Ancient fossil forest found by accident (potential major out of order problem for Darwinists)

news@nature.com (via BioEd online) ^ | April 23, 2007 | Katharine Sanderson

[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.

[TigersEye]

I guess not. None that have been found it would seem.

[TigersEye]

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.

Speculation!!! You mean hard scientific theory don't you? /s

[null and void]

Have you noticed that the vast majority of the one particular universe we have observed does not contain observers?

I've only observed that we haven't observed other observers.

[Hostage]

Why do you believe others believe the Earth is 7000 years or so old?

[null and void]

Silicon based life has recently been found.

Source please?

[oneamericanvoice]

There are no rain forests anywhere. They are “jungles”. Anyone remember when they were “jungles”? Everyone, please, repeat after me, “I will no longer spout the liberal indoctrination. The Amazon is a jungle.”

[RobbyS]

BTAIM. we know damned little about past events, and evolutionists have been too quick to connect all the dots. The result has been like those very early maps of the western hemisphere. Take the advise of Pascal and wait until the evidence itself shows us the truth.

[oneamericanvoice]

Too bad they will lose all this information. Sure wish they could mine around it.

Why are we coal mining anyway? My Grandpa was a coal miner, and had Black Lung from it. Not to mention the effect on the land.

[null and void]

*sigh* We are a pattern seeking animal. The urge to connect the dots is overwhelming. Sometimes we even connect dots that actually belong together.

[RobbyS]

People who are agnostic about God ought not to be in such a rush for certainty, especially about a past of which so little survives.

[null and void]

Part of being an agnostic is a thirst for certainty.

[TigersEye]

“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here." - Dr. Townes

Let's take his statement sentence by sentence and break it down into layman's language.

Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real.

It is possible to use science to make a case that the universe was designed by an intelligence.

(As we all know it's also possible to use science to make a case that one celled animals evolved into men by random mutation and natural selection. IOWs if you find a natural pattern and collect data on it you can attach any reason for its appearance to it that you want to until someone comes up with a more attractive reason.)

This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way.

The universe is unique: (duh, it's the only one we know of) I am amazed that it didn't come out differently. (Any reason why it should have? Any way that it could have?)

If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all.

IOWs with different laws of physics no life forms that only fit the laws of physics that this universe does have would be living in a universe that didn't. ~groan~

(If peanut butter and jelly tasted like brussels sprouts kids wouldn't like it as much)

The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

If things weren't as they are they wouldn't be as they are.

(Holy moly, this guy's a genius!!! Yogi Berra watch out!)

[TigersEye]

#310

[null and void]

Thanks.

[RobbyS]

Part of being human is a thirst for certainty.

[Coyoteman]

BTAIM. we know damned little about past events, and evolutionists have been too quick to connect all the dots.

I am reacting to creationists who deny parts of science when those parts fail to accord with their personal and religious beliefs.

They don't care what dots are there, or the legitimacy of connecting them. They just deny them all anyway.

[null and void]

Yeah. Sucks to be us...

[TigersEye]

Sorry, I thought I heard the science-chick say she had found one-celled silicon-based life forms. It must have been the compelling way she said it in her khaki safari shorts and short-sleeved khaki safari shirt as she was crawling on her hands and knees in the dark confines of the cave with only her head lamp coyly lighting her face...

I'll be back in a bit. I've got to take a break.

[null and void]

‘sok. It happens to us all.

[AndyTheBear]

I've only observed that we haven't observed other observers.

I'm not asserting that there aren't some other observers out there, rather that if you take any typical quantitative form of measurering the universe, such as "mass" or "volume", then the ratio of observer to universe is so small that it would suggest observers are a fluke. Incidentally, this led to the consideration of how to quantify an observer in such terms, which led to my thoughts about what an observer really is.

I think I just spotted a strong hint as to why we thought about observer frequency differently:

...then who would be the only ones to be viewing "miraculous" conditions that allow them to survive?

You seem to hold as common to all universes that "survival of the fittest" will always successfully produce observers. Presumably under any laws of physics. Was this an intentional priori?