Not a chance my friend. Although god is the easier of the two I cannot reduce the universe to a simple "God did it, now worship' line of reasoning.
How life on earth started?
- Thread starter albertchong1999
- Start date
Not a chance my friend. Although god is the easier of the two I cannot reduce the universe to a simple "God did it, now worship' line of reasoning.
So you're position basically is that since science can't explain every detail right now God must have done it.
You know, there was a time when science couldn't explain why the sun moves across the sky every day. The Greeks thought the sun was driven across the sky in a golden chariot by Helios, the sun god. What you're saying here is basically the same as that.
You hope theists are discriminated against? What are you a Nazi?
Already been done and you still haven't learned anything.
We don't want to infect the universe, contain the virus, let it die here.
If I was a Nazi as you suggest then I would have to become religious, not going to happen.
Almost forgot.....I've learned plenty just by reading your posts, let alone rocket science.
Last edited:
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
We haven't learned anything from our travels to the moon? Seriously?
So you're not only saying that your 1563 pages of reading makes you an authority on biology, but that it makes you more of an authority than those who, say, have a degree in Biology? You're kidding right?
/me bangs his head on his desk.
Last edited:
a geologist was sent to the moon.
apollo 15 if my memory serves me correctly.
whether he was religious or not i don't know
My statement to OIM was facetious. He didn't get it and he wound up trying to insult me. I guess he 's only protecting his beliefs.
As to your point I would agree. I guess there was nothing learned worth remembering. You don't hear much about the moon landings except for how some people think they were faked.
Can anybody tell us if we learned anything significant from Apollo?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You're serious, aren't you?
The Apollo discoveries dramatically changed our understanding of aspects of the formation of the solar system. Probably the headline one is the hypothesis that the moon was formed from an impact of a Mars sized object with the proto-Earth. This emerged directly from the Apollo findings.
The detailed character of the lunar rocks was quite different from anything that was anticipated. This caused geologists and planetologists to take a much broader view of every aspect of their work.
Given the very limited science content of the Apollo landings we found out an immense amount.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Not to mention the secondary engineering benefits gained from putting forth a concentrated effort into getting people to the moon and back.
Plastics, advanced fibers, various foods, electronic and computer breakthroughs.
Understanding the nature of the world with regards to our place in the universe. Having people outside of the earth's atmosphere, standing on the surface of another planetary body, looking down at a little blue dot and seeing it firsthand in the context of everything.
Verifying dozens of scientific theories, and undermining dozens of others.
Hell, just verifying the lack of life (from green moon men to algae) on the moon's surface was pretty considerable, even in the 60's.
Plastics, advanced fibers, various foods, electronic and computer breakthroughs.
Understanding the nature of the world with regards to our place in the universe. Having people outside of the earth's atmosphere, standing on the surface of another planetary body, looking down at a little blue dot and seeing it firsthand in the context of everything.
Verifying dozens of scientific theories, and undermining dozens of others.
Hell, just verifying the lack of life (from green moon men to algae) on the moon's surface was pretty considerable, even in the 60's.
but the stakes of winning cannot be expanded infinitely
for instance a tennis champion wins in tennis, not cricket and not football, what to speak of politics
similarly problems arise when, on the evidence of small shifts within species, that one genus is claimed to give rise to another
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
If you wish to continue the analogy this is why we have many species, not one.
There are no problems. And there are plenty of sportspersons who have moved, succesfully, from one sport to another, even at the highest level. (Google to find out what other sport F1 world champion Jackie Stuart was a world champion in.)
Ophiolite
“
yes, assuming that being successful in tennis is a prerequisite forerunner to being successful in football or politics or whatever
“
the problem is that it is not evidenced, unlike the gradual shift of species
so is a F1 champion given a medal for tennis when they come in at the fastest time?
Yes I was and thanks. Didn't the age of the moon rocks also confirm the age of the solar system?
Read first. Then complain.
Asteroids. Moon rocks show the age of the final formation of the earth's surface.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This is only an analogy, but even so what you say is wrong. Many skills present in say Rugby Union are wholly transferable to Rugby League, slightly fewer to American Football, or Australian Rules, and relatively few to figure skating. This reflects the varied relationships between species on 'the tree of life' and the different ecological nuches they are adapted to.
I saw plenty of evidence amongst the graptolites, ammonites, brachiopods, foraminefera, lamellibranchs, etc. I suggest you consult some proper research on the matter. You nearby university may well have a copy of the multi-volume Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology you could browse through.
You didn't read very well.
then why do they present two competing theories for abiogenesis if one of them have been proved?
show me the test results from the site you posted that say abiogenesis has been proved.