- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Nov 18
2 edits
@whodey
It was called "abrupt appearance" in years past.
If I were a biologist I would explore how sudden changes might give rise to abrupt appearance of new life forms.
Gould theorized "punctuated equilibria". I thought is was an improvement. Except he said by this method there would not be left much of a fossil record of links.
Which rationale I think was an excuse for not seeing in the fossil record what Evolutionists longed to see - a smoother gradualism.
27 Nov 18
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou never built a radio, CPU, played an instrument? Specific tolerances can come inplay where if ranges are pass or fail, that are measured in the smallest of details, and if these are coupled with other details of equal sensitivity and complexity these are not signs of haphazardly mixtures of odds and ends thrown together.
Sorry Kelly. You keep using the 'fine tuning' expression but I reject that entirely. Conditions are either right for life or they are not right for life. There is nothing more to it than that.
27 Nov 18
@dj2becker said1. The so called "Goldilocks zone" extends from about Venus to just past Mars the Earth could have been anywhere in that vast area.
If the earth was closer to the sun we would all fry and if it was further away we would all freeze. If the moon was closer to the earth we would all be wiped out by the high tide. Finely tuned indeed.
2. Exoplanets have been found in the Goldilocks zone.
3. A hotter or colder Earth would have still developed life ... just different.
4. If the moon were closer .... wtf?
27 Nov 18
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAgain, from "Genesis and the Big Bang"
They will use intelligence to recreate what happened when life first appeared on this planet, yes.
Was intelligence involved when life first appeared, no.
"As we all know, fossil evidence for a variety of microbial life forms has been found in sedimentary rocks more than 3.3 billion years od. The oldest sedimentary rocks are dated about 3.8 billion years. In this span of approximately 0.5 billion years, the common ancestor of life must have developed the extraordinary and exquisite chemistry of life and also mutated sufficiently to have produced a variety of progeny.
The appearance of life on Earth almost as soon as the Earth was able to host life and the improbability of random development of our genetic code in the available time has led scientists in many disciplines to suggest extraterrestrial sources of life on Earth. Nobel laureates Svante August Arrhenius and Francis Crick and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle are among those who have looked to space for our origins.
Even if we find that extraterrestrial seeding was the source of life on Earth, this would not solve the question of the ultimate origin of life. As Morowitz pointed out, even 15 billion years are insufficient for unguided, random reactions to produce life.
What we observe is this search for our cosmic roots is that many respected scientists, working in a range of disciplines, are seeking forces, other than those usually observed on the Earth, to explain our fossil record because the fossil record itself cannot be explained by the conventional laws of chemistry and biology. There is a new awareness in the scientific community that the simple evolutionary approach of inorganic chemistry leading to the biochemical requires modification.
@sonship saidIndeed. Something needs to explain things like the "Cambrian Explosion" in the seas, much akin to day 5 in Genesis.
@whodey
It was called "abrupt appearance" in years past.
If I were a biologist I would explore how sudden changes might give rise to abrupt appearance of new life forms.
Gould theorized "punctuated equilibria". I thought is was an improvement. Except he said by this method there would not be left much of a fossil record of links.
Which rationale I think was an excuse for not seeing in the fossil record what Evolutionists longed to see - a smoother gradualism.
interestingly, Dr. Schroeder came up with his own universal clock as to the age of the universe. I won't get into his reasoning for this clock which is itself fascinating.
It goes something like this, the universe is about 15 billion years old. He then halved each day in Genesis. So that makes day one 8 billion years, day 2 is 4 billion years, day 3 is 2 billion years, etc. If you then compare the scientific calendar to the Bibles 6 days of Genesis, they mirror each other perfectly.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29830
27 Nov 18
@whodey saidYour efforts are appreciated Whodey.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Just for you, I will pain snakingly type out something from the book "Genesis and the Big Bang", by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. If it sparks an interest, go read it.
"But what of the fossil record on which I have relied so heavily to outline the appearance and flow of life on Earth and which is used so frequently to repudiate the validity of Genesis? Does it ...[text shortened]... appears, remains until it disappears and a new, different structure arises in its place "suddenly".
27 Nov 18
@whodey saidWell, if Morowitz claimed it, that settles it then, doesn't it?
Again, from "Genesis and the Big Bang"
"As we all know, fossil evidence for a variety of microbial life forms has been found in sedimentary rocks more than 3.3 billion years od. The oldest sedimentary rocks are dated about 3.8 billion years. In this span of approximately 0.5 billion years, the common ancestor of life must have developed the extraordinary and exquisite che ...[text shortened]... imple evolutionary approach of inorganic chemistry leading to the biochemical requires modification.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@whodey
I have a book by Schroeder. An Orthodox Jew and professor at MIT. The Science of God.
My favorite chapter is the one where he goes through the statistical probability model of a chimpanzee to human evolution.
I have seen his theories about what I might call Day Age treatment of the Genesis days. To follow them off the top of my head is hard. I would have to go over it again in detail because TIME seems to shrink and do unusual things in his explanation.
You can't say he didn't think about Genesis it scientifically.
27 Nov 18
@sonship saidHe got his degree at MIT. Not a Professor there.
@whodey
I have a book by Schroeder. An Orthodox Jew and professor at MIT. The Science of God
He emigrated to Israel in 1971 and teaches at Aish HaTorah College of
Jewish Studies. (not exactly a cutting edge Scientific establishment)
He is a religious nut who has tried to reconcile the 6 day Creation
with the Big Bang by proposing the stretching of space-time.
Bonkers.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29830
27 Nov 18
@wolfgang59 saidMy parents did that with Father Christmas, to explain how he managed to deliver all those presents in one night.
He got his degree at MIT. Not a Professor there.
He emigrated to Israel in 1971 and teaches at Aish HaTorah College of
Jewish Studies. (not exactly a cutting edge Scientific establishment)
He is a religious nut who has tried to reconcile the 6 day Creation
with the Big Bang by proposing the stretching of space-time.
Bonkers.
😵
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29830
27 Nov 18
@kellyjay saidEarthquakes and the like bring into question 'design' and 'fine tuning', don't you think?
You never built a radio, CPU, played an instrument? Specific tolerances can come inplay where if ranges are pass or fail, that are measured in the smallest of details, and if these are coupled with other details of equal sensitivity and complexity these are not signs of haphazardly mixtures of odds and ends thrown together.
27 Nov 18
@wolfgang59 saidEver read his book?
He got his degree at MIT. Not a Professor there.
He emigrated to Israel in 1971 and teaches at Aish HaTorah College of
Jewish Studies. (not exactly a cutting edge Scientific establishment)
He is a religious nut who has tried to reconcile the 6 day Creation
with the Big Bang by proposing the stretching of space-time.
Bonkers.
Why so judgmental and snobbish?
Speaking of which, do you know who came up with the theory of plate tectonics? He was laughed to derision.
What about the person that came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen? She was laughed to derision, so much so, she later wrote how she did not know how she could have been so stupid as to have come to that conclusion. Naturally, they scoffed at her because her theory was unorthodox, and because she was a woman.
How about the priest who came up with the Big Bang theory? Einstein and company laughed at him as well, calling him a religious nut.
How about the man who suggested that ulcers were caused by bacteria in the stomach that could survive the acidity? He too was laughed at.
Me? I much prefer unorthodox thinking apart from the ivory tower types because that seems to be where we find truth in science, isn't it? If you ask me, Schroeder is in damn good company.
Thanks for playing.
28 Nov 18
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI don't think anyone really knows how he does it but it's an interesting hypothesis.
My parents did that with Father Christmas, to explain how he managed to deliver all those presents in one night.
😵
28 Nov 18
@whodey saidI can't read every book written so I discriminate.
Ever read his book?
You would do well to try it.
And are you referring to Celia Payne? She was advised to delay publishing
her theory (which she did) because it was not mainstream and she was young.
She was not laughed at.
Good science - even if revolutionary - is not laughed at.