I watched a show last night about the link between rocks (minerals and so forth) and theories about how life began. One of the interesting notes is that water seems to have been on earth much sooner than thought. According to the study water appears as soon as 4.3 billion years. They didn't explore any further what that might mean but its a much different finding than expected. It also means the conditions for life occurred much sooner than thought. Here is an article that states the same thing...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/
The water that makes Earth a majestic blue marble was here from the time of our planet's birth, according to a new study of ancient meteorites, scientists reported Thursday.
Where do the oceans come from? The study headed by Adam Sarafian of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, found that our seas may have arrived much earlier on our planet than previously thought.
The study pushes back the clock on the origin of Earth's water by hundreds of millions of years, to around 4.6 billion years ago, when all the worlds of the inner solar system were still forming.
I think this finding falsifies earlier ideas about how the earth formed. Even though the show was about the link between rocks and life it still remains a mystery how life began.
Hydrogen3. It's in comets, it's in the asteroids. The percentage of H3 in the water in asteroids is a very good match for the percentage here on Earth. The comets have less H3.
All theories of Earth formation are falsifiable, unless you have a "selfie" from 4.6 billion years ago ;-)
Unless you want to claim that Jesus on a space dinosaur brought water here, to make things "just right" like Goldilocks and the porridge.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2017, 06:13:11 PM
Hydrogen3. It's in comets, it's in the asteroids. The percentage of H3 in the water in asteroids is a very good match for the percentage here on Earth. The comets have less H3.
Comets of today, aren't the comets of 4.6 billion years ago. I would split the difference and say that asteroids and comets were both responsible. There was plenty of hydrogen in the original solar cloud ... but not so much oxygen. We can actually see new stars forming in the Orion nebula. An isotope analysis of that would be interesting, even if not all nebulas are created equal.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2017, 06:35:28 PM
Comets of today, aren't the comets of 4.6 billion years ago. I would split the difference and say that asteroids and comets were both responsible. There was plenty of hydrogen in the original solar cloud ... but not so much oxygen. We can actually see new stars forming in the Orion nebula. An isotope analysis of that would be interesting, even if not all nebulas are created equal.
And that's why you aren't a scientist.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2017, 06:52:25 PM
And that's why you aren't a scientist.
Yeah, if I were, I could make un-empirical claims thru a voice decoder, like Dr Hawking ;-)
So, you were here, 4.6 billion years ago, and did a complete analysis of the solar cloud? Amazing ... more amazing than even Drich! ;-)) Your satire kills me.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2017, 06:13:11 PM
Hydrogen3. It's in comets, it's in the asteroids. The percentage of H3 in the water in asteroids is a very good match for the percentage here on Earth. The comets have less H3.
According to the article they still think that contributed to it.
Vestal Waters
The team's measurements show that meteorites from Vesta have the same chemistry as the carbonaceous chondrites and rocks found on Earth. This means that carbonaceous chondrites are the most likely common source of water.
"The study shows that Earth's water most likely accreted at the same time as the rock," said Marschall.
"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."
While the authors are not ruling out that some of the water that covers 70 percent of Earth today may have arrived later, their findings suggest that there was enough already here for life to have begun earlier than thought.I'm not advocating any position on this I just hadn't heard of it until last night.
That's fine, you watched the same show I did. I just have seen more shows. And went to classes at Purdue on this shit. I like it.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2017, 06:29:22 PM
All theories of Earth formation are falsifiable, unless you have a "selfie" from 4.6 billion years ago ;-)
A theory being falsifiable is a good thing. It means there is a way to test it to see if its right.
QuoteUnless you want to claim that Jesus on a space dinosaur brought water here, to make things "just right" like Goldilocks and the porridge.
Tongue and cheek? I think the existence of life is by design the more I see the myriad of conditions and properties necessary to get it going which is why I list the existence of life as a fact in favor of theism. The other alternative is mindless forces without plan or intention to cause life or planets or stars got things 'just right' by an act of serendipity. Pick your poison.
You're not even trying any more.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2017, 08:34:24 PM
You're not even trying any more.
Actually, Gawdzilla, he is very trying!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on July 20, 2017, 03:23:41 PM
and life it still remains a mystery how life began.
aaannnnddd we go from that to "magic". Meh, I'll stick with people at least
trying to understand the universe instead of blindly worshipping an evil god that demands babies be killed and little girls be raped and then suggests it is a "moral" god.
Quote from: aitm on July 20, 2017, 08:53:57 PM
aaannnnddd we go from that to "magic". Meh, I'll stick with people at least trying to understand the universe instead of blindly worshipping...
Yes, but the actual "how it happens" magic happened 6000 years ago. At the time, we didn't even have recorded history, and man wouldn't even write for another 2000 years, and when he finally did, if he wanted to write "goat" he just drew a picture of a goat. If he wanted to write horse, he could also draw a goat, because they are similar. If he wanted to write "sex", he drew a picture of a goat, which makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
This new "where it all came from" stuff is just something that happened in the last 200 years, and not everyone believes it anyway. So which one are you going to believe? Stuff that is only 200 years old, and gathered by guys that went to college, and we all know how dumb those college guys can be. Or would you rather believe stuff that's 6000 years old, and discovered by guys that herded goats, couldn't read or write, but were already drawing pictures of goats?. Show me a college kid that can draw a good goat, and I might think he's good for something. Until then, I'm sticking with the stuff that's been around a lot longer.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2017, 08:37:09 PM
Actually, Gawdzilla, he is very trying!
Nobody can piss you off unless you first give them permission.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 21, 2017, 06:19:31 AM
Nobody can piss you off unless you first give them permission.
Potty frequently, just in case!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on July 20, 2017, 08:14:18 PM
A theory being falsifiable is a good thing. It means there is a way to test it to see if its right.
Theism isn't falsifiable, that is why it is right ;-)
Quote
Tongue and cheek? I think the existence of life is by design the more I see the myriad of conditions and properties necessary to get it going which is why I list the existence of life as a fact in favor of theism. The other alternative is mindless forces without plan or intention to cause life or planets or stars got things 'just right' by an act of serendipity. Pick your poison.
I do ... but your primitive notion of time ... is holding you back. Your theism is Biblical. And the more I see of Americans, the more I believe in mindless forces, if not mindless people.
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2017, 06:02:27 AM
Yes, but the actual "how it happens" magic happened 6000 years ago. At the time, we didn't even have recorded history, and man wouldn't even write for another 2000 years, and when he finally did, if he wanted to write "goat" he just drew a picture of a goat. If he wanted to write horse, he could also draw a goat, because they are similar. If he wanted to write "sex", he drew a picture of a goat, which makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
This new "where it all came from" stuff is just something that happened in the last 200 years, and not everyone believes it anyway. So which one are you going to believe? Stuff that is only 200 years old, and gathered by guys that went to college, and we all know how dumb those college guys can be. Or would you rather believe stuff that's 6000 years old, and discovered by guys that herded goats, couldn't read or write, but were already drawing pictures of goats?. Show me a college kid that can draw a good goat, and I might think he's good for something. Until then, I'm sticking with the stuff that's been around a lot longer.
The last "hunter/gatherers" retired in my lifetime. People who know how to survive without an iPhone have been around for over 200,000 years ... and mindless consumerism has made them obsolete. But when the shit hits the fan, nobody survives, because nobody can now make stone tools or knows how to hunt and gather properly. You have to spend a lifetime at it, and be raised to it by your parents. Progress?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 21, 2017, 06:19:31 AM
Nobody can piss you off unless you first give them permission.
I do agree!
Nothing pisses off a guy who is trying to piss you off more, than not getting pissed off yourself.
Quote from: Baruch on July 20, 2017, 06:29:22 PM
All theories of Earth formation are falsifiable
All theories are falsifiable. If there's no method of falsification, the best it can be is an hypothesis.
To be a theory, there has to be a method of falsification. (Which is one reason that theism isn't a theory.)
(Falsifiable doesn't mean that it's a guess, or that it's been falsified, just that if the thing in the method of falsification were found, the theory would be shown to be false. Any theory that's still accepted hasn't yet been shown to be false - but there's still a method of falsifying it
IF that thing were ever found, proving the theory false. (Don't bet on it though. Anything that's reached the level of scientific theory has already been so thoroughly tested that it's probably not possible to falsify it. The last theory to be falsified was Newton's, by Einstein in 1905, and that's only false under extreme conditions - that Newton had no idea could exist. So it took about 300 years to find one tiny little fault in the last theory falsified. Don't hold your breath.)
Quote from: Colanth on July 21, 2017, 12:37:55 PM
All theories are falsifiable. If there's no method of falsification, the best it can be is an hypothesis. To be a theory, there has to be a method of falsification. (Which is one reason that theism isn't a theory.)
(Falsifiable doesn't mean that it's a guess, or that it's been falsified, just that if the thing in the method of falsification were found, the theory would be shown to be false. Any theory that's still accepted hasn't yet been shown to be false - but there's still a method of falsifying it IF that thing were ever found, proving the theory false. (Don't bet on it though. Anything that's reached the level of scientific theory has already been so thoroughly tested that it's probably not possible to falsify it. The last theory to be falsified was Newton's, by Einstein in 1905, and that's only false under extreme conditions - that Newton had no idea could exist. So it took about 300 years to find one tiny little fault in the last theory falsified. Don't hold your breath.)
I hate the way the word 'theory' is used. Most of the time it is used in a phrase like--'It's just a theory that..................'. They use it as though a theory is just a good guess or the best guess. They really mean hypothesis and not theory. Usually, they don't want to hear it. So, when a person says that evolution is just a theory and look at you like--'see, I just shot that down!'; they have no clue that yes, evolution is a theory, which means that it is factual and not just a hypothesis. Stupid just cannot be fixed!
Drew and the other Theists never give up trying to get a wedge in at science.
I suppose partly it is that they can't conceive of any system of thought that isn't revelatory, partly that they don't understand facts, partly because they can't accept Natural Selection, and partly that they don't accept deep time.
More sadness to them, but I am beyond trying to spend hours explaining it to them. If they want to learn about it, they can take a high school course about it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 21, 2017, 09:26:36 AM
I do agree!
Nothing pisses off a guy who is trying to piss you off more, than not getting pissed off yourself.
And science does that to religion. Mostly. Religious keep trying to make it a contest between science and blind belief. Not in the same room, not in the same building, not in the same world.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 21, 2017, 01:04:56 PM
I hate the way the word 'theory' is used. Most of the time it is used in a phrase like--'It's just a theory that..................'. They use it as though a theory is just a good guess or the best guess. They really mean hypothesis
Not even. An hypothesis is an idea with a limited number of facts backing it up. They mean "just a guess, with no facts".
QuoteSo, when a person says that evolution is just a theory and look at you like--'see, I just shot that down!'; they have no clue that yes, evolution is a theory, which means that it is factual and not just a hypothesis.
Well, no. Evolution itself is an observation that's been made many times (hundreds at least, maybe thousands - I don't read
all the research), so it
is a fact (as much as we can trust reality to be real).
There are "theories of evolution" (which should have been named "theories
about evolution"), that try to explain various aspects of it. Like the Aquatic Ape Theory (which, since Elaine is dead, has no one supporting it), the Punctuated Equilibrium theory (and as much as I respect Gould [I never met Eldredge], I still think it's an artifact of fossilization), etc.
But evolution is a fact.
(It has to be this long. We used to say "Evolution is both a fact and a theory" and the Bible thumpers would jump on that and say, "See? Even you agree that it's just a theory." Or people refer to
The Theory of Evolution, as if Darwin's ideas were the only thing ever written about evolution, or that Darwin invented it. [The first time it was used in the biological sense, as far as I know, was about 1805, when Darwin was 4. It could have been used that way before that, but I have no reference to any earlier usage.] But just "Stupid just cannot be fixed!", while absolutely true, doesn't hit them with a big enough baseball bat.)
Quote from: Colanth on July 22, 2017, 04:41:53 PM
Not even. An hypothesis is an idea with a limited number of facts backing it up. They mean "just a guess, with no facts".
Well, no. Evolution itself is an observation that's been made many times (hundreds at least, maybe thousands - I don't read all the research), so it is a fact (as much as we can trust reality to be real).
There are "theories of evolution" (which should have been named "theories about evolution"), that try to explain various aspects of it. Like the Aquatic Ape Theory (which, since Elaine is dead, has no one supporting it), the Punctuated Equilibrium theory (and as much as I respect Gould [I never met Eldredge], I still think it's an artifact of fossilization), etc.
But evolution is a fact.
(It has to be this long. We used to say "Evolution is both a fact and a theory" and the Bible thumpers would jump on that and say, "See? Even you agree that it's just a theory." Or people refer to The Theory of Evolution, as if Darwin's ideas were the only thing ever written about evolution, or that Darwin invented it. [The first time it was used in the biological sense, as far as I know, was about 1805, when Darwin was 4. It could have been used that way before that, but I have no reference to any earlier usage.] But just "Stupid just cannot be fixed!", while absolutely true, doesn't hit them with a big enough baseball bat.)
Your argument about theory and hypothesis is one I have often had to make. Well put!
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 21, 2017, 01:04:56 PM
I hate the way the word 'theory' is used. Most of the time it is used in a phrase like--'It's just a theory that..................'. They use it as though a theory is just a good guess or the best guess. They really mean hypothesis and not theory. Usually, they don't want to hear it. So, when a person says that evolution is just a theory and look at you like--'see, I just shot that down!'; they have no clue that yes, evolution is a theory, which means that it is factual and not just a hypothesis. Stupid just cannot be fixed!
There is a widespread distrust of experts, including lawyers and doctors. This extends to climate change denial (not the specific causes, just the actual changes) and other wing-nuttery like Flat Earth and No Moon Landing. Ever see the movie Agora? The lower IQ folks will eventually find us and exterminate us, and burn all the damn books.
Quote from: Baruch on July 22, 2017, 05:14:39 PM
There is a widespread distrust of experts, including lawyers and doctors. This extends to climate change denial (not the specific causes, just the actual changes) and other wing-nuttery like Flat Earth and No Moon Landing. Ever see the movie Agora? The lower IQ folks will eventually find us and exterminate us, and burn all the damn books.
Yeah--the US has long been anti-intellectual.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 22, 2017, 05:41:08 PM
Yeah--the US has long been anti-intellectual.
Temporarily smart because of all the Jewish refugees in the 1930s ... to bad there isn't another Hitler to scare more Jewish people to the US.
Quote from: Baruch on July 23, 2017, 10:59:40 AM
Temporarily smart because of all the Jewish refugees in the 1930s ... to bad there isn't another Hitler to scare more Jewish people to the US.
As happened during WW II, we'd refuse to take them.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 21, 2017, 01:04:56 PM
I hate the way the word 'theory' is used. Most of the time it is used in a phrase like--'It's just a theory that..................'. They use it as though a theory is just a good guess or the best guess.
Yeah. I think I lot of it is the context people hear the word theory. Much of the time, it's either as a conspiracy theory or scientific theory. People see a similar word and assume there's a similar process behind it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ah, but the CIA invented all the conspiracy theories (the UFO scare in particular) to cover up what they are really doing.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 23, 2017, 11:23:30 AM
As happened during WW II, we'd refuse to take them.
Do you know how many Jewish refugees were admitted into the US from 1939 to 1945? The number is in six figures.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 23, 2017, 10:00:24 PM
Do you know how many Jewish refugees were admitted into the US from 1939 to 1945? The number is in six figures.
Yeah, I guess you are correct. I was thinking of one particular ship.
The SS St Louis. Actually it was Cuba's fault ..
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 23, 2017, 10:51:13 PM
Yeah, I guess you are correct. I was thinking of one particular ship.
Lot's of people have the same impression, and yeah, that's from the
St. Louis movie.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 24, 2017, 07:06:02 AM
Lot's of people have the same impression, and yeah, that's from the St. Louis movie.
Well, I stand corrected.
Neo-Nazis (who I do read posts from on other web sites) would claim ... that all the Jewish refugees were German Nazi agents trying to infiltrate our vital juices. Good thing we blocked their entry! But never fear, at least they weren't Muslims.
Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2017, 06:39:46 AM
Neo-Nazis (who I do read posts from on other web sites) would claim ... that all the Jewish refugees were German Nazi agents trying to infiltrate our vital juices. Good thing we blocked their entry! But never fear, at least they weren't Muslims.
We had actually espionage and sabotage cases in WWI, plus the usual wild ass stories about the same of course, making suspicion of any entrant somewhat understandable. The insertion of German agents on June 12, 1942, just fueled the flames.
This is why people don't like good history. The facts are inconvenient to our imaginations or our ideologies.
Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2017, 07:15:27 AM
This is why people don't like good history. The facts are inconvenient to our imaginations or our ideologies.
"Some" people don't like accurate history.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 25, 2017, 07:53:16 AM
"Some" people don't like accurate history.
R accurate, D accurate, US accurate, Soviet accurate ... there is no taking politics out of it. As long as events aren't simply made up. But the interpretation of events is always political, going back to Herodotus. Yes, Hitler gave the British a chance to surrender before Dunkirk was occupied. And Churchill was smart to not take him up on it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2017, 10:25:48 AM
Well, I stand corrected.
And this right here is the very core of rationalism
vs. faith -- and why I stand with rationalism. Give me "the data indicates..." over "because I said so!" any day.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 23, 2017, 12:05:21 PM
Yeah. I think I lot of it is the context people hear the word theory. Much of the time, it's either as a conspiracy theory or scientific theory. People see a similar word and assume there's a similar process behind it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, its the "my theory is" when they hardly even have a hypothesis. You can have an idea (sharks heal fast so there might be something useful about that). Then you could develop a hypothesis (there IS something about their bodies through evolution that gives them that healing ability). Then you could test that hypothesis by taking skin scrapings and blood samples to test their self-healing powers. If true you might then have a theory about shark evolution and healing mechanisms.
That is a real example, BTW.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 28, 2017, 03:08:59 AM
Yes, its the "my theory is" when they hardly even have a hypothesis.
"My theory is" is often nothing more an expression of an idea, even one that gelled in two seconds. The word, "theory" has been abused into oblivion. A person will discredit a well documented principle as worthless because its only a theory. But if that same person needs to add credibility to his last brain fart, he will refer to it as a theory.
Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2017, 01:04:24 PM
R accurate, D accurate, US accurate, Soviet accurate ... there is no taking politics out of it. As long as events aren't simply made up. But the interpretation of events is always political, going back to Herodotus. Yes, Hitler gave the British a chance to surrender before Dunkirk was occupied. And Churchill was smart to not take him up on it.
You make up problems, that's cool.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 28, 2017, 11:14:27 AM
You make up problems, that's cool.
Yeah, it isn't a problem, if someone agrees with you ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on July 28, 2017, 07:36:07 AM
"My theory is" is often nothing more an expression of an idea, even one that gelled in two seconds. The word, "theory" has been abused into oblivion. A person will discredit a well documented principle as worthless because its only a theory. But if that same person needs to add credibility to his last brain fart, he will refer to it as a theory.
I try to stay strictly "thesis and hypothesis" to the extent possible. I fail sometimes, but I try.