Russian Meteor

[Thomas-Hawk]

We know who we are don't we...

Yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep yep...

 

[bammbamm]

In all seriousness, for a moment, Russia has had some very serious meteorites hit them in the past 100 years.

If you look at the map, Russia is so huge. So chances are higher that they will get hit more often.

 

[reclavea]

This just rendered credence to the 1908 Tunguska blast theory!

2 meteors exploding in the atmosphere before impact. Both occurring in Russia!

 

[claxor]

If you look at the map, Russia is so huge. So chances are higher that they will get hit more often.

True. The 1927 meteor in Russia leveled an entire forest... I believe it was estimated to be as powerful as a lower yield nuclear explosion!

 

[Manning]

With the thousands of pieces of pottery depicting dinosaurs & people hunting them & killing them, and the stories of dragons, etc. One could question their co-existance with man.

To me, it just doesn't seem logical that with all of the gases & non-life, etc that matter, energy, amino acids, dna, the intelligence system behind dna (which is an incredible study of it being self replicating, & self correcting) etc all came from a stew of poisonous gases & rocks that were hit by a meteor. The symboitic relationships of the life forms on earth, along with the delicate balance of processes needed for life are proof enough for me of design, and not random chance.

If you study the evidence, the wonder of it all becomes clear. The fact that there is randomness in the process does not make it less beautiful.

You have to be willing to let go of your preconceptions and just go where the evidence takes you. No-one ever set out to "disprove" any myth, the current scientific picture emerged out of the work of tens of thousands of researchers over 200 years. It takes some time to actually get your head around all of the knowledge they have amassed, but when you do, it is breath-taking.

For me, the achievements of humanity in unraveling our origins is far more amazing that simply accepting some ancient myths. But that's just me.

 

[Manning]

Thing is nobody really knows because nobody was their to whiteness and document the When, How and Why. Creation and Darwinism are both full of speculation and therefor are theories that add more questions then answers. For all we know it could be a combination of both.

Not really - evolution is scientific fact and there are no areas of speculation. The last unknown was the idea of "macro-evolution", whether new species could emerge. However Lenski at Michigan State proved macro-evolution in 2008 after a 20 year experiment.

 

[reclavea]

Not really - evolution is scientific fact and there are no areas of speculation. The last unknown was the idea of "macro-evolution", whether new species could emerge. However Lenski at Michigan State proved macro-evolution in 2008 after a 20 year experiment.

"Since ever since" man(science) has been trying to create life.... and supposedly....life popped out of nowhere....by itself.....no effort by anyone...., this seems like a "belief" and akin to religion to me. Yet, .......man with all it's intelligence and know how......cannot even create basic life like a simple cell amoeba.

NADA.....

Now speaking of DNA....which is specific information and data on the blueprints of life.....
It is useless with out some way to extract the information that starts the process. Similar to a music CD.....if it magically pops up in the sea/ocean .......it ain't gonna mean anything without a .......(here it comes)....a CD PLAYER!

Specifics enzymes are the "CD PLAYER" per se ...or...... DNA player that makes life possible!

All this by chance?..... no designer? .....now that would take an extreme leap of faith in my opinion!

Science looks out into the cosmos and outer space ever so diligently ....looking for some intelligence...like a signal or code or something.

Yet.....when they look deep into inner space....they see super intelligence in code ...the DNA.

Yet...it is all there by chance....with no effort. Unbelievable!

 

[Sixstring]

Not really - evolution is scientific fact and there are no areas of speculation. The last unknown was the idea of "macro-evolution", whether new species could emerge. However Lenski at Michigan State proved macro-evolution in 2008 after a 20 year experiment.

Yeah... well maybe he can explain the Platypus :lol.

My point being is nobody can be 100% correct as nobody was their to witness inception. The fact the Lenski was able to whiteness a bacterias ability to to metabolize citrate is really interesting but doesn't explain how bacteria became in the first place. Wether it hitched a ride on a comet or was spoken into existence, put here by design by little green men or happened from a pool of slime has yet to be proven, it's all conjecture.

Ether way this thread unlike Lenskis bacteria is devolving and has nothing to do with the OP so this will be my last comment on the subject, no hard feelings .

 

[Stratoblaster]

"Why are we here? Because we're here...roll the bones..."

Apparently the Russian one released the energy of 30x "Little Boy" Hiroshima bombs. Coupled with the "Bigger One" that crossed above the Indian Ocean on Friday it's been a big week for meteor activity...

 

[Sixstring]

"Why are we here? Because we're here...roll the bones..."

Apparently the Russian one released the energy of 30x "Little Boy" Hiroshima bombs. Coupled with the "Bigger One" that crossed above the Indian Ocean on Friday it's been a big week for meteor activity...

No argument from me on that one... I find it fascinating, it's rear to have such large meteors flying through the atmosphere and be alive to see/whiteness them in their final glory.

 

[reclavea]

Rare for sure!

What of this:

"Fire Will Fall From Heaven" by Sis. Agnes Sasagawa - YouTube

came in the early 1970's

 

[Manning]

Yeah... well maybe he can explain the Platypus :lol.

My point being is nobody can be 100% correct as nobody was their to witness inception.

Ah sorry I misunderstood - you're talking about abiogenesis (how the whole shebang got started).

So no dispute with you there, this field is still primarily conjecture. There's been a lot of fascinating research done, but until someone actually creates a cell, it's an open question.

 

[Guitarbot]

-I doubt this will all be read, but here goes. I figured this thread would either get nasty or ignored. I am glad that it hasn't. I enjoyed looking into Lenski at Michigan State. I had never heard of him or his findings. I do disagree with Manning saying that nobody set out to disprove a myth. It is human nature to make things fit your view. I remember when I went to school, there was a chart of all of the ape-man ancestors that 'we evolved from'. We have now found out that they were all inaccurate or deliberate hoaxes (to keep government grants coming?). 35 years later, the charts are out of my children's science text books. None of these are considered as any type of missing links : Neanderthal Man, Cro-Magnon Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Zinjanthropus, Lucy.
-As for Lenski, I only read for about 30 min, but I didn't get the impression that any NEW genetic info was in the dna strands, but that "the bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions of the experiment". So...they changed their diet and that 'proves' macro-evolution? They adapted which all seem to agree is natural. I am a simple man, but there should be millions of in between creatures & fossils. And, we should be witnessing natural genetic mutations which are the result of NEW genetic info in the dna code, and witnessing natural mutations all around us which are positive in nature for the species. I am sure that I am nowhere near smart enough to truely understand the implications of his work.
-The 'ancient book' isn't a science book, but touched on science with amazing accuracy. Here are some of the interesting things that the Bible touches on: Earth is round, earth hangs on nothing, heavens are stretched, water is different from all other matter in that all substances react with expansion & contraction relative to temp except water which has very defined scale of when it changes (& this is necessary for life on earth), oceans has paths or currents (not known til thousands of years later); jews & cleanliness/sterilization/quarantining/hygene, water & wind cycles over the earth (unknown til much later) , clouds distill salt out of salt water, vulture attacks by sight & not scent as previously believed; that the Pleiades are gravitationally bound, that time-space & matter had a beginning, that we can't number the stars, that all stars are different (while they were only able to see them as simple dots of light), that matter is formed by what is unseen (atoms), that air has weight, that there are springs in the sea (this was not known until 1913 when they found underground rivers),
-Also, one can't say it is a science vs theological argument, Many scientists were & are of the faith. One can google a list of them. The internet is a great place to study & learn. I hope that both views will use the resources available to them. Scientists & preachers get caught in lies & other immoral activities. I guess it is human nature, but also know why my conscience tells me the activities are immoral.

 

[bammbamm]

In Soviet Russia, space explores you.

 

[Manning]

As far as any discussion about what the Bible may or may not have said - that's a theological discussion which really isn't appropriate for this forum. I respect a person's right to believe or not believe anything on that front.

I'll happily discuss the science though:

-As for Lenski, I only read for about 30 min, but I didn't get the impression that any NEW genetic info was in the dna strands, but that "the bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate under the oxygen-rich conditions of the experiment". So...they changed their diet and that 'proves' macro-evolution? They adapted which all seem to agree is natural.

Yes it proves macro-evolution. The Cit+ gene demonstrated an alteration to 2933 of the base pairs. This led to a change in the morphology of the citrate transponder protein, which led to the bacteria being able to metabolize citrate in oxygen. This is new genetic material which did not exist in the ancestor populations, and which has been passed on to descendants.

The new DNA also only appeared in one of the twelve populations, none of the others have shown any improvement in their ability to digest citrate. Lenski's research has also identified thousands of other random mutations in the various populations, none of which have had any discernible benefit.

The mechanism of macro-evolution is the ability to create new DNA material (and their associated proteins), and to pass this new DNA onto descendants. Modern evolutionary theory says that this DNA alteration process should be (a) random and (b) unsuccessful or irrelevant most of the time. Lenski's research has provided solid evidence for both of these concepts.

... there should be millions of in between creatures & fossils.

There are. Pretty much every fossil ever discovered is a transitional fossil. In fact the biggest problem with classifying fossils is the fact that they often show relationships to earlier fossils that were thought to be unrelated, and trying to figure out where they belong gets really difficult. This is not a weakness in evolutionary theory but one of its strongest proofs. The evolutionary path is not a neat "A becomes B becomes C" path. Every generation is slightly different to its past and its future, and everything is in a state of transition.

We don't have a complete fossil record, so it is easy for a new fossil to completely throw the previous picture into disarray. But even when a new piece of the puzzle messes up the previous view of the details (such as the "dinosaur into birds" discoveries of the 1990s), it still reinforces the overall picture of evolutionary biology.

And, we should be witnessing natural genetic mutations which are the result of NEW genetic info in the dna code, and witnessing natural mutations all around us which are positive in nature for the species.

That's precisely what Lenski's research did.

 

[ventura]

If you study the evidence, the wonder of it all becomes clear....

Not really - evolution is scientific fact and there are no areas of speculation. The last unknown was the idea of "macro-evolution", whether new species could emerge. However Lenski at Michigan State proved macro-evolution in 2008 after a 20 year experiment.

Ah sorry I misunderstood - you're talking about abiogenesis (how the whole shebang got started).

So no dispute with you there, this field is still primarily conjecture. There's been a lot of fascinating research done, but until someone actually creates a cell, it's an open question.

As far as any discussion about what the Bible may or may not have said - that's a theological discussion...

Just for the record, Manning. You'd never get kicked outta my house with a perspective like yours.
Nice prose.

Mo

 

[plexi59]

With the thousands of pieces of pottery depicting dinosaurs & people hunting them & killing them, and the stories of dragons, etc. One could question their co-existance with man. Nearly every culture in the world has historical records, stories, and legends that include dragons. Here is a quote of Marco Polo: "Leaving the city of Yachi, and traveling ten days in a westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name of the chief city....Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length (about 30 feet), and ten spans (about 8 feet) girt of the body. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger, with eyes larger than a forepenny loaf (pane da quattro denari) and very glaring."

To me, it just doesn't seem logical that with all of the gases & non-life, etc that matter, energy, amino acids, dna, the intelligence system behind dna (which is an incredible study of it being self replicating, & self correcting) etc all came from a stew of poisonous gases & rocks that were hit by a meteor. The symboitic relationships of the life forms on earth, along with the delicate balance of processes needed for life are proof enough for me of design, and not random chance.

Here's something that will mess you up for the rest of your life: if it was all designed, then who designed the designer?

Truth is, our minds don't deal with evolutionary timespans very well. We can't fully comprehend the kind of natural selection that could have occurred in the billions of years since the earth has formed because the timescale is so huge. But think about this: we currently grow turkeys that can't reproduce by themselves. We arrived at these breeds by applying more stringent selection and nothing else. Most current dog breeds have very little in common (physically) with their domesticated ancestors. We (humans) also taller on average than just 200 years ago. Evolution is an easily observable phenomenon in the species with shorter reproductive cycles, and there's a solid basis behind natural selection as well. In fact every time you go to the grocery store, almost everything you end up buying is a product of artificial selection (which is natural selection with artificial evolutionary pressures). To deny evolution is just plain stupid.

 

[Ole]

To get back on the topic, I really feel sorry for the people that got hurt by the meteor.
And find it a bit scary aswell that noone saw it comming.

 

[reclavea]

Here's something that will mess you up for the rest of your life: if it was all designed, then who designed the designer?

Well, the issue of evolution whether fact or not will continue and may not be too critical in the scheme of things...... the universe has specific universal laws that imply design and order, not chaos. Which begs the question why order and not chaos?

Regarding the designer.....when we apply "cause and effect" to the universe, it don't take no Einstein to know that we have one freakin' big CAUSE.... and that's this UNIVERSE (with Axes btw ).

You mention "Natural Selection" as part of the equation that implies Evolution,...... well the "Natural Laws" of the universe states that this big CAUSE (the universe) cannot come from nothing. Even our math books agree and teaches....Zero does not equal 1. This "origin" issue is the one thing that baffles scientists and man since time past!! Though ironically, recently Stephen Hawking now claims zero can equal 1 and no place for a designer (duh...throw out the textbooks now!).

Just as the song goes..."..Nothing comes from nothing...nothing ever does." But.....science consensus is that this CAUSE (the universe) started from an infinitesimal point smaller than a proton...which in actuality is infinitesimely and absolute ZERO. NADA!!

Since absolute ZERO is infinite......what kind of power does it take to create out of absolute nothing? INFINITE POWER!!

Unlike magicians and Illusionists that use techniques and tricks to fool the audience that people and material objects appear out of nothing.......who really believes it's real and magic? Imagine if he could snap his finger and for real....a whole UNIVERSE appears outs of nothing!! :-0

As complex as the Fractal Axe II is....it pales in comparison to a simple living cell, a human body and this vast Universe! Imagine yourself floating in the vastness of space......and by some miracle bump into an Axe II !!....and coming to the conclusion that it just developed that way from the eons of time.....and you attribute it to no one! (sorry Cliff). Ridiculous!

The AxeII shows premeditation and a huge amount of "forethought" and design!! And PURPOSE even!!

In the same way and through the same "simple reasoning"....this vast Universe "Creation"...bears all the signatures of PREMEDITATION, very careful FORETHOUGHT, DESIGN and most of all PURPOSE!

So, to answer your question.... the designer was always there existing...no beginning, and bearing the marks of "INFINITE POWER" and with the attitude of CARE AND PURPOSE!......synonymous with FRACTAL!

 

[Manning]

Firstly - Your statement above says two things: "everything has a cause" and "the designer has always existed". Those two statements contradict each other.

Secondly - One formulation of Big Bang Theory says that the universe has always existed, and oscillates between a big bang and a big crunch as it expands and contracts. If you insist that the "designer" is allowed to have "always existed", then why can't the universe have always "just existed" in this sense? It is no less plausible.

Thirdly - explaining Hawking's work on entropy in a quantum dynamics setting is beyond this forum, but he does not say "one equal zero". He says that if negative energy exists (not confirmed, but theoretically possible), then it is possible to have energy on both sides of a boundary, which still net off to zero. The Big Bang could have created a pair of universes, with no violation of the energy conservation laws.

Fourth - this is the second post where you have used the "watchmaker" analogy (above you use the notion of the Fractal Axe, and the idea that it had no designer). Both occasions you have used the word "ridiculous" to suggest there is no "designer". This is a flawed analogy because the Fractal has no mechanism for self-reproduction or genetic inheritance, and thus cannot modify its own design. Biological organisms do have such a mechanism, and scientific evidence has demonstrated that random chemical processes and time are all that is needed. This does not prove there is no designer, but it demonstrates that it is not "necessary" to have one.

Again, I'm not trying to engage in a theological debate. By all means believe what you will. It's perfectly OK to say "I don't care what science says, I know what I believe". But please don't diminish or misrepresent the incredible wealth of scientific knowledge that humanity has assembled.