No I am no better than anyone else. I believe I put up a good arguement with Paul about who is chief among sinners. It is only God's mercy that I have been given Christ's righteousness.
When I asked you "Do you see that?" I was referring to a simple logical statement. You condemn those who condemn others. You are doing just what you blast others for doing. Kind of like if I said, "2+2=4, Do you see that?" God has given you logical thinking skills just as he has me and I was trying to get you to use those.
Just clearing things up.
When I asked you "Do you see that?" I was referring to a simple logical statement. You condemn those who condemn others. You are doing just what you blast others for doing. Kind of like if I said, "2+2=4, Do you see that?" God has given you logical thinking skills just as he has me and I was trying to get you to use those.
Just clearing things up.
Ok, I am very much a Christian, but there are some things that need to be cleared up:
1. Evolution is science. I believe in adaptation, but I don't believe in evolution, but nevertheless....it is science. They use scientific methods for it (for example: carbon-dating).
2. There will never be a law of evolution. I'm a biology major at Baylor, and the professors have stressed this over and over to us (most of them believe in evolution too). The reason there is no law of evolution is because there is no mathematical basis to it. There is a law of physics, which has a math basis, the law of thermodynamics, which has a math basis, but evolution has no math basis. Carbon-dating isn't considered a math basis because it is never totally accurate. That is why evolution is (and will most likely always be) considered a theory.
3. For those who think Christians are "blinded," that is a major point of Christianity. Blind faith. It's our faith in Jesus that makes us who we are...we've never met Him, but we pray that we will some day.
1. Evolution is science. I believe in adaptation, but I don't believe in evolution, but nevertheless....it is science. They use scientific methods for it (for example: carbon-dating).
2. There will never be a law of evolution. I'm a biology major at Baylor, and the professors have stressed this over and over to us (most of them believe in evolution too). The reason there is no law of evolution is because there is no mathematical basis to it. There is a law of physics, which has a math basis, the law of thermodynamics, which has a math basis, but evolution has no math basis. Carbon-dating isn't considered a math basis because it is never totally accurate. That is why evolution is (and will most likely always be) considered a theory.
3. For those who think Christians are "blinded," that is a major point of Christianity. Blind faith. It's our faith in Jesus that makes us who we are...we've never met Him, but we pray that we will some day.
rahvin:
The author was John Milton. The quote is from Paradise Lost. Milton's Lucifer is the character speaking. Lucifer then proceeds to wreck paradise.
On to other things. I must take exception to the statement made by DRGrim,
<< Zero evidense supports creation. . . .Case closed. >>
Science has undergone so many paradigm shifts in the last fifty to seventy five years that I don't see how anyone can say that there is no evidence supporting creation. I think a more accurate statement would be, "Based on my biases and presuppositions, I choose to interpret the existing data in a way that supports my position."
But consider some of the paradigm shifts:
(1) Science used to claim that the universal was infinite and eternal. Many theorists thought it contained the right mass and energy to self regenerate and rebound. But now it seems that most scientists believe that the entire universe burst into existence a finite time ago. It also seems likely that it was brought forth by a Causative Agent operating outside the boundaries of space, time, matter and energy.
(2) Modern science used to believe that the universe is random, that whatever works within it works because of countless accidental interactions of photons, particles, and atoms that somehow self-organize. But now it seems that the universe shows increasing evidence of meticulous interdependence and design. Even its vast, once used by people like carl Sagan as an evidence against a theistic God who was interested in humanity, now turns out not to be a "void" after all. Mass density is a sensitive catalyst for nuclear fusion. It it were less, the universe would contain only helium and hydrogen. If it were gretaer, only elements heavier than iron would exist. The carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen needed for life can only be possible in a universe with a "billions and billions" of observable stars. Even if this speck of dust called earth is the only planet that maintains life, the vastness is no waste.
(3) Scientists used to assert that the values of physical constants held no particular significance. Now it seems that the different characteristics of the universe, our solar system, and even the laws of physics must be tremendously fine-tuned throughout the entire age of the universe for a planet like Earth to ever exist, or to maintain for any length of time its ability to support life.
I could go on, but these three lead me toward three the conclusions:
(1)the universe has an "Outside".
(2)The earth is virtually unique and perhaps absolutely so.
(3)The constants of the universe evidence at least a weak anthropic principle, and possibly a strong anthropic principle. It is almost as if the universe "saw" earth coming.
If I view this evidence and believe in an Outside Agent that is Intelligent and Personal, I think my inference is quite probable. Can a stream rise higher than its source? If the universe has birthed persons, is it not likely that the universe itself has a personal cause?
To say that there is no evidence for a Creator is to call a great many physicists complete idiots. Sir Arthur Eddington stated that "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of nature is repugnant to me." Yet he eventually concluded that the evidence for a "universal Mind or Logos" was so strong that he was tempted to promote a scientifically based faith to the exclusion of true faith. Hence he went on to say:
<< "It will perhaps be said that the conclusion to be drawn from these arguments from modern science is that religion first became plausible for the scientific man about the year 1927." >>
Sir James Jeans, a physicist and mathematician whose formulas led to modern theories on galaxy formation, said:
<< The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginner to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. . . . We discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own minds." >>
James wrote this in his book, "The Mysterious Universe."
[Edited for typos]
The author was John Milton. The quote is from Paradise Lost. Milton's Lucifer is the character speaking. Lucifer then proceeds to wreck paradise.
On to other things. I must take exception to the statement made by DRGrim,
<< Zero evidense supports creation. . . .Case closed. >>
Science has undergone so many paradigm shifts in the last fifty to seventy five years that I don't see how anyone can say that there is no evidence supporting creation. I think a more accurate statement would be, "Based on my biases and presuppositions, I choose to interpret the existing data in a way that supports my position."
But consider some of the paradigm shifts:
(1) Science used to claim that the universal was infinite and eternal. Many theorists thought it contained the right mass and energy to self regenerate and rebound. But now it seems that most scientists believe that the entire universe burst into existence a finite time ago. It also seems likely that it was brought forth by a Causative Agent operating outside the boundaries of space, time, matter and energy.
(2) Modern science used to believe that the universe is random, that whatever works within it works because of countless accidental interactions of photons, particles, and atoms that somehow self-organize. But now it seems that the universe shows increasing evidence of meticulous interdependence and design. Even its vast, once used by people like carl Sagan as an evidence against a theistic God who was interested in humanity, now turns out not to be a "void" after all. Mass density is a sensitive catalyst for nuclear fusion. It it were less, the universe would contain only helium and hydrogen. If it were gretaer, only elements heavier than iron would exist. The carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen needed for life can only be possible in a universe with a "billions and billions" of observable stars. Even if this speck of dust called earth is the only planet that maintains life, the vastness is no waste.
(3) Scientists used to assert that the values of physical constants held no particular significance. Now it seems that the different characteristics of the universe, our solar system, and even the laws of physics must be tremendously fine-tuned throughout the entire age of the universe for a planet like Earth to ever exist, or to maintain for any length of time its ability to support life.
I could go on, but these three lead me toward three the conclusions:
(1)the universe has an "Outside".
(2)The earth is virtually unique and perhaps absolutely so.
(3)The constants of the universe evidence at least a weak anthropic principle, and possibly a strong anthropic principle. It is almost as if the universe "saw" earth coming.
If I view this evidence and believe in an Outside Agent that is Intelligent and Personal, I think my inference is quite probable. Can a stream rise higher than its source? If the universe has birthed persons, is it not likely that the universe itself has a personal cause?
To say that there is no evidence for a Creator is to call a great many physicists complete idiots. Sir Arthur Eddington stated that "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of nature is repugnant to me." Yet he eventually concluded that the evidence for a "universal Mind or Logos" was so strong that he was tempted to promote a scientifically based faith to the exclusion of true faith. Hence he went on to say:
<< "It will perhaps be said that the conclusion to be drawn from these arguments from modern science is that religion first became plausible for the scientific man about the year 1927." >>
Sir James Jeans, a physicist and mathematician whose formulas led to modern theories on galaxy formation, said:
<< The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginner to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. . . . We discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own minds." >>
James wrote this in his book, "The Mysterious Universe."
[Edited for typos]
<< I believe in adaptation, but I don't believe in evolution >>
Your statement contradicts itself. How are you distinguishing between the two? Is evolution not the sum total of a adaptation over a long period of time? Evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. What part of that, as a biologist, do you disagree with?
Napalm, I believe in adaptation and even perhaps microevolution. I think I would have to agree with DMB. We use plenty of evidence, like the birds, strains of bacteria, or whatever, in order to "prove" that evolution can occur. However, those changes are in effect minimal, compared to the evolution from one species to another. If it took place over such a long time period as is believed, then there should be more fossil records. Instead, we may have found even some atypical skeletons, and even then, "Lucy" was build on just a few bones. Scientists take great liberties many times, and are "correct" until proven wrong (looking at history). Sir Kelvin proposed a great theory of dating the earth by the amount of time it would take to cool from a molten mass, until the discovery of radiation from the earths core. I believe that with science, we'll probably find something in the future that completely redefines our sense of origin of our species. Christianity hasn't fundamentally changed since Jesus' time, and its under scrutiny now, but no more than it was hundreds of years ago when it didn't fall in line with the science of the day back then too.
One more thing... DMB, you refered to Christianity as blind faith. I suppose it could be termed that, but it might also be misleading. I'm sure the age old analogy of the wind serves here. We can't see it, but we can see the effects of the wind. It isn't necessarily a blind faith to believe in the wind even though you can't see it. Physically, perhaps... (this is just semantics). I've enjoyed reading your posts...
<<. It also seems likely that it was brought forth by a Causative Agent operating outside the boundaries of space, time, matter and energy.>>
Hardly likely, in fact I would call it improbable as it is simply a more complicated explanation than necessary. Quantum mechanics mathmatically supports the possibility of the universe just spontaneously existing. Hawking has proposed the theory (with supporting mathmatics) that blackholes predict they can spawn baby universes inside them. There are many hypothesis at this point and no real conclusive evidence so please don't say an outside influece (ala god) is "likely".
<<Modern science used to believe that the universe is random>>
This is a perfect example of an open-ended generalized statement. Please provide examples and how they condradict what we know today. Are you refering to modern as in 100years ago? 50? 25? 10? 1?
<<Scientists used to assert that the values of physical constants held no particular significance.>>
Please provide examples of these scientists and the statements made. Pi has been in awe since it's discovery 100's of years ago. In fact Pi has been given as evidence of god because it doesn't repeat. e has been equally reveared and I can honestly think of no universal constant that isn't respected and significant.
<<(1)the universe has an "Outside">>
This is a hypothesis, please provide evidence for this hypothesis. Do we have measured impact from this "outside"? What experiment will you devise (that can be replicated and predicted) that will prove this hypothesis.
<<(2)The earth is virtually unique and perhaps absolutely so.>>
Again, what evidence do you have to come to this hypothesis? How do you account for the planets discovered orbiting other solar systems in your model? What evidence do you have to support those conclusions about the exterior planets? What evidence do we expect to be generated from this hypothesis that will support it? Can you make predictions based on your model that experiments can be devised from?
<<(3)The constants of the universe evidence at least a weak anthropic principle, and possibly a strong anthropic principle. It is almost as if the universe "saw" earth coming.>>
If the universal structure is such that life is a given why is earth the only planet with life? Given the 3rd hypothesis how do you reckon it with the second hypothesis? How do the two of them interelate and given the complexity of the two it should be relatively easy to devise to a condition that is required by both models that can be tested.
<<If the universe has birthed persons, is it not likely that the universe itself has a personal cause?>>
Unusual logic, if sentience occurs what is to stop the sentient being from applying a cause to their own existence? What is the personal "cause" of black holes? Why create a vast universe to sustain one planet?
<<To say that there is no evidence for a Creator is to call a great many physicists complete idiots.>>
No, it is to call them men of their time, and in reality it says nothing about them. Quoting individual scientists about god is in fact is no source of real information. Personal beliefs against the body of their work in science has no correlation. I.e. Tesla was a brilliant scientist, almost 100 years ahead of his time, he also spent the later years of his life building a 30' tall Van'degraph generator in colorado and throwing lightning bolts into the sky to make the earths magnetic field ring. Somebody's intelligence in one aspect does not make them an expert in something else. I personally don't ask my supermarket checker about my car.
<<However, those changes are in effect minimal, compared to the evolution from one species to another. If it took place over such a long time period as is believed, then there should be more fossil records.>>
Do you realize how hard it is to achieve fossilization? It's incredibly rare, do you also realize that something like 90% of the fossils discovered in the US were discovered while building roads or buildings? Most people don't run around with backhoes ripping up the ground looking for fossils. To use this as a basis to reject the evidence of macro evolution is a pretty pathetic reason.
<<I'm sure the age old analogy of the wind serves here. We can't see it, but we can see the effects of the wind. It isn't necessarily a blind faith to believe in the wind even though you can't see it>>
Where is the effect of god? Where can I stand with a measuring device and measure his impact on this world? Can I put up meterlogical devices and measure his direct influence on this world? I may not be able to see the wind, but I can feel it, I can see it's effects and I can measure it's influence. If God is like the wind, he hasn't blown in hundereds of years.
Hardly likely, in fact I would call it improbable as it is simply a more complicated explanation than necessary. Quantum mechanics mathmatically supports the possibility of the universe just spontaneously existing. Hawking has proposed the theory (with supporting mathmatics) that blackholes predict they can spawn baby universes inside them. There are many hypothesis at this point and no real conclusive evidence so please don't say an outside influece (ala god) is "likely".
<<Modern science used to believe that the universe is random>>
This is a perfect example of an open-ended generalized statement. Please provide examples and how they condradict what we know today. Are you refering to modern as in 100years ago? 50? 25? 10? 1?
<<Scientists used to assert that the values of physical constants held no particular significance.>>
Please provide examples of these scientists and the statements made. Pi has been in awe since it's discovery 100's of years ago. In fact Pi has been given as evidence of god because it doesn't repeat. e has been equally reveared and I can honestly think of no universal constant that isn't respected and significant.
<<(1)the universe has an "Outside">>
This is a hypothesis, please provide evidence for this hypothesis. Do we have measured impact from this "outside"? What experiment will you devise (that can be replicated and predicted) that will prove this hypothesis.
<<(2)The earth is virtually unique and perhaps absolutely so.>>
Again, what evidence do you have to come to this hypothesis? How do you account for the planets discovered orbiting other solar systems in your model? What evidence do you have to support those conclusions about the exterior planets? What evidence do we expect to be generated from this hypothesis that will support it? Can you make predictions based on your model that experiments can be devised from?
<<(3)The constants of the universe evidence at least a weak anthropic principle, and possibly a strong anthropic principle. It is almost as if the universe "saw" earth coming.>>
If the universal structure is such that life is a given why is earth the only planet with life? Given the 3rd hypothesis how do you reckon it with the second hypothesis? How do the two of them interelate and given the complexity of the two it should be relatively easy to devise to a condition that is required by both models that can be tested.
<<If the universe has birthed persons, is it not likely that the universe itself has a personal cause?>>
Unusual logic, if sentience occurs what is to stop the sentient being from applying a cause to their own existence? What is the personal "cause" of black holes? Why create a vast universe to sustain one planet?
<<To say that there is no evidence for a Creator is to call a great many physicists complete idiots.>>
No, it is to call them men of their time, and in reality it says nothing about them. Quoting individual scientists about god is in fact is no source of real information. Personal beliefs against the body of their work in science has no correlation. I.e. Tesla was a brilliant scientist, almost 100 years ahead of his time, he also spent the later years of his life building a 30' tall Van'degraph generator in colorado and throwing lightning bolts into the sky to make the earths magnetic field ring. Somebody's intelligence in one aspect does not make them an expert in something else. I personally don't ask my supermarket checker about my car.
<<However, those changes are in effect minimal, compared to the evolution from one species to another. If it took place over such a long time period as is believed, then there should be more fossil records.>>
Do you realize how hard it is to achieve fossilization? It's incredibly rare, do you also realize that something like 90% of the fossils discovered in the US were discovered while building roads or buildings? Most people don't run around with backhoes ripping up the ground looking for fossils. To use this as a basis to reject the evidence of macro evolution is a pretty pathetic reason.
<<I'm sure the age old analogy of the wind serves here. We can't see it, but we can see the effects of the wind. It isn't necessarily a blind faith to believe in the wind even though you can't see it>>
Where is the effect of god? Where can I stand with a measuring device and measure his impact on this world? Can I put up meterlogical devices and measure his direct influence on this world? I may not be able to see the wind, but I can feel it, I can see it's effects and I can measure it's influence. If God is like the wind, he hasn't blown in hundereds of years.
<< However, those changes are in effect minimal, compared to the evolution from one species to another. >>
Please refer here, the talkorigins "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ, and another similar document here. Speciation in a variety of cases HAS been observed.
<< If it took place over such a long time period as is believed, then there should be more fossil records >>
And why is that? Support your claim, please.
<< We can't see it, but we can see the effects of the wind. It isn't necessarily a blind faith to believe in the wind even though you can't see it. >>
You cannot "see" the wind, in that it does not reflect photons that can impact your retinas and so forth (we all know how vision works here). However, there are scientific explanations for the phenomena. Vision is by no means a valid criteria for accepting or rejecting something.
"Vision is by no means a valid criteria for accepting or rejecting something."
If you look for historical evidence of 'God' moving people to extrordinary, perhaps inexplicable actions as well as intervening in the lives of ordinary folks, you will have no trouble in locating 'evidence'.
But since you can not see God, or for that matter make a thouroughly logical rationalization for a divine prescence... God does not exist?
If you look for historical evidence of 'God' moving people to extrordinary, perhaps inexplicable actions as well as intervening in the lives of ordinary folks, you will have no trouble in locating 'evidence'.
But since you can not see God, or for that matter make a thouroughly logical rationalization for a divine prescence... God does not exist?
<< If you look for historical evidence of 'God' moving people to extrordinary, perhaps inexplicable actions as well as intervening in the lives of ordinary folks, you will have no trouble in locating 'evidence'. >>
Examples? I am curious to know what sort of documented events you can show me for which some sort of divine intervention is the only explanation.
These are the definitions from the Campbell-Reese Biology textbook used to Pre-Med classes here at Baylor:
Evolution - all the changes that have transformed life on earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today
Adaptation - the ability for an individual species to relate to its environmental conditions, for example, the white feathers of a white-tail ptarmigan in the winter plumage make it nearly invisible against the animal's snowy surroundings
Napalm,
By Vision saying that we can "see it (Christianity) in the wind," I think he means that we cannot physically see it, but we are able to see its effects. Evolution isn't the change of just one population (or species) of organisms, its the overall affect of all changes throughout time. As a biologist (I'm not sure I can even say that, I don't have a degree yet), I have never agreed with evolution. Adaptation is obvious....I could see it when I was a senior in high school in the aspect of how much taller and bigger the incoming class of freshmen were. I have many biology professors here at Baylor that have the same outlook as I do, but I also have many that don't. One has seemed to compromise the two by believing that God created evolution.
The fact still remains that none of us have the answer. Some of us choose to believe in things, and others others. Although I believe it fine to debate about whether the other side is right or not, I don't think this bashing of others' beliefs is cool. I know as a Christian that I'm right, and the atheist or the Jew or the Buddhist knows he/she is right. We have our beliefs and that is that. Some are open to change, others aren't. We should still respect others as human beings.
Evolution - all the changes that have transformed life on earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today
Adaptation - the ability for an individual species to relate to its environmental conditions, for example, the white feathers of a white-tail ptarmigan in the winter plumage make it nearly invisible against the animal's snowy surroundings
Napalm,
By Vision saying that we can "see it (Christianity) in the wind," I think he means that we cannot physically see it, but we are able to see its effects. Evolution isn't the change of just one population (or species) of organisms, its the overall affect of all changes throughout time. As a biologist (I'm not sure I can even say that, I don't have a degree yet), I have never agreed with evolution. Adaptation is obvious....I could see it when I was a senior in high school in the aspect of how much taller and bigger the incoming class of freshmen were. I have many biology professors here at Baylor that have the same outlook as I do, but I also have many that don't. One has seemed to compromise the two by believing that God created evolution.
The fact still remains that none of us have the answer. Some of us choose to believe in things, and others others. Although I believe it fine to debate about whether the other side is right or not, I don't think this bashing of others' beliefs is cool. I know as a Christian that I'm right, and the atheist or the Jew or the Buddhist knows he/she is right. We have our beliefs and that is that. Some are open to change, others aren't. We should still respect others as human beings.
here's something that I've never been able to find an explanation for and nor have any of my profs:
If the earth was 1/2 a foot closer to the sun, the earth would burn to flames within a month. If the earth was 1/2 a foot further from the sun, we would all freeze to death.
That kind of precision has always been considered "divine" in my eyes. If one of you has an explanation, I'm definitely open to it, because I've been searching for it for years.
If the earth was 1/2 a foot closer to the sun, the earth would burn to flames within a month. If the earth was 1/2 a foot further from the sun, we would all freeze to death.
That kind of precision has always been considered "divine" in my eyes. If one of you has an explanation, I'm definitely open to it, because I've been searching for it for years.
The distance of the earth from the sun varies by about 5 million kilometers (reference). If we can survive such a variation in the distance from the sun, how do you support your claim that 6 inches would make a difference?
<<If the earth was 1/2 a foot closer to the sun, the earth would burn to flames within a month. If the earth was 1/2 a foot further from the sun, we would all freeze to death.>>
And where is this documented? This is a bogus "fact". The earth shifts WAY more than that in just it's wobble and the excentricity of it's orbit. It's believed that if you could stop the greenhouse effect on Venus that it would become habbitable, they also think they can make mars habbitable by inducing a greenhouse effect.
I ask this, in psychology experiments that remove a person from any sort of timekeeping to figure out the true period of a humans inner clock they have determined that the average inner clock of humans is 26hours. Does this infer that humans do not originate on earth? Why is our own internal period 2 hours off the true period of the planet?
And where is this documented? This is a bogus "fact". The earth shifts WAY more than that in just it's wobble and the excentricity of it's orbit. It's believed that if you could stop the greenhouse effect on Venus that it would become habbitable, they also think they can make mars habbitable by inducing a greenhouse effect.
I ask this, in psychology experiments that remove a person from any sort of timekeeping to figure out the true period of a humans inner clock they have determined that the average inner clock of humans is 26hours. Does this infer that humans do not originate on earth? Why is our own internal period 2 hours off the true period of the planet?
it's apparent that we shouldn't even have come into existance until 10 million years later when the Earth's day is 26 hours.
<< <<If the earth was 1/2 a foot closer to the sun, the earth would burn to flames within a month. If the earth was 1/2 a foot further from the sun, we would all freeze to death.>>
And where is this documented? This is a bogus "fact".
<<
<< remove a person from any sort of timekeeping to figure out the true period of a humans inner clock they have determined that the average inner clock of humans is 26hours. Does this infer that humans do not originate on earth? Why is our own internal period 2 hours off the true period of the planet? >>
We need documentation, and you don't. Hmmmm. Not that I'm saying he's right, but what supports your experiment? And, if it true, what does it prove?
I see many people discount my paste, but no one has disproven any of it. That talkorigins link for flood problems is b.s. Any decent creation scientist could completely tear apart half of that link without thinking. Posting that link, with so many generilazations is like telling an evolutionist, that according to athiests, the change from single cell orginisms to humans occurred overnight.
jaydee: the 1/2 foot statement was so ridiculous i don't think anyone on this board can hope to match it.
The earth balances its temp. by sometimes being further from the sun and sometimes being closer to the sun. I've read that if the earth's rotation was 6 inches closer throughout the entire rotation, then the atmosphere would deteriorate (sp?) because of the higher amount of UV rays that would hit the atmosphere. It's not quite as simple as I'm putting it, but I can't remember all the facts, just the gist of it.
kami
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 17,627
- 5
- 81
<< If the earth was 1/2 a foot closer to the sun, the earth would burn to flames within a month. If the earth was 1/2 a foot further from the sun, we would all freeze to death. >>
I don't see how this could be true. first of all, look at this picture and you can see how much the distance between the earth and sun varies during Aphelion and Perehilion.
Secondly, Mars is pretty far away from earth, and even parts of it could be considered habitable in terms of temperature. Some parts reach 80 degrees farenheit on a summer day.
I can't seem to find the picture/graph I'm looking for, but you've probably seen it before. There is a certain area, spanning probably about 0.1 or 0.2 AU that a planet could be in and be considered inhabitable. Earth is near the middle of this area...so I don't see why 6 inches would make the earth burn up?! Maybe over billions of years or something, but I don't understand it otherwise.
edit: and mars is just slightly outside of this area. wish i could find the damn picture!
see IM a little late, a damn shame cuz i like to talk religion.
I dont have a set religion, im not non-denominal and im definitely not christian. I have my own beliefs and they correspond with im sure none of yours.
I dont have a problem with christians. I have a problem with religous extremists, and other nuts who believe they have to force there views and beliefs upon everyone else. Its ok to be christian, its ok to be muslim, as far as i care join the hare krishna. but i dont want to hear about it. If youve had wonderous religious experiences good for you, But thats not for me. Ive seen too much stuff in my life, to be able believe in the christian god. And Ill save you the naivety statements and you dont need to tell me im blind. I know what I know and you know what you know. The thing to remember is we only know what we are taught and discover for ourselves. for you that means different things than it does for me. Now I will stop and not even go into my beliefs, because im sure Anand needs as much bandwidth as he can get.
All IM saying is, in your eyes no matter what your religion, you are correct just know that, believe and you will acheive whatever your higher sense of being might be. whether it be worm food or heavenly body.
-me-
p.s. if you are with the hare krishna, when i tell you i dont want the book you offer when you approach me in the airport, i really dont want the book.
I dont have a set religion, im not non-denominal and im definitely not christian. I have my own beliefs and they correspond with im sure none of yours.
I dont have a problem with christians. I have a problem with religous extremists, and other nuts who believe they have to force there views and beliefs upon everyone else. Its ok to be christian, its ok to be muslim, as far as i care join the hare krishna. but i dont want to hear about it. If youve had wonderous religious experiences good for you, But thats not for me. Ive seen too much stuff in my life, to be able believe in the christian god. And Ill save you the naivety statements and you dont need to tell me im blind. I know what I know and you know what you know. The thing to remember is we only know what we are taught and discover for ourselves. for you that means different things than it does for me. Now I will stop and not even go into my beliefs, because im sure Anand needs as much bandwidth as he can get.
All IM saying is, in your eyes no matter what your religion, you are correct just know that, believe and you will acheive whatever your higher sense of being might be. whether it be worm food or heavenly body.
-me-
p.s. if you are with the hare krishna, when i tell you i dont want the book you offer when you approach me in the airport, i really dont want the book.
On the issue of frying if six inches closer to the sun:
The moon raises a tidal buldge in continental rock of approximately 11-13 inches (in the neighborhood of 36+ inches in the mid-ocean surface waters).
Every four weeks, the moon passes between the Earth and the sun. As the Earth rotates East to West beneath the moon, the tidal buldge raised by the moon propogates West to East. Those cities with people raised toward the sun as they 'surf' up, and then over, the crest of the buldge remain unaffected by their closer proximity to the sun: twice the 6-inch threshhold.
The moon raises a tidal buldge in continental rock of approximately 11-13 inches (in the neighborhood of 36+ inches in the mid-ocean surface waters).
Every four weeks, the moon passes between the Earth and the sun. As the Earth rotates East to West beneath the moon, the tidal buldge raised by the moon propogates West to East. Those cities with people raised toward the sun as they 'surf' up, and then over, the crest of the buldge remain unaffected by their closer proximity to the sun: twice the 6-inch threshhold.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 409
-
Facebook
Twitter