Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

[Matabele]

Please show me this definitive and unchallenged scientific knowledge that every planet is a unilateral microscosm.

 

[Narcissus]

Yeah, I too would like a link about how a planet is formed from a collapsed black hole.

Everything I've ever read (and everything I've been able to find through Google just now) says that when a black hole completely collapses, you end up with a large burst of energy / radiation... nothing else.

 

[Matabele]

[quote author=Matabele]
[quote author=Dan]
You see I can only assume you mean this article and \"collins\"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986,00.html

Time keep an online archive of all their articles. You clearly did not read it in black and white I wont let you take the lazy easy option any more. You have two choices

Debate it fairly, with cites and known facts and stick to your side and point

or

Retreat

So this statement (bottom of first page) doesn't exist in your universe?

Some excerpts from their spirited exchange:

:stupid:

[/quote]

Extremely lazy and poor form matas. I gave you a choice. Lack of evidence is not evcidence.

Just becuase it says "excerpts" this was the article as published!

So come out with the cite thank you or admit you are in over your head.

[/quote]

Let me say the s-l-o-w-l-y

The web article is not the full transcript of the article published in black and white in the physical copy of the Time magazine. :roll:

 

[ManlyBacker]

you allege each planet is its own unilateral microcosm?

You have lost me with this one Mata.

Unilateral:
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: "a unilateral advantage in defense" (New Republic).
2. Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
4. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
5. Having only one side.
6. Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy.
7. Botany Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only.

Microcosm:
A small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development: "He sees the auto industry as a microcosm of the U.S. itself" (William J. Hampton).
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English microcosme, man as a little world, from Old French, from Late Latin mcrocosmus, from Greek mkros kosmos : mkros, small + kosmos, world, order

I can only guess you are sort of saying that each planet is a one-off self contained result? If this is what you are saying I guess that is true.

From the point of the Earth we have evolved through a series of incredible 'one-offs', probably the biggest being the formation of our Moon. Best thoughts are that it was another planet approximately 2/3rds our size that hit us and the fragments from the explosion were caught as a giant cloud trapped in the earths gravitational pull. As it swirled it joined to form the Moon located approximately 135,000 kms from our surface.

The Moon exerted incredible gravitational pull on the Earth, resulting in huge climatic variations (storms, ocean tsunamis, winds, etc) along with affecting the Earth's core (forced volcanic activity, plate shifts and pressures).

A number of factors could have given rise to life here but the Moon's effects on our planet, the earth's chemical composition and the fact that meteors from space hit it instead of us would be top of the list. The Moon now orbits roughly between 355,000 and 405,000 kms from Earth (depending on its elliptical orbit) which has resulted in much more gentle effects along with the fact we formed an atmosphere which protects from solar radiation.

Could this happen elsewhere? With the size of the universe I am sure it can. It is just that a lot of things need to occur over time and result in similar, or other conditions (e.g. we have found life in the oceans existing without light (chemosynthesis) and bacteria getting energy from hydrogen sulphide.

 

[Matabele]

So the sun has no effect on our planet? Mars? Jupiter?

 

[ManlyBacker]

So the sun has no effect on our planet? Mars? Jupiter?

Um, yes - of course it does. Mars and Jupiter - not a great deal. I'm missing where you are going here. Is this a unilateral microcosm conundrum?

 

[Matabele]

MB - you comment about the moon being a planet that collides with earth etc is very interesting in light of this wonderful research and proposition put up by Dan.

I just re-read part of the god delusion and found that i slightly misquoted. There are a billion billion planets in the universe not that can support life, but because we exist that means there is at least a 1 in a billion chance. which means that there life should exist on a billion planets

part of the full quote
-----------
Suppose life's origin on a planet took place through a hugely improbable stroke of luck, so improbable that it happens on only one in a billion planets. The National Science Foundation would laugh at any chemist whose proposed research had only a one in a hundred chance of succeeding, let alone one in a billion. Yet, given that there are at least a billion billion planets in the universe, even such absurdly low odds as these will yield life on a billion planets. And - this is where the famous anthropic principle comes in - Earth has to be one of them, because here we are.
--------------------

 

[Dan]

At least now you are starting to try and make a point.

Now you do realise that the point you are trying to make out is accounted for in the above text.

Do you know how much a billlion billion is?

Anthropic principle is a principle not an exact art or law. But what he is saying is the slightest chance still on a cosmic scale provides an incomprehensible amount of planets that support life, even if you divided it again, you are still looking at millions of planets, and even if you take the chance and slice it up again you still have several hundred thousand at the very least, but that is still a large amount. You still seem to think Earth is the centre of the universe

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Dan]
[quote author=Matabele]
[quote author=Dan]
You see I can only assume you mean this article and \"collins\"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1553986,00.html

Time keep an online archive of all their articles. You clearly did not read it in black and white I wont let you take the lazy easy option any more. You have two choices

Debate it fairly, with cites and known facts and stick to your side and point

or

Retreat

So this statement (bottom of first page) doesn't exist in your universe?

Some excerpts from their spirited exchange:

:stupid:

[/quote]

Extremely lazy and poor form matas. I gave you a choice. Lack of evidence is not evcidence.

Just becuase it says "excerpts" this was the article as published!

So come out with the cite thank you or admit you are in over your head.

[/quote]

Let me say the s-l-o-w-l-y

The web article is not the full transcript of the article published in black and white in the physical copy of the Time magazine. :roll:

[/quote]


Let me say it slowly.

That simply means they took some of the excerpts of the discusssion TIME never publish the full discussion, that would take an entire magazine not a few mere pages.

Now simply because you want it to mean something doesnt mean it does, even if the time site doesnt have it other sites will so stop being LAZY and search up the actual article and quote for without it I am sorry but your point has no water

 

[Dan]

Yeah, I too would like a link about how a planet is formed from a collapsed black hole.

Everything I've ever read (and everything I've been able to find through Google just now) says that when a black hole completely collapses, you end up with a large burst of energy / radiation... nothing else.

The checmicals and dust that come from it then sit they form around a new start usually or an old one, they condense and planets are formed.

 

[Narcissus]

[quote author=Narcissus]
Yeah, I too would like a link about how a planet is formed from a collapsed black hole.

Everything I've ever read (and everything I've been able to find through Google just now) says that when a black hole completely collapses, you end up with a large burst of energy / radiation... nothing else.

The checmicals and dust that come from it then sit they form around a new start usually or an old one, they condense and planets are formed.
[/quote]

But of all the stuff I've read on black holes collapsing, they only mention radiation... no chemicals or dust. That's what I wanted a link for. Even if the black holes collapsing do produce chemicals and dust, it does not follow that that is how planets are formed. Chemicals and dust are precursors that exist outside of collapsing black holes... to say that black holes collapsing forms planets is like saying "the big bang produced water". It created the things that are required for water, but it is not the only way that those things are created.

Even so, like I say, I still don't believe that collapsing black holes produce chemicals and dust: I've been trying to find reference to it, but everything I see says "radiation" only.

 

[Dan]

Its the same as the big bang theory all the matter of the planets etc that it swallowed are expelled.

That is the only example we currently have, do you need a link to information on the big bang singularity?

 

[Matabele]

Do you know how much a billlion billion is?

Anthropic principle is a principle not an exact art or law. But what he is saying is the slightest chance still on a cosmic scale provides an incomprehensible amount of planets that support life, even if you divided it again, you are still looking at millions of planets, and even if you take the chance and slice it up again you still have several hundred thousand at the very least, but that is still a large amount. You still seem to think Earth is the centre of the universe

Interesting. We've gone from a billion billion to several hundred thousand.

That is now under the threshold of what you and Dawkins assert as certainty.

 

[Dan]

No you are misunderstandning, not reading and cherry picking.

I am saying even if you further exclude whatever you want, not matter how slight the odds you put in place there are still a billion planets, and even if you threw every restriction you wanted in there, even if we knw the exact goldilocks zone for every planet in the universe, no matter the odds at the smallest number you can still speculate hundreds of thousands.

The reality is thouogh that the 1 in a billion that most people including you in previous discussions have placed on it, if that is the odds then there are 1 billion billion.

It is mathematic certainty we arent alone, and your argument of "mere chance" becomes weaker and weaker.

Now like I say, when will you choose to debate it properly or will you admit you just dont know and are relying merely on faith?

 

[Narcissus]

Its the same as the big bang theory all the matter of the planets etc that it swallowed are expelled.

That is the only example we currently have, do you need a link to information on the big bang singularity?

No. I need a link to information that says something other than "when black holes explode, they just release radiation", as that's all I can come up with. At the moment, I have a heap of sites telling me one thing, and then you telling me another. Therefore, unless you can show me otherwise, why would I take your word for it over all of these other sites?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you saying "it's the same as the big bang theory" doesn't help me out because at the moment, all of MY research says that YOUR statement is incorrect. Now, being the scientific people we are, I believe the general consensus is providing proof... you are just continually making statements that are, according to what I am looking at at the moment (as well as what I have read in the past... what I can remember of it) incorrect.

Oh, and I would also like to say... when it comes to probability, nothing is a mathematical certainty. I learned that in school, I'm sure you did too. Just because there is a possibility (even a probability) of 1 billion other life carrying planets out there, there is no mathematical certainty that there is even one out there!

 

[Dan]

There is no authority on it since black holes can not be fully observed for one, and just like religion exploding black holy theory is just that, theory and assumption, though there is at least some foundation to black hole theory

By the way you do know what radiation is don't you?

 

[Matabele]

No you are misunderstandning, not reading and cherry picking.

I am saying even if you further exclude whatever you want, not matter how slight the odds you put in place there are still a billion planets, and even if you threw every restriction you wanted in there, even if we knw the exact goldilocks zone for every planet in the universe, no matter the odds at the smallest number you can still speculate hundreds of thousands.

The reality is thouogh that the 1 in a billion that most people including you in previous discussions have placed on it, if that is the odds then there are 1 billion billion.

It is mathematic certainty we arent alone, and your argument of \"mere chance\" becomes weaker and weaker.

Now like I say, when will you choose to debate it properly or will you admit you just dont know and are relying merely on faith?

Where is your proof that there are a billion billion independant zones?

 

[Dan]

none because that isnt what i said.

 

[The Gronk]

[quote author=Dan]
No you are misunderstandning, not reading and cherry picking.

I am saying even if you further exclude whatever you want, not matter how slight the odds you put in place there are still a billion planets, and even if you threw every restriction you wanted in there, even if we knw the exact goldilocks zone for every planet in the universe, no matter the odds at the smallest number you can still speculate hundreds of thousands.

The reality is thouogh that the 1 in a billion that most people including you in previous discussions have placed on it, if that is the odds then there are 1 billion billion.

It is mathematic certainty we arent alone, and your argument of \"mere chance\" becomes weaker and weaker.

Now like I say, when will you choose to debate it properly or will you admit you just dont know and are relying merely on faith?

Where is your proof that there are a billion billion independant zones?

[/quote]

http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179074

Well you lot seem to know so much so why don't you work out how many other intelligent civilisations there are.

 

[Matabele]

none because that isnt what i said.

It is the logical end point though. Squirming now, aren't you, because you've realised the trap you've set for yourself.