Posted on 07/30/2007 2:01:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Geologists have found the remains of a huge underground rainforest hidden in a coal mine in Illinois. The fossil forest, buried by an earthquake 300 million years ago, contains giant versions of several plant types alive today.
...
Also surprising is the presence of remains from mangrove-like plants. "It was always assumed that mangrove plants had evolved fairly recently," says Falcon-Lang.
(Excerpt) Read more at bioedonline.org ...
I’ve always thought she was goddess!
So how is matter, energy or life created? Is water (H2O) created by combining hydrogen and oxygen? Do you (or the scientific community) really have any idea?
And string theory is not considered proven and even in some circles is not considered science.
..It also likes to point out that we say to ourselves can change our world...i.e. “perception is reality”...clearly not something western scientists tend to accept..we usally like to find out the “reality” behind the perception...no?
I'm a tantric Buddhist. There are a lot of things about reality and perception that scientists wouldn't accept. Does the observer phenomena in particle physics bother you at all?
This is also something you might contemplate if you really want to understand how things exist. The statement "perception equals reality" however is in error. Perception is an illusion. It neither creates reality nor apprehends it. More appropriately it would be said that "thought creates reality." But intent must also be considered or that statement would fall apart upon examination.
You didn't address the substance of my post. I wasn't debating the parameters of life as we know it I was discussing logic and reason.
Since a scientific definition of life in its essence has not been formulated that can predict the range of forms it can take in advance of discovering them and new forms continue to be found that exceed the parameters of what science considered possible it isn't rational or logical to make sweeping assumptions as to what conditions can and cannot support life. If you like scientific theory bereft of logic and reason you're welcome to it.
Coyoteman, you can do better than that. Your statement is worth a good laugh, however.
I have explained the split in the man/ape line on these threads a dozen times. Its been a long day, and I'm tired.
But you are right, I could have explained it better. Catch me on a better day and I'll explain it again. But it won't matter.
No theory is considered proved.
String theory is considered science as long as it follows the scientific method. It might turn out to be disproved, but as long as it follows the scientific method, why should it not be considered as science?
“there is plenty of data available to reconcile the the age of the earth and creationism.”
Baloney.
The article is further proof of the fact that the young earth brand of creationism is ridiculous, as if we didn’t already know that. And as for the “old earth” brand of creationism, further proof of the millions of years the Earth has been around forces any rational person to conclude three things: (1) the Adam and Eve creation story is bunk, something anyone with half a brain already knew, (2) the original sin doctrine of Christianity is bunk, and therefore the necessity for redemption from Jesus is bunk, and (3) God apparently could create man only millions of years after the Earth was created (and billions of years after the universe was created), raising the question as to why God is so inefficient and unorganized. A real God presumably could work much faster. We apparently got stuck with a pretty slow, or maybe just lazy God.
Because string theory does not make testable predictions. Many require a theory to be testable before it is considered science.
However, there are Mesozoic-Era coal basics in the world (e.g., Peru, Norway). (The Mesozoic Era consists of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Periods--when the dinos were around.) And dinosaur footprints are found in the Cretaceous coals of Utah, for example.
A simplified sketch illustrating the geologic time scale intervals:
Good point.
Perhaps string theory is a hypothesis trying to work its way up the ladder. It is following the scientific method, and may or may not pan out. But that does not make it something other than science.
Some things just take a little time. We'll have a better idea of its validity in a decade or two. What's the hurry?
Suppose...
Us.
In other words, the only way to the observer of a hospitable universe--is to be within a hospitable universe. Therefore, any observer will perceive his universe to be "miraculously" suited.
If it weren't for the meddlesome Americans there would be no Europeans. Just Germans. ;0)
An interesting supposition. Have you noticed that the vast majority of the one particular universe we have observed does not contain observers? The fraction of the universe that appears capable of such a marvel is incredibly small. Why would we expect that a typical universe would produce any observer at all?
What I find fascinating is the insight that thinking in such terms can give us into the concept of an "observer". For we do not really understand how an "observer" can exist in our own universe. We simply know that we are observers. Certainly we can pretend that we are brains. But that is no more compelling then saying that a rock could be an observer. Although the brain can process information and react to its environment more efficaciously then a rock. It is ultimately just a chemical process that does stuff -- which is also true for the rock (which is made of chemicals, and does much less much more slowly, and reacts to its environment more simply). We can claim it somehow creates an illusion of consciousness, but we can't say who the observer of this illusion would be.
then who would be the only ones to be viewing "miraculous" conditions that allow them to survive?
Exactly. We wouldn't necessarily expect anyone.
This is a meaningless assertion, nowhere falsifiable or demonstrable because it is babble.
Also I do not worship at the "Church of Darwin" and I am not an evo true believer. Both theories are full of holes in my opinion. Jumping on evo every time there is something new though does not serve the creation crowd well. I have been hearing that evo doesn't work for this or that reason since I was a small boy. Creationist point to supposed bronze age tools found in coal beds in England as proof of creation. However, those claims can never bee independently verified and on and on and on. Supposed human foot prints in strata with dino prints but if you go to the location the "evidence" is somewhat suspect and not a clear win for creation. Why are dino beds only full of rare and exotic animals that few if any are around today? Many Creation people say that "oh God killed them in Noah's flood so of course it makes sense that that is the only fossils around". But if the Bible story of Noah is true (also another suspect story in my mind) then there should be the reside of all the animals that were not given sanctuary on the ark. Where are their remains if they were covered in a big flood?
I see more evidence of evo in my daily life than I do creation. I see deer populations that have adapted to certain locales. If you take a deer from fifty miles away and drop it with the adapted deer it will not survive because it is not adjusted to the locale. I see humans changing and evolving to modern life. On Mount St. Helens there are pocket of life that were left untouched by the explosion. In those pockets are colonies of ants that are genetically different than other pockets in close proximity to them. Prior to the explosion they were all the same DNA - 25 years later and diversified DNA - hard to explain with creation. Finally, the age of rock is - if you do not believe rock dating techniques - than you can throw evo out the window but the evidence is overwhelming that the Earth is very old. Creationist that try and argue that "God made it that way" just don't do themselves any favors with people who think like I do and there are many of us. Just stick to the story - that is all you have on the creation side. Bless you if you are a true believer but campaigning to convert people doesn't work. Look at the millions of man hours spent discussing abortion on talk radio. I have never found anyone who's mind was changed because somebody said it was one way or the other on talk radio.
You and I have 2 different concepts of God. I don’t think God spends His time tinkering with biochemistry.
“If God is the truth then evolution would seem to have a striking connection to God.”
That depends on your definition of God, doesn’t it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.