Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We don't even know what the first living things were. But there is good reason to assume they were asexual reproducers, because that is far simpler and safer.
While I'm more well-versed in physics than geology or economics, I'm personally sceptical of funding ever more expensive and extensive offshore drilling. It comes with a whole host of problems, both sociological and ecological, and is the quintessential example of diminishing returns. Conversely, that money could be better spent funding physics laboratoriesHey I'm curious for the physicist... do you think offshore drilling is a good idea? if there would be some minor harm to whatever in doing it, is it being overstated? also what do you think about global warming? And the increasing heat of magma rock?
Thanks in advance, mandy
A variety of fundamentally different point-particles:What is everything made of ?
Thick levels of dust is only to be expected when there's an atmosphere with particulates suspended in it, which can then sediment over the aeons. The Moon has no particulates suspended in its atmosphere, because it doesn't have an atmosphere - thus, there is nothing to settle and create thick levels of dust.If the Moon is billions of years old, or more, why is there so little depth of moon dust on its surface?
Basically, everything was just a tiny point. There was virtually no space, and all matter and energy was squished into that tiny point. This is the universe. It then decided, for reasons unknown, to expand at an unimaginably fast rate - and has been doing so for 13.5 billion years.I don't have time to go through the entire forum, but how do you see the universe forming? As a layman, I don't understand equations , so please keep it simple....TY
The Earth is a single entity, while living organisms are a sequence of organisms. The Earth is changing because it's ostensibly still cooling down, while living things change because they're naturally selected for or against according to ecological selection pressures and random genetic mutations.If the Earth is always changing, is it evolving?...If it is could that be an argument for evolution in living beings over long periods of time?
If God made the earth and it is changing, why not living beings?
The first life forms were asexual - they simply divided. Later, as organisms evolved ever more sophisticated ways to transfer genetic material to each other (beginning with lateral gene transfer between bacteria), true hermaphroditic reproduction evolved. This eventually gave way to species whose individuals, instead of having both sexual organs, only had one or the other.According to the ToE. When life first emerged on earth, was there Male and Female? Or did that evolve as well? Thanks
Because it tries to quantify the intuitive, and that makes our brains go squishboomWhy is first year classical mechanics difficult? lol
The first life forms were asexual - they simply divided. Later, as organisms evolved ever more sophisticated ways to transfer genetic material to each other (beginning with lateral gene transfer between bacteria), true hermaphroditic reproduction evolved. This eventually gave way to species whose individuals, instead of having both sexual organs, only had one or the other.
So the sexes evolved some way down the line.
Given the way you phrased your question, I'm guessing you have Genesis 1:27 in mind
Basically, everything was just a tiny point. There was virtually no space, and all matter and energy was squished into that tiny point. This is the universe. It then decided, for reasons unknown, to expand at an unimaginably fast rate - and has been doing so for 13.5 billion years.
But, you may be asking about the origin of the universe, of that original singularity. There is no real evidence, so science by and large is silent on the topic, but my pet hypothesis is that first there was nothing, absolutely, frighteningly nothing - and then, because there was nothing, something came into existence.
To expand, I mean that in the absence of any thing, there are no physical laws that prevents the singularity from just popping into existence.
So why did the universe form? Simply put, because there was nothing to stop it.
The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with ToE! You have just proven to all of us that you have absolutely no clue what ToE is and also the Big Bang theory. You have betrayed an ignorance on both subjects to the point where your opinions of them actually count for nothing!Im not laughing (to loud)Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.
With that said, I think your pet is the only possible way it could have happened if not for creation. The problem I have with it is all the basic elements would have had to be present at the time of 'Popping"
What do you believe to be outside of the expanding universe? Is it still nothing IYO?
Im not laughing (to loud)Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.
With that said, I think your pet is the only possible way it could have happened if not for creation. The problem I have with it is all the basic elements would have had to be present at the time of 'Popping"
Perhaps nothing, and perhaps something very interesting. But I'm not sure you understand what it would mean to be outside the universe; there wouldn't be any space or time, not as we know it. And there's also the fact that our universe is bigger than we can see (the observable universe, limited by the speed of light and the expansion of the universe). Outside of that, there is more universe, possibly infinite or possibly not.What do you believe to be outside of the expanding universe? Is it still nothing IYO?
Im not laughing (to loud)Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.
The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with ToE! You have just proven to all of us that you have absolutely no clue what ToE is and also the Big Bang theory. You have betrayed an ignorance on both subjects to the point where your opinions of them actually count for nothing!
What you said is as factual as if I told you "The bible is not a Christian book because it praises Islam".
No, this is where science looks much smarter, wiser, testable, and honest than creation. And it takes very little faith to believe, "we don't know". Oh, and the theory of evolution has no relation to this. Why do people so often equate evolution and materialism?
No, mostly hydrogen and a tiny bit of helium. Large stars can make the rest and then go nova and disperse it. This is supposed to account for the distribution of the elements throughout the galaxy, not that I checked.
Perhaps nothing, and perhaps something very interesting. But I'm not sure you understand what it would mean to be outside the universe; there wouldn't be any space or time, not as we know it. And there's also the fact that our universe is bigger than we can see (the observable universe, limited by the speed of light and the expansion of the universe). Outside of that, there is more universe, possibly infinite or possibly not.
Again, I was not speaking of ToE. Because I know that ToE is compartmentalized so it does not have to explain its origin. Thats another guys job. Clever.No. You just need to understand what we see. And it really isn't that hard.
And Big Bang is not evolution. Evolution is pretty much the definition of biology. Big bang is within the field of astronomy.
First off, "we don't know" is different that the statement WC made about his pet theory, ( Something popped up from nothing because there was no law limiting it to) which is what I was responding to.
Second, are large stars only made of hydrogen and a tiny bit of helium?
Third, as I understand it, there is something outside the universe as we know it but out of respect for WC's thread, I will not discuss it here. I think It's obvious what I believe.
Isn't faith a good thing? Isn't that the whole point of Christianity, to have faith in God? And as other people have said, evolution isn't related to cosmogony - even if we have no idea how the universe originated or developed, that wouldn't change the veracity of evolution.Im not laughing (to loud)Jk. But this is where evolution looks no smarter than creation. Actually takes a lot of faith to believe this concept.
If you're referring to the chemical elements, these were synthesised in the hearts of dying stars. If you're speaking more generally, well, all that's required is space and energy.With that said, I think your pet is the only possible way it could have happened if not for creation. The problem I have with it is all the basic elements would have had to be present at the time of 'Popping"
'What's outside the universe' is one of those semantically null questions, like 'what's before the beginning of time', or 'what's north of the north pole', or 'what's colder than absolute zero' - the nature of the thing in question means that there simply isn't an outside, a before, a 'more north', a colder temperature.What do you believe to be outside of the expanding universe? Is it still nothing IYO?
What happans to those who do not pay TV-licence? Are they put infornt of a deathsceance, and sold to the media industry similar to what we saw in "The Trueman Show" but at older age?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?