Legacy Fan Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, fellas. Geologists are pretty sure about this. That one we know. They have a very good idea, but they're not sure. This is not semantics (it is in here, but it's not in the scientific community). http://news.discovery.com/space/the-four-ages-of-the-universe-whats-next-120327.htm Some fraction of planets became astrobiological “Petri dishes” for biochemical reactions. The hallmark of the biological era is the still unknown leap from dormant matter to self-replicating matter. This remarkable process is driven by complex molecular nanomachines storing and reprocessing information under Darwinian rules. Again, science is working backwards under the "this is how it probably happened," which is technically lazy, but accepted. If you're honest, perspective is what separates this notion from the crazy "guy with a white beard in the clouds" thing. Easy to do when you can point to a faction of people that don't believe in dinosaurs and write off an entire alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 How are theories scientist propose based on math, science, experiments, etc the same as what is said in a book written by people that didn't know the Earth was round as a way to control the masses and shove an answer where they didn't have one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 How old the earth is? I don't know. I wasn't there when it was created. It seems silly to me, that the earth is deemed to be as old as the rock is scientifically deemed in age. IOW's, how do we know that the earth wasn't formed from ancient planets created eons and eons ago? Mega eons ago ? So, the earth could be much younger - just coming into existence with old materials clashing together. ******************** Relatively speaking, the earth could have come into existence, with materials that were created eons before. That would mean that the earth was not as old, per creation, as the materials used in that creation. And, yes, I believe God created what He created. That explains the infinity and the incredible complexity and profound correation of all aspects of life on this planet. The big bang jobbie does not explain the infinity of the universes, that's all. Well, it does... but instead I'll ask, do you think "He" created the Earth and everything in 6 days? How do you know its a "He" anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 They have a very good idea, but they're not sure. This is not semantics (it is in here, but it's not in the scientific community). http://news.discovery.com/space/the-four-ages-of-the-universe-whats-next-120327.htm Again, science is working backwards under the "this is how it probably happened," which is technically lazy, but accepted. If you're honest, perspective is what separates this notion from the crazy "guy with a white beard in the clouds" thing. Easy to do when you can point to a faction of people that don't believe in dinosaurs and write off an entire alternative. You say working backwards is "technically lazy." What then, is the alternative? There really isn't one. We have an incomplete picture, and scientists work with what they've got. A theory should be built around evidence, and not the other way around. Given what we know about the cosmic background microwave radiation, isotopic half lives, and a partial understanding of the (maybe) four fundamental forces of the universe, this is the best theory we have. Nothing else comes close. Are there holes in it? Absolutely, but there's no better way to come to a conclusion than to try and reverse engineer how this entire thing happened. I think that to call it lazy is a disservice to those who are conducting this understandably difficult work. Here's a relevant article about the potential lifespan of the universe based on findings from particle physics experiments. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/18/17006552-will-our-universe-end-in-a-big-slurp-higgs-like-particle-suggests-it-might?lite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 So, since we are completely off the subject how about this: Let's say it is 4. 5,000,000,000 years. How many advanced civilizations would you guess have come and gone from Planet Earth in that time.? Keep in mind the dinosaurs only showed up 220,000,000 years ago. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 So, since we are completely off the subject how about this: Let's say it is 4. 5,000,000,000 years. How many advanced civilizations would you guess have come and gone from Planet Earth in that time.? Keep in mind the dinosaurs only showed up 220,000,000 years ago. WSS On planet earth? One. But I think you're asking the wrong question. A better question would be how many planet earths are there in the galaxy? in the universe? The Drake equation was constructed to answer this first question, and its accuracy is disputable since we have such a small body of knowledge to work with (ie. we only know of biological entities on one, maybe two celestial bodies). http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=drake+equation The questions you're asking are very good questions that we have working answers to. I made a post a long while ago that really went into depth about how much time it takes for each of these steps to happen, I'll see if I can find it. For what we know about carbon-based life, the pot takes a looooong time to boil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 You say working backwards is "technically lazy." What then, is the alternative? There really isn't one. We have an incomplete picture, and scientists work with what they've got. A theory should be built around evidence, and not the other way around. Given what we know about the cosmic background microwave radiation, isotopic half lives, and a partial understanding of the (maybe) four fundamental forces of the universe, this is the best theory we have. Nothing else comes close. Are there holes in it? Absolutely, but there's no better way to come to a conclusion than to try and reverse engineer how this entire thing happened. I think that to call it lazy is a disservice to those who are conducting this understandably difficult work. Here's a relevant article about the potential lifespan of the universe based on findings from particle physics experiments. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/18/17006552-will-our-universe-end-in-a-big-slurp-higgs-like-particle-suggests-it-might?lite I wasn't knocking their work ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 I wasn't knocking their work ethic. But you are knocking the methodology, which there isn't an alternative to. Just because you can't set up a classical experiment because we have no known control other than what we see, I don't think it should be considered technically lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 But you are knocking the methodology, which there isn't an alternative to. Just because you can't set up a classical experiment because we have no known control other than what we see, I don't think it should be considered technically lazy. That argument can be made for how the Bible was written (minus the divine inspiration). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 That argument can be made for how the Bible was written (minus the divine inspiration). lol, but one is "true" because the Bible says so, while the other is the best approximation we have based on empirical evidence. That's quite a distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 That argument can be made for how the Bible was written (minus the divine inspiration). What do you mean exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 lol, but one is "true" because the Bible says so, while the other is the best approximation we have based on empirical evidence. That's quite a distinction. Oh that's what he was getting at? Then what you said then lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 So, since we are completely off the subject how about this: Let's say it is 4. 5,000,000,000 years. How many advanced civilizations would you guess have come and gone from Planet Earth in that time.? Keep in mind the dinosaurs only showed up 220,000,000 years ago. WSS One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 lol, but one is "true" because the Bible says so, while the other is the best approximation we have based on empirical evidence. That's quite a distinction. That's not what I was saying. Just comparing the logic of the two arguments - which are equal. Notice what I put in parenthesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 What do you mean exactly? Minus the divine inspiration part (another subject entirely if we want to go there) which is independent of my point, the Bible was written based on observation. Or as Vapor put it: "What we see" Read the first chapter of Genesis. Not sure where to put "lol" - how about here: lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 Minus the divine inspiration part (another subject entirely if we want to go there) which is independent of my point, the Bible was written based on observation. Or as Vapor put it: "What we see" Read the first chapter of Genesis. Not sure where to put "lol" - how about here: lol How to you put that on the same level as actual science? Scientific method, experiments, etc One is seeing a tree and saying "God did it" and call it a day. The other actually runs tests, takes notes, makes hypothesis, etc and finds out if grows from a seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 I aslo wanna know why its so damn surprising I am an engineering student at Michigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 You "ASLO WANNA" ???? Just the tip of the mountain of evidence to warrant doubt. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 You "ASLO WANNA" ???? Just the tip of the mountain of evidence to warrant doubt. That's all. Hey Cal... Suck a dick Cuz you've never had a typo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 "Bitch, bitch, bitch... " You surely seem to get a lot of "typos", genuine misspellings, half baked ramblings that make no sense for an alleged "oh, so superior college kid"...... If you were a carpenter, you'd call hitting your fingers with your hammer several times a day a "typo". Normally, college students are smart enough to know better and only hit their fingers once. And most all carpenters who never went to college only hit their fingers maybe one time. You would make it a habit. See? Solar activity is the subject. Whining is yours Change yours - you could ...maybe....contribute to the board in some kind of meaningful way....at least once.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 God... I hope I'm not you in 30 years... Also, your post was totally full of content. I'm gonna ignore you now, while I wait to find out why its surprising I'm an engineering student at Michigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Why not? You ignore most every subject in every thread, moron. You need to grow up, and learn how to think for yourself. er...learn how to THINK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Why not? You ignore most every subject in every thread, moron. You need to grow up, and learn how to think for yourself. er...learn how to THINK. ...as usual...unworthy of any response...a Retarded sheep, completely unable to form an independent thought imploring someone to think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Me? Not capable of independent thought? All the goofy stuff I come up with? ha. At least TRY to have some kind of legit response to people disagreeing with you, Mr. Liberal Sissy-pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Me? Not capable of independent thought? All the goofy stuff I come up with? ha. At least TRY to have some kind of legit response to people disagreeing with you, Mr. Liberal Sissy-pants. I didn't say you werent somewhat clever, I said you're not capable of putting forth a thought that doesn't reflect the party line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Steve or anyone else want to try to figure out how to make a serious dent in emissions? We always hear about how certain ideas "won't make a dent in the problem." Or how acting alone "won't make a dent in the problem." So what's the solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Steve or anyone else want to try to figure out how to make a serious dent in emissions? We always hear about how certain ideas "won't make a dent in the problem." Or how acting alone "won't make a dent in the problem." So what's the solution? I don't know, heck, what do you think it is? Nothing short of absolute radical change is going to solve that problem For instance, we widely use things like pentaflueroethane (Fe-25) and heptoflueropropane (Fm-200) in large quantities to put out fires. Fm-200 in particular has something like 3,450 times the global warming potential of co2. Halon eats holes in the ozone layer. And there's billions of pounds of this stuff in existence ready to be discharged at any time, and in fact, its accidentally discharged all the time. It's horrible for the planet but... How else are we going to contain fires? Unless they revolutionize fire protection by some other means...we're going to keep using gases that destroy the earth to protect the data and technology that drives society forward so... Even if we eliminated everybody's car and made them go electric, there's still a big problem with man made emissions in places many people aren't looking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Steve or anyone else want to try to figure out how to make a serious dent in emissions? We always hear about how certain ideas "won't make a dent in the problem." Or how acting alone "won't make a dent in the problem." So what's the solution? Sorry, I must have lost track of this thread in the weeds. Without taking into consideration my 3 basic points I did offer a few things I believe would help. Transitioning most of our lighting needs to LED, increasing by a huge number our nuclear power plants and transitioning to natural gas powered vehicles. I believe your response was something about how that wouldn't make a dent so not sure what you want me to say. I'm not exactly trying to be a dick, but I can't think of too much. And, if we are using the Ted video as gospel, not sure that we can ever attain the reductions we will need to avoid the, Environmental cliff. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 These aren't the worst ideas - retrofitting is a good idea, but more for buildings than street lights - but if this is all you can come up with, let's just say you haven't really read or thought about this stuff too much. It's pretty clear that when pressed you can only talk about this stuff on a really basic level that's often misinformed, and that's enough for you. There isn't anything passed the grumbling. Steve: Here are my three ideas. Me: That's not going to do it. What else? Steve: Um, I'll repeat my three ideas. Then give up. If you want to read more about it, I'd be happy to send you some links. My guess is that you don't, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 25, 2013 Report Share Posted February 25, 2013 Sorry bud, didn't know you expected more. You do realize without addressing my points that seems insurmountable the whole thing is like arguing about how the Browns might do next year if Joe Namath was quarterback, right? Anyway, I think you're wrong about excluding Street and public lighting. We are a pretty big and spaced out, I mean distance wise, nation. But if there were a practical way to make public transportation work I'd use it. How much difference will that make? Who knows? Also another facet of the Pickens Plan, which I like, is windmills out west , or really anywhere. Honestly I can't see the federal prize to a scientist who comes up with an engine that runs on cat pee makink a big splash. That's going to be a drop in the bucket compared to what Ford would pay but... Solar panels, it seems, are even less efficient than anything else. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.