IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design, Can They Be Reconciled Instead?

lunk
post Apr 18 2010, 10:02 PM
Post #81



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



That's the thing, we know the universe is in cycles,
like rings within rings.
Is there a regular super cycle with the sun,
that is known by a few, but kept secret from the general public?

The sun is behaving unexpectedly, according to current theory,
but this could be just a little cycle, in a much longer one.

If there is an upcoming solar super cycle,
it could set back civilization, world wide,
and this may happen rarely, but regularly, like clockwork.

This could be the event that has caused repeated mass extinctions in the distant past.

Few know to prepare for it.
Yet, governments are building underground bunkers,
and seed vaults?!

(please leave the combination for the lock, at the door.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 20 2010, 01:48 AM
Post #82



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875





Of course, a Blue whale is weightless in the ocean!
Land animals and critters are affected by gravity,
their maximum size has decreased over time, but
the blue whale is the biggest creature that ever existed, because gravity,
is not a restriction in its' development, in the water!
It's weightless in that environment!

This is the cause of the difference in size in the evolution of land vs sea creatures.
When gravity was weaker land animals could evolve bigger, as gravity increased land creatures became smaller.
Ocean creatures were unaffected by the gradual change in gravity
because they are weightless in water.

And the cockroaches will eventually inherit the Earth,
and the oceans will fill with even bigger whales.
if things keep on growing, the way they have.

Nature favors the little creatures on land, in the future.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 20 2010, 12:10 PM
Post #83





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 18 2010, 03:48 AM) *
Of course, a Blue whale is weightless in the ocean!

The laws of physics are overturned again!

No, Blue Whales are NOT weightless in the ocean. Neither are Sperm whales which have to power themselves down to the depths.

Dead whales eventually descend to the ocean floor, benthic creatures have been filmed feeding off whale carcasses.

QUOTE
This is the cause of the difference in size in the evolution of land vs sea creatures.

You should note the difference in body plan between oceanic species and the large sauropod dinosaurs. Much of such a latter creatures size is down to the lengths of the neck and more especially the tail which tended to be of comparatively narrow average cross sections. This most certainly true of the especially long Diplodocus of up to 115 ft. Indeed, Othniel Charles Marsh is said to have extrapolated from a single bone the size of one such beast of about 150 ft but the bone in question can no longer be found.

However:

QUOTE
When gravity was weaker land animals could evolve bigger, as gravity increased land creatures became smaller.

As we know with birds, who's ancestors were dinosaurs, bone structure is modified to save weight and in such species the inner bone retains structural strength and yet comparatively light by being a 'honey-comb' of air spaces. As an aside one modern day raptor the Kestrel (the name given to the early trials versions of the VTOL Harrier) has moved on to use the chambers in its bones as air reservoirs to enable it to hover whilst assessing an attack on prey.

It is known that as long ago as the early Triassic (a few million years in once life had re-established evolutionary radiation after the end of Permian mass extinction (the biggest at 95% known) that dinosaurs such as the smallish, quick and nimble Coelophysis has evolved such a light and strong structure for its bones. Whether or not it used the chambers for air storage is not known. Coelophysis could be thought of as the dinosaur equivalent of the greyhound being about the same size and a fast runner.

QUOTE
Nature favors the little creatures on land, in the future.

At the time of the large dinosaurs nature favoured large size for foraging of the tough vegetation of the period and being able to graze from heights and over a longer reach. A long body plan was favoured for the processing of such tough vegetation in a many chambered alimentary canal. Like birds, sauropod dinosaurs swallowed hard stones to be used to aid the grinding and breakdown of the tough cellulose. At this time, as I wrote above, the land masses extended from pole to pole of large continent Pangea, which began to break up in Jurassic times.

Size also helped defend against predators, a large sauropod had little to fear, if fit, from any therapod.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Apr 20 2010, 12:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 20 2010, 05:23 PM
Post #84



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



If i put a scale on the floor of the ocean and a whale swims over it way up at the surface of the ocean, how much will that scale show that living whale weighs?

Airplanes fly over my head here all the time,
Yes, they weigh tons, but i don't feel anything.
i don't think the barometric pressure even changes, when this happens.

A blue whales rib cage would collapse on the beach, from its' own weight,
but not in the ocean. Why?
Specifically, gravity, or specific gravity.
The water they displace is subtracted from their weight.
If a whale is floating in water it weighs the same as the water.


(place scale on ocean floor below whale)

Because the ocean is a liquid, it supports really heavy creatures, that could not exist at such a vast size, on the land.

Whales can evolve bigger than land creatures, and have.
On the other hand, the largest creatures, on land,
known from fossil records, do not exist today.

The Elephant can't even technically run, because of its' huge weight on land,
how did the Tyrannosaur get around, they were much heavier than the Elephant?

It seems obvious to me, that there must have been less gravity,
everywhere on the Earth, for such huge dinosaurs to have existed in the past.



All that muscle, claws, teeth, why would it have binocular eyes that can see better than a hawk, if it couldn't even run, to get to where it was looking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

QUOTE
The eye-sockets of tyrannosaurs are positioned so that the eyes would point forward, giving them binocular vision slightly better than that of modern hawks.


and it could only walk 11 km/per hour?!
I can run faster than that!

No, these things look like they could run.

If they were intelligently designed,
i would have made them smaller,
and more colorful, knowing that gravity,
was on the increase.

Interesting to think, if gravity was less, back in the dino days,
the specific gravity of water would be less than today...
Would this limit the maximum size of the creatures living in it, back then?

Thanks omega,
you really got me thinking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 21 2010, 08:40 AM
Post #85





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 18 2010, 07:23 PM) *
Airplanes fly over my head here all the time,
Yes, they weigh tons, but i don't feel anything.

So, flying airplanes are not weightless, by the same token a whale immersed in water is not weightless!

You have just argued yourself deeper into the hole. Your arguments do not (Ahem!) hold water.

Airplanes fly over your head by virtue of the lift generated from their aerofoil surfaces.

Do not confuse buoyancy with weightlessness.

An object floats in water because it displaces an equal weight of water - that does not mean that the object has lost weight.

Any naval architect will tell you of the need to pay particular attention to the structural strength of a ship's hull where heavy machinery is going to be situated. Heavy weights such as this within the hull produce stress concentrations on adjacent areas of hull which can cause, and has caused, fatigue failure as a vessel rises and falls with wave motions if not designed with care.

Whales have evolved from land creatures and thus have a rib cage supported from a backbone which runs along the dorsal line this means that the weight of the animal, by being unsupported locally, would serve to suffocate it if beached.
QUOTE
Interesting to think, if gravity was less, back in the dino days,
the specific gravity of water would be less than today...
Would this limit the maximum size of the creatures living in it, back then?

As gravity has not changed significantly over time then no water back then would have a similar SG. SG depends upon salinity and temperature. Salinity in open water has not changed significantly (the earth's mineral systems tend to keep this in balance over time with successive periods of orogeny and weathering) but temperature may well have done during the very warm periods. But then temperatures tended to rise more over the large continental mass of Pangea. The presence, or otherwise, and variety of numerous pelagic organisms provide information on both salinity and temperature through the ratios of isotopes of e.g. carbon, oxygen and also the minerals found in their remains.


BTW On that Wiki page did you note the remarks WRT cavities in bones?

You may also like to consider the present day Wetas as an example of a large arthropod.

And yes dragonflies of the Carboniferous with 2 ft wing spans may be larger but that is a measure of wing span. Large objects can be constructed very light indeed. I don't know if you have ever encountered microfilm winged indoor model aircraft, often pole flying. I remember making these wings from a carefully pored, over water, mix of model aircraft engine fuel and dope and carefully lowering the prepared, very light, balsa wing frame onto the surface to attach the film.

Similar principle involved with the flying pterosaurs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 21 2010, 11:03 AM
Post #86



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Perhaps i should have used a blimp instead of an airplane, as an example.

Yes, buoyancy.

Lets look at a hypothetical situation, say a moon half the size of the Earth, covered with water, lets say, life lived in that water on that moon.
As the gravity on that moon is less than on Earth, would this limit the size that a life form living in that water on that moon, could evolve to?

There are physical limits to the growth of life.
We cannot exist on a slice of bread,
but a spore of mold can.

But it's not just about food supply, there are physical constraints to life forms on Earth.

A siphon of water will only work up to 32 feet.
A greater height will not siphon. This is a limiting constraint of our present gravity.
If gravity was less, a siphon would work at a higher level.
What creature, alive today, is taller or longer than 32 feet?
(trees don't count, as they use capillary action to raise water to its top.)

lets see, a giraffe, max. height
QUOTE
It is approximately 4.3 metres (14 ft) to 5.2 metres (17 ft) tall, although the tallest male recorded stood almost 6 metres (20 ft).

check, less than 32 feet.

How 'bout the anaconda?
QUOTE
Green anacondas can grow to be 29 feet long and 550 pounds

check, less than 32 feet.
Quotes from wikipedia.

As blood is heavier than water, its' siphonability
will be less than 32 feet.
Any creature, on Earth, alive today, must be less than 32 feet in height because of the restriction of Earths gravity.
As there were creatures that lived upon the Earth that were taller than 32 feet in the past, then the Earths gravity must have been less back then!

I wonder if the (edit correction) height of thickness of the Blue whale is less than 32 feet, i wonder if they can even swim vertically straight, up and down...

Perhaps this should be called the gravitational constraint for evolution.

This post has been edited by lunk: Apr 21 2010, 11:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 21 2010, 01:23 PM
Post #87





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 19 2010, 01:03 PM) *
Any creature, on Earth, alive today, must be less than 32 feet in height because of the restriction of Earths gravity.

Ahem! What do you think hearts are for?
If blood is to be pushed higher use a larger pump with stronger muscles and or a faster beat. Or use more than one pump, heart. That latter solution has been tried.
QUOTE
I wonder if the (edit correction) height of thickness of the Blue whale is less than 32 feet, i wonder if they can even swim vertically straight, up and down...

Sperm whales are more massive than Liopleurodon and they dive practically vertically and broach in a similar attitude.
QUOTE
Perhaps this should be called the gravitational constraint for evolution.

I am not saying that gravity does not constrain the size of organisms only that variation in size should not be taken as proof of a large change in the earth's gravity over time.

I have already pointed to ways that creatures can overcome size limitations by the evolution of lighter structures for bones and maybe also musculature. Body plan also plays a large part in the maximum size of a particular evolutionary line and that includes the layout of the skeleton.

Lifestyle - availability of large quantities of vegetation which often being very tough and poor, compared to later evolved flowering plants, also played a part. This encouraged large size in which to hold an extended alimentary canal with many chambers to break down and digest this rough diet. Size also assisted in deterring predators.

As I pointed out large arthropods managed to evolve because of an elevated level of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 22 2010, 10:38 AM
Post #88



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Hmmm, i am having problems with whales.
They can be bigger today than any land creature that ever existed on Earth,
but land creatures are smaller in their maximum size that they were, in the past.

The big difference is that one lives in air (on the Earth) and the other lives its entire life in liquid, (water), on Earth.
Water makes whales weightless to that environment.
As there must be a gravitational constraint to the growth of life,
obviously, it aint there in the water.

Since, it is thought that life evolved from tiny single cell organisms,
they must have evolved bigger, into multicelled creatures, the direction of evolution seems to "want" to make things bigger, unless there is some sort of constraint.
As you pointed out, i think, it is beneficial for some species to evolve small.
i think they found a miniature elephant in Madagascar, thought to have evolved that way because a lesser food supply, when they got isolated from the African continent.
(note to self: check seafloor age to see how long ago that was)

Obviously gravity is another constraint, to evolution, and the maximum size of a life-form.
The only creature that does not fit the picture is the whale and it is buoyant.
Life forms must have a solid, (do jellyfish count?) in them, even if it just the cell wall.
Different states of matter behave differently with gravity, and within and outside.
A solid drops through the atmosphere faster than it does through a liquid.
What walks on solid ice, must sink or swim in water.

Sure, there is gravity everywhere on the Earth, but the state of the matter determines how much and what kind of an effect it has, on the matter within, or upon it.

Life is always found with water.

The constraints of existing upon the land is different from the constraints of living in the water.
Lifeforms evolve to suit their environment.

This really is a question of biological physics,
hypothetical or not.

If gravity is slowly increasing on the Earth,
Does this increase in gravity allow things to evolve bigger in water,
while causing things evolving on solid land, to generally get smaller?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Apr 22 2010, 11:50 AM
Post #89





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 20 2010, 01:38 PM) *
If gravity is slowly increasing on the Earth,
Does this increase in gravity allow things to evolve bigger in water,
while causing things evolving on solid land, to generally get smaller?


why are people getting taller?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 22 2010, 12:56 PM
Post #90





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 20 2010, 01:50 PM) *
why are people getting taller?

Darn it!

I was keeping that one up my sleeve!

For now. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 22 2010, 04:33 PM
Post #91



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Apr 22 2010, 08:50 AM) *
why are people getting taller?

Better nutrition.

In a perfect environment, an organism will grow to a maximum size,
but if there is not enough nutrition, it will be stunted.
Perhaps people have gotten taller because nutrition is better today,
than in the dark ages.
But this is probably not an evolutionary change.

We haven't yet reached the present gravitational limit,
of about 30 feet.
But, i don't know if there is much benefit in people evolving taller.

(if you haven't noticed,
taller people tend to bump their heads,
on things, more often than the little people)
...perhaps this is another type of evolutionary constraint.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Apr 22 2010, 10:04 PM
Post #92





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Lunk!

You have a hit-or-miss approach. Sometimes you make damn good points or ask damn good questions, and sometimes not. I suppose it's the artist in you. So although I'm about to rebut what I think are the essential premises of your last few posts, just keep being you!


1.
QUOTE
Obviously gravity is another constraint, to evolution, and the maximum size of a life-form.
. . . . .
Sure, there is gravity everywhere on the Earth, but the state of the matter determines how much and what kind of an effect it has, on the matter within, or upon it.

It seems that one of the keys to what you say is that gravity is a strong force. Physicists regard gravity as a weak force compared to strong and weak electromagnetism in matter. If I jump off a building, gravity is not powerful enough to pull me through the atoms of the concrete sidewalk, which is composed of electromagnetically connected atoms. I do not continue to fall. Instead, gravity yields to the sidewalk, and my less powerfully connected atoms yield to others more strongly connected and I spatter on the sidewalk.

While I agree that Gravity is powerful enough to be a factor that affects evolution, I don't think it is powerful enough to impose a constraint that Evolution can't overcome, let alone a specific constraint like your "32 foot tall limit" for land critters. All that would be required to spur it would be some reason why survival depends on, or a competitive advantage would be gained by, a land critter being 33 or more feet tall.

2.
QUOTE
If gravity is slowly increasing on the Earth,


I don't think there's any scientific or other basis for the idea that gravity is increasing.


3.
QUOTE
(if you haven't noticed,taller people tend to bump their heads, on things, more often than the little people) ...perhaps this is another type of evolutionary constraint.

Good thought leading to this wild thought that might not hold water under scrutiny. All our dwelling spaces together represent a huge fixed investment not easily replaced and they are essential to our survival. They on the average have 8-10 foot ceilings that can't be raised unless you replace each structure. Would the average ceiling height amount to a force or factor that might cause evolution to limit our height, or at least pace it in accordance with the rate at which we replace our housing stock with dwellings having higher ceilings?


4.
QUOTE
Why are people getting taller? Better nutrition.


This seems to be a case of human technology being an outside force powerful enough to affect and alter evolution. I can't think of any reason purely grounded in survival of the species to cause this, or of any competitive advantage that is gained, so Evolution alone would not make people get taller. And then you have human technology perhaps imposing the same kind of constraints on height, as per 3 above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 23 2010, 01:15 AM
Post #93



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Apr 22 2010, 07:04 PM) *
Hi Lunk!

You have a hit-or-miss approach. Sometimes you make damn good points or ask damn good questions, and sometimes not. I suppose it's the artist in you. So although I'm about to rebut what I think are the essential premises of your last few posts, just keep being you!


1.
It seems that one of the keys to what you say is that gravity is a strong force. Physicists regard gravity as a weak force compared to strong and weak electromagnetism in matter. If I jump off a building, gravity is not powerful enough to pull me through the atoms of the concrete sidewalk, which is composed of electromagnetically connected atoms. I do not continue to fall. Instead, gravity yields to the sidewalk, and my less powerfully connected atoms yield to others more strongly connected and I spatter on the sidewalk.

While I agree that Gravity is powerful enough to be a factor that affects evolution, I don't think it is powerful enough to impose a constraint that Evolution can't overcome, let alone a specific constraint like your "32 foot tall limit" for land critters. All that would be required to spur it would be some reason why survival depends on, or a competitive advantage would be gained by, a land critter being 33 or more feet tall.

2.

I don't think there's any scientific or other basis for the idea that gravity is increasing.


3.
Good thought leading to this wild thought that might not hold water under scrutiny. All our dwelling spaces together represent a huge fixed investment not easily replaced and they are essential to our survival. They on the average have 8-10 foot ceilings that can't be raised unless you replace each structure. Would the average ceiling height amount to a force or factor that might cause evolution to limit our height, or at least pace it in accordance with the rate at which we replace our housing stock with dwellings having higher ceilings?


4.

This seems to be a case of human technology being an outside force powerful enough to affect and alter evolution. I can't think of any reason purely grounded in survival of the species to cause this, or of any competitive advantage that is gained, so Evolution alone would not make people get taller. And then you have human technology perhaps imposing the same kind of constraints on height, as per 3 above.


The more mass the Earth has the greater it's gravity.
Even science agrees that the Earth has gotten bigger from accretion.
So gravity must increase over time, somewhat.
many are still at odds with this idea, but
there are some that say the Earth is actually growing from the inside!
As all the continents fit together perfectly on a smaller globe, without the oceans, and the age of the measured seafloor confirms this.

(Omega, say it's not true.)

Other factors like the maximum size of land critters becoming smaller through, the fossil records, also shows this increase in gravity.
The objection has always been shown that the Blue whale is now the largest creature that ever existed.
But i say that because it lives in the water, it is buoyant and therefore the increase in gravity doesn't limit it's evolutionary size.
In fact the opposite may be true, with less gravity, on an earlier, smaller Earth, water creatures may have been limited in their size. While land creatures could be much bigger as their heart could pump to a greater height.

Think about it, can you lift two 16 foot 2x4s, each by just one end and flap?
There were pterodactyls with greater wing spans!
There is no way that under today's gravity,
they could even hold them off the ground!

And going back even farther there were giant bugs,
similar to the much smaller ones of today.

There are physical constraints to the size a life-form can grow to,
a sort of envelope.
If you have a sealed solid pipe 35 feet vertical, full of water and open the bottom end the top 2-3 feet will pour out and leave a vacuum at the top.
That vacuum can only hold 32 feet of water, because of gravity.
This is the same principle as the mercury barometer, as mercury is much heavier than water it forms a vacuum at around 3 feet.
But it is gravity that gives them this weight.

If gravity was less, these heights would be greater for the same liquids.
Our bodies can be thought of as tubes with liquids in them too.
If you stand up too fast, you can get dizzy or pass out, because of the pressure drop and not enough blood can get to the brain.

If i was 35 feet tall, my brain would be a vacuum and my heart would have to pump like crazy, just to keep the blood up in my head.

That is why, i think that the anaconda must be shorter than 32 feet,
if it was larger it wouldn't be able to climb straight up a tree.

If the planet was the size of a golf ball,
there wouldn't be a whale living on it.
I don't know how the forces of evolution can get around this.
These are the envelopes of physics,
that limits, and gives the maximum size allowable for life,
on a planet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 23 2010, 11:29 AM
Post #94





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 21 2010, 03:15 AM) *
The more mass the Earth has the greater it's gravity.
Even science agrees that the Earth has gotten bigger from accretion.

Sources?

Apart from Samuel Warren Carey and his followers who could only hold to their expanding earth hypothesis by ignoring the growing body of scientific evidence that has proven the validity of plate tectonics involving subduction.

QUOTE
So gravity must increase over time, somewhat.
many are still at odds with this idea, but
there are some that say the Earth is actually growing from the inside!
As all the continents fit together perfectly on a smaller globe, without the oceans, and the age of the measured seafloor confirms this.

(Omega, say it's not true.)

Lunk you know I have countered your arguments exhaustively in another thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...c=12145&hl=

where you posted a Wiki link to a Carey page. There is very little more to add other than I suggest that you consult some reliable sources on e.g. geology and all the other 'ologys mention of which cropped up in the course of that thread as well as the 'ographys such as oceanography and geography.

Anticipating a mention of Neal Adams it may be worth visiting here to watch a few debunking videos:

RE: Neal Adams Science Project

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Apr 23 2010, 11:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 26 2010, 12:01 PM
Post #95



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Omega, it's the official theory,
that the planets accreted from the dust around the sun.

QUOTE
In the very beginning of earth's history, this planet was a giant, red hot, roiling, boiling sea of molten rock - a magma ocean. The heat had been generated by the repeated high speed collisions of much smaller bodies of space rocks that continually clumped together as they collided to form this planet. As the collisions tapered off the earth began to cool, forming a thin crust on its surface.

http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/index.p...c-earth-history

Like to know, how all the planets, are on the same solar plain, around the sun,
if this happened.

i am not the only one thinking of marine creatures, like whales,
found some intelligent speculation,
QUOTE
Marine creatures might also conceivably live in huge oceans of water beneath a miles-thick layer of ice on Europa, a moon of Jupiter.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769422

He also seems to think that it may be dangerous,
to talk with extra terrestrials.
(they could be hungry for a planet to conquer)

No kidding, they could lock you away in a rubber room, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 26 2010, 11:41 PM
Post #96





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 24 2010, 03:01 PM) *


QUOTE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769422

He also seems to think that it may be dangerous,
to talk with extra terrestrials.
(they could be hungry for a planet to conquer)

No kidding, they could lock you away in a rubber room, too.


Poor poor Hawking. I do feel for him, honestly.

Too many 'black holes' haunts his mind, i think!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 27 2010, 12:21 AM
Post #97



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 26 2010, 08:41 PM) *
Poor poor Hawking. I do feel for him, honestly.

Too many 'black holes' haunts his mind, i think!


There is a theory that in the center of every star, planet, and atom,
is a black hole, and the universe itself is inside a black hole.

That's a whole lot of darkness, considering that there could be another universe within every black hole!

ya, still reading.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Apr 27 2010, 05:49 AM
Post #98





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 25 2010, 03:21 AM) *
There is a theory that in the center of every star, planet, and atom,
is a black hole, and the universe itself is inside a black hole.

That's a whole lot of darkness, considering that there could be another universe within every black hole!

ya, still reading.



The Darkness will always precipitate in the sea of Light and form as a core.

There's a Light corona around our Earth that We cannot yet see with our limited
physical eyes.

One day, we, humankind, will be able to, and Darkness will then precipitate even more.

There's no black "holes" in existence. Only cores.

i'm with you all the way with the reading thing, Lunk. Press on no matter what.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Apr 27 2010, 07:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Dec 6 2010, 12:12 PM
Post #99





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



No, they can not be "reconciled" anymore than hot oil can be reconciled with cold water.
They are completely different in every possible way.
Evolution is born out with factual, observable, testable evidence.
Creationism is nothing but pure nonsense, a fairy tale.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Dec 6 2010, 04:04 PM
Post #100





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 24 2010, 03:01 PM) *
Omega, it's the official theory,
that the planets accreted from the dust around the sun.

Sorry for time lapse, I have only just picked up on this again, thread went into limbo whilst I was in difficulties myself.

Yes. I am well aware that the Earth was formed from material surrounding the Sun. I am also familiar with the ideas that the early Earth collided with another sizeable body resulting in the Eart-Moon couplet and that a number of major collisions with, probably, asteroids, have occured since. One is thought a possibility for finalising the Permian-Triassic extinction, which had a long, millions of years, lead in. There is more certainty about the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) boundary event and the associated Chixulub crater.

What I question is your expanding Earth arguments and I took your statement here as a further attempt to bolster those.

Sure matter is still raining down on Earth but it is not adding to Earths mass, let alone size, to any significant extent.

But you pushing an official theory, that is a new one and something else that made me think that you were using the argument to support expanding Earth.

As your self how African continental gneiss ended up being the top of the Matterhorn, or that the top of Everest is formed from sedimentary rocks complete with fossil ocean organisms?

Sorry, expanding Earth is dead, as dead as Marley!

QUOTE

An interesting links. I do hope that you noticed the Climate Change link in the side bar there.

QUOTE
Like to know, how all the planets, are on the same solar plain, around the sun,

They are?

QUOTE
i am not the only one thinking of marine creatures, like whales, found some intelligent speculation,

To be like whales they would have to be descendants of land mammals that became more and more aquatic as they evolved, rather like hippopotamus.

I think it would be a stretch to think of finding such creatures swimming in some form of beneath the surface ocean. There may be simple organisms though, after all such things are found in deep rock on Earth.

QUOTE
No kidding, they could lock you away in a rubber room, too.

Yeah! Perhaps you should be more careful as to what thoughts you air in public. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th August 2019 - 04:05 AM