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 ...
FWIW I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove a Creator with science no matter how far reaching the observations nor how sophisticated the technology. I'm bemused by those on either side that think they can or think it matters. I may be wrong but I think most scientists would admit that there are some things scientific method just isn't suited to investigating. That's not to say it's not worth trying in some cases because the limits of science couldn't be found if the boundaries weren't pushed.
But if what you're looking for is said to be omni-present and beyond the physical that means there will be nowhere in particular to look and no expectation of ever seeing Him. He's already everywhere you look and unobservable by any physical means. Where does scientific method begin to get a grip on that? Moreover, where is the reason in trying? ; )
We are carbon based. No heavy elements, no carbon, no carbon based lifeforms. That's science, not an assumption. Silicon based life has recently been found.
Got a link? I'd love to read up on that. Is there an analogue in silicon based life forms to DNA?
The parameters of what physics will and will not support life are not fully known as should be obvious from the continual discovery of new parameters and that only this one planet.
Yes, I already stated quite clearly that our knowledge of the universe is quite limited. No argument there.
The idea that we have examined any place other than this planet with any degree of depth or breadth is ludicrous.
LOL, that doesn't stop the multiverse folks from using the multiverse to declare all things can and will happen. But I'm not making that argument so, so what?
An inability to recognize one’s limitations is indicative of an inability to reason clearly.
You reasoned earlier that there was life extant in places other than this universe. Presumably you don't recognize your limitations.
What constitutes “life” hasn’t even been reasonably well defined by science.
It's in flux but we do know that all life is cellular and has other properties that are well defined. That is unless your silicon life forms are not cellular.
Reasonable scientists readily admit that.
Reasonable scientists agree that life has certain properties but that those properties do not exclude other properties or limit life forms to those properties. Our carbon based cellular life forms are pretty well defined which of course does not exclude other life forms or other universes or God.
There’s no point in arguing with you since you don’t seem to understand what Townes said in the first place and have yet to snap to the meaning of reason.
You make the assumption that all life has to be carbon based. I already told you that silicon based life has been found on this little planet.
Is there an analogue in silicon based life forms to DNA?
What difference would that make?
Yes, I already stated quite clearly that our knowledge of the universe is quite limited. No argument there.
Then you should have no trouble seeing that Townes theory is based on one huge assumption.
LOL, that doesn't stop the multiverse folks from using the multiverse to declare all things can and will happen. But I'm not making that argument so, so what?
I'm not making it either that's so what. Townes uses it as a counter-point to set his theory on. If it's a shaky point it's an even shakier counter-point.
You reasoned earlier that there was life extant in places other than this universe. Presumably you don't recognize your limitations.
No I didn't. Not once.
It's in flux but we do know that all life is cellular and has other properties that are well defined.
Defined by observations too limited to reasonably extrapolate to the entire universe and all its potential environments.
Reasonable scientists agree that life has certain known properties ...
Yup, so you did. Now I'm waiting for the link.
But silicon is a heavy element similar to carbon. No heavy elements, no carbon based or silicon based life. Now it could be a coincidence that teh anthropic principle is tuned for heavy elements and carbon/silicon based life. It could also be that there is in fact a multiverse which assures that every possible outcome is met. It is also possible that God did it.
But none of that has ny bearing on our discussion or what Townes thinks or doesn't think. Our discussion is between you and I and you are wrong when you claim that it isn't science when a scientist demonstrated that small cahnges in the physics of the universe prevents heavy elemnets in abundance and thus precludes carbon/silicon based life. That is indeed good science. In contrast, the multiverse and God are metaphysical.
You never did explain what this sentence means other than what it means inplain English. Would you care to expound?
Do you have a link to the discovery of silicon based life? I’d think it would be pretty big news.
This is the statement by Townes that I'm discussing. It is the only statement of his on this thread that I'm aware of. I'm not addressing anything else the man may have said or written. The entire thing is based on the assumption that life would only arise under those specific conditions and not in whatever conditions happened to occur. He also assumes that a universe could occur that manifested other conditions. So there is the source of your multiverse theory. It's wild speculation based on a lack of evidence not on observed principles. He is the one who speculates about other possible universes by stating that this one is so special that life couldn't occur in any other. If the laws of physics weren't exactly as they are??? Who is it that is speculating that they could be? Townes, that's who!
Regardless of whether there exists any life form other than carbon based types my point stands that Townes makes a sweeping assumption based on an extremely limited data set that it is the only possible type. Further he makes the sweeping assumption based on no data sets whatsoever that the laws of physics could be other than they are.
See post #309
From everything I've seen so far he didn't demonstrate it he speculated it.
What is the result if 8beryllium decays faster or slower than it acutally does on the universes cosmology?
It is an interesting idea due to silicon and carbon both having four valence electrons, so conceivably some sort of DNA with silicon instead of carbon could be proposed, but is unlikely to be stable. Silicon also does not readily form double or triple bonds like Carbon does in many essential biomolecules. Silicon life forms might also be brittle, the extra electron shell insulation makes silicon’s covalent bonding weaker than carbons.
Some life forms do use silicon dioxide to make skeletons, spines, etc; but that does NOT make them “silicon-based” life forms. Just carbon-based life forms that use silicon (the second most abundant element on the earth).
So there are no silicon based life forms?
I very much agree with your post. I consider myself to be agnostic as well. God, if he exists, knows where to find us, and could easily make believers out of all of us if he simply made his presence unambiguously clear. If it is our unconditional love and worship he wants, he would have it if he simply contacted us and demanded it. I have to conclude that, because we never hear from him, his very existence is unlikely.
I don't know of anyone who thinks silicon based life exists on earth, although there is speculation it could exist at great heat, far underground.
Among other problems, silicon/oxygen compounds are solid. the equivalent carbon/oxygen compounds are gasses. This is not a trivial difference.
Has anyone ever observed it to do that anywhere?
That is the point. With only this planet observed he assumes that is the only way it can manifest.
But even more to the point is that he is well qualified to make it. Townes is a very smart fellow, a Christian to be sure but a scientist whose accomplishments are quite substantial.
His being a Christian or a very smart fellow are neither a plus nor a minus to me. I took his words, that were posted to me and I reposted to you, at face value and they amount to assumptions based on assumptions.
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.