ChatterBank2 mins ago
Life On Earth, Science Vs Religion
I don't wish to denigrate any individuals beliefs, but I am curious how this story is received by those who follow religion and the origins of the earth taught through religion.
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jd_1984. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
@divebuddy
Thanks for that link. It does go on a fair bit, so I didn't read it in its entirety but it gave me what I hadn't expected - pyramids west of the Andes, albeit modified natural hilltops rather than build up from a flat plain.
So it's another example of convergent thinking ("hey, let's build a high tower") or you are forced to postulate some adventurous travellers crossing the Andes on a sufficiently regular basis to be able to carry the idea of pyramids from meso America down to the coast as soon as that concept arose, on that side of the Atlantic.
(I remember some fuss, on Skeptics forum about traces of cocaine in Egyptian mummies and mused on possible transatlantic voyages by Phoenicians or Egyptians, with/without an overland trade route along the north coast of Africa but the explantion was terribly mundane. Mummies became so low in price that the were used by smugglers, from the late 1800s onwards, so they are as contaminated as some banknotes (allegedly) are).
Thanks for that link. It does go on a fair bit, so I didn't read it in its entirety but it gave me what I hadn't expected - pyramids west of the Andes, albeit modified natural hilltops rather than build up from a flat plain.
So it's another example of convergent thinking ("hey, let's build a high tower") or you are forced to postulate some adventurous travellers crossing the Andes on a sufficiently regular basis to be able to carry the idea of pyramids from meso America down to the coast as soon as that concept arose, on that side of the Atlantic.
(I remember some fuss, on Skeptics forum about traces of cocaine in Egyptian mummies and mused on possible transatlantic voyages by Phoenicians or Egyptians, with/without an overland trade route along the north coast of Africa but the explantion was terribly mundane. Mummies became so low in price that the were used by smugglers, from the late 1800s onwards, so they are as contaminated as some banknotes (allegedly) are).
Anyone thinking a pyramid is an architectural invention on some sort of aesthetic principle should think again. It is the most simple and steady configuration to construct a pile. Go to the fruit and veg. stalls at any market in the world and see how loose produce - apples, cabbages, tomatoes etc. are displayed, and that is why it is a universal form.
Divebuddy, //Without that priming wouldn't a reasonable person think about a head-dress, not a spaceman's helmet for instance. //
In some instances very reasonable, but it’s often not simply a head-dress that portrays the impression – and I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why it couldn’t have happened.
In some instances very reasonable, but it’s often not simply a head-dress that portrays the impression – and I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why it couldn’t have happened.
@naomi
I can't dismiss the possibility of ancient visitations but I do find it an unattractive idea because, the minute the possibility of 'seeding' of life on earth is opened up, we are instantly robbed of all hope of working out how abiogenesis happened *here*.
We have clues about earth's primordial atmosphere, surface rocks and when it was cool enough for oceans deep enough for water pressure to accelerate chemical reaction rates to levels as fast as in living organisms.
The conditions on planets outwith our solar system are firmly in the 'unknowable' class and that is profoundly unsatisfying.
I can't dismiss the possibility of ancient visitations but I do find it an unattractive idea because, the minute the possibility of 'seeding' of life on earth is opened up, we are instantly robbed of all hope of working out how abiogenesis happened *here*.
We have clues about earth's primordial atmosphere, surface rocks and when it was cool enough for oceans deep enough for water pressure to accelerate chemical reaction rates to levels as fast as in living organisms.
The conditions on planets outwith our solar system are firmly in the 'unknowable' class and that is profoundly unsatisfying.
@thread
I have had a quick look at the paper which jim posted the link to, at the foot of page 5. Very useful, with lots of embedded links to other works.
A lot of discussion of probabilities, which I can just about grasp but a central equation which I am not going to fully comprehend without the benefit of the requisite astrophysics course or a minimum of a short lecture. Both beyond the remit of AB, it hardly needs to be said.
Okay, having accepted that other civilisations *could have* arisen far ahead of our own, how do they cope with the immense transit times involved in interstellar travel?
'Suspended animation' is still firmly in the realms of sci-fi for us, so you would be asking me to make a leap of... wait for it... faith to believe that aliens are granted such powers merely by dint of being thousands or millions of years more advanced than we are.
I have had a quick look at the paper which jim posted the link to, at the foot of page 5. Very useful, with lots of embedded links to other works.
A lot of discussion of probabilities, which I can just about grasp but a central equation which I am not going to fully comprehend without the benefit of the requisite astrophysics course or a minimum of a short lecture. Both beyond the remit of AB, it hardly needs to be said.
Okay, having accepted that other civilisations *could have* arisen far ahead of our own, how do they cope with the immense transit times involved in interstellar travel?
'Suspended animation' is still firmly in the realms of sci-fi for us, so you would be asking me to make a leap of... wait for it... faith to believe that aliens are granted such powers merely by dint of being thousands or millions of years more advanced than we are.
@jd1984
I am perplexed by this statement, in The Mirror's article.
//They were enriched with C12, a "light" carbon isotope,
or atomic strain, normally associated with living things.//
C12 is the "normal" form of carbon. Wikipedia mentions 15 isotopes, most with half-lives in minutes, down to 10^-21 seconds; another stable one (1% abundance). C14 is nitrogen12 after an impact by a neutron. It can then decay to C12.
"Normally associated with living things", is not untrue but you could equally find it in mineral compounds. The early earth had to release mineral carbon by weathering of rocks before it became available for the chemical processes required to build the precursors of life.
Also they said the carbon specks were graphite. Living creatures do not synthesise graphite. (ttbomk) Neither do their tissues turn to graphite when burnt.
I am not a geologist but vaguely recall some explanation saying that extreme heat and pressure is required to force carbon to bond together in that manner. Something short of the conditions required to make diamonds, at any rate.
However, this presupposes a pocket of carbon trapped in the first place and not bonded to other elements. Life processes could certainly cause carbon to be gathered together, in non-mineral form, precipitated on the sea bed and a subduction zone does the heat and pressure transformation thing. Perhaps that is what they have in mind?
I am perplexed by this statement, in The Mirror's article.
//They were enriched with C12, a "light" carbon isotope,
or atomic strain, normally associated with living things.//
C12 is the "normal" form of carbon. Wikipedia mentions 15 isotopes, most with half-lives in minutes, down to 10^-21 seconds; another stable one (1% abundance). C14 is nitrogen12 after an impact by a neutron. It can then decay to C12.
"Normally associated with living things", is not untrue but you could equally find it in mineral compounds. The early earth had to release mineral carbon by weathering of rocks before it became available for the chemical processes required to build the precursors of life.
Also they said the carbon specks were graphite. Living creatures do not synthesise graphite. (ttbomk) Neither do their tissues turn to graphite when burnt.
I am not a geologist but vaguely recall some explanation saying that extreme heat and pressure is required to force carbon to bond together in that manner. Something short of the conditions required to make diamonds, at any rate.
However, this presupposes a pocket of carbon trapped in the first place and not bonded to other elements. Life processes could certainly cause carbon to be gathered together, in non-mineral form, precipitated on the sea bed and a subduction zone does the heat and pressure transformation thing. Perhaps that is what they have in mind?
Naomi, 'faith' to believe that a civilisation thousands of years in advance of ours could have developed 'suspended animation' techniques is only the same as asking Bronze Age man to imagine electricity or even the Elizibethans to imagine travelling to the newly found Americas in a little over two hours (Concorde).
Hypo; I must admit that the immense amount of time to travel the vast distances is the most compelling argument, if it is true that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and it has taken thousands of years for the light from distant stars to reach us. There might though be other methods of travel of which we cannot conceive, involving concepts such as parallel universes and worm holes and other 'far out' ideas.
The Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees says there could be a three-dimensional universe just a millimetre away from us, but if that millimetre was measured in a fourth spatial dimension, we would be completely unaware of it. He says, it's conceivable that there are aspects of reality of which we are unaware, that reality may include aliens and they might be right in front of us, but if they don't have humanoid features we might never recognise them. Heady stuff !
The Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees says there could be a three-dimensional universe just a millimetre away from us, but if that millimetre was measured in a fourth spatial dimension, we would be completely unaware of it. He says, it's conceivable that there are aspects of reality of which we are unaware, that reality may include aliens and they might be right in front of us, but if they don't have humanoid features we might never recognise them. Heady stuff !
Hypognosis, // I do find it an unattractive idea because, the minute the possibility of 'seeding' of life on earth is opened up, we are instantly robbed of all hope of working out how abiogenesis happened *here*.//
I have been accused here, quite wrongly, of “wanting it to be true”, or words to that effect, but it’s clear from this discussion that some very much want it to be untrue. I seek only the truth and should it eventually transpire that the truth contradicts my current suspicions, so be it. Since it’s evident that the ‘gods’ were not what they claimed to be, nor whom their various adherents claim them to have been, my primary interest is in the advent of the various religions. When viewed in the light of current knowledge the plethora of ‘evidence’ bequeathed to us by our predecessors appears to indicate exceedingly graphically that something other than ‘supernatural’ gods was present on earth in the dim and distant past and, therefore, in honest pursuit of the truth, I feel that this suggestion warrants rather more than instant dismissal. That is the crux of my argument.
I have been accused here, quite wrongly, of “wanting it to be true”, or words to that effect, but it’s clear from this discussion that some very much want it to be untrue. I seek only the truth and should it eventually transpire that the truth contradicts my current suspicions, so be it. Since it’s evident that the ‘gods’ were not what they claimed to be, nor whom their various adherents claim them to have been, my primary interest is in the advent of the various religions. When viewed in the light of current knowledge the plethora of ‘evidence’ bequeathed to us by our predecessors appears to indicate exceedingly graphically that something other than ‘supernatural’ gods was present on earth in the dim and distant past and, therefore, in honest pursuit of the truth, I feel that this suggestion warrants rather more than instant dismissal. That is the crux of my argument.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
News12 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago