
Into the Night
Verified User
So you deny the Theory of Abiogenesis?
So there's nothing?
Let me guess... there is no such thing as computer science?
"Einstein will look wrong in the future despite being more right than his predecessors, therefore he did not do physics or math."
dumbfucking loser fallacy
Into the Night
Verified User
Do I need to define 'selection' to you???