ihm
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@ihm
Posts: 141
Likes: 21
Member is Online
|
Post by ihm on Jul 20, 2024 22:53:26 GMT
"our mothers do not represent the last universal common ancestor from which all modern cellular life on Earth originated"But those simple life forms you mentioned do? Yes. Do you really not understand the difference between your mother and an ancient simple lifeform? My suspicion is that you are trolling now and so am off to bed. Careful. An Admin can nuke your account.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2024 22:57:59 GMT
Yes. Do you really not understand the difference between your mother and an ancient simple lifeform? My suspicion is that you are trolling now and so am off to bed. Careful. An Admin can nuke your account. Guess you didn't see that I have just edited, thinking Admin was just being mischievous. No one is that dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2024 23:12:06 GMT
"our mothers do not represent the last universal common ancestor from which all modern cellular life on Earth originated"But those simple life forms you mentioned do? Yes. Do you really not understand the difference between your mother and an ancient simple lifeform? My suspicion is that you are trolling now and so am off to bed. If those simple life forms have ancestors, then they are not the last common ancestor. You seem to have understood that when you said they were not the Prime Movers. You tripped over yourself again. Pointing that out isn't trolling; it's an opportunity for you to acknowledge and correct your mistake. (Note how I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by calling it a mistake.)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2024 23:22:17 GMT
Yes. Do you really not understand the difference between your mother and an ancient simple lifeform? My suspicion is that you are trolling now and so am off to bed. Careful. An Admin can nuke your account. That's true. Admins do have the ability to nuke accounts. But if you think an admin would nuke an account over something like this, you should probably never be one.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 21, 2024 12:01:27 GMT
If those simple life forms have ancestors, then they are not the last common ancestor. Everything has an ancestor. The key words here are last universal common ancestor. Your mistake is apparently not being aware of, or ignoring, the scientific definition: i.e. Not your mum. I said that to resolve your apparent uncertainty and because any supposed Prime Mover would be a completely different thing - in fact many see it as the deliberate supernatural. I am not aware of it as a term being used in biology by scientists at all - and wonder why you thought it might be the LUCA. That is very kind of you. But you will notice that I removed reference of trolling within a couple of minutes, after a short reconsideration and attributing you kinder motives. It is certainly true though that your misconceptions are so egregious that one remains suspicious. Any 'mistakes' btw are entirely your own - such as your continuing confusion above, excepting I perhaps take you too seriously. But back to my original point, which seems to have been forgotten: in its creation of everything natural, the deity did not bother with primitive life forms at all, but supposedly plunged straight into just making well-evolved phyla. One suspects this is because the writers of Genesis had no concept of the foundations of life.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2024 17:33:41 GMT
If those simple life forms have ancestors, then they are not the last common ancestor. Everything has an ancestor. The key words here are last universal common ancestor. Your mistake is apparently not being aware of, or ignoring, the scientific definition: i.e. Not your mum. I said that to resolve your apparent uncertainty and because any supposed Prime Mover would be a completely different thing - in fact many see it as the deliberate supernatural. I am not aware of it as a term being used in biology by scientists at all - and wonder why you thought it might be the LUCA. That is very kind of you. But you will notice that I removed reference of trolling within a couple of minutes, after a short reconsideration and attributing you kinder motives. It is certainly true though that your misconceptions are so egregious that one remains suspicious. Any 'mistakes' btw are entirely your own - such as your continuing confusion above, excepting I perhaps take you too seriously. But back to my original point, which seems to have been forgotten: in its creation of everything natural, the deity did not bother with primitive life forms at all, but supposedly plunged straight into just making well-evolved phyla. One suspects this is because the writers of Genesis had no concept of the foundations of life. Doesn't the Bible say God made man from dirt?
|
|
ihm
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@ihm
Posts: 141
Likes: 21
Member is Online
|
Post by ihm on Jul 23, 2024 17:38:40 GMT
Doesn't the Bible say God made man from dirt? "Dust" means "flesh and blood". So, God made man from the "flesh and blood" meaning the animals that already populated the Earth. Here is the term "dust" being used in the proper context. It's at the very beginning. You don't have to watch the whole thing. He's wrong about hell though. Hell is mentioned in Numbers in the story of Korah.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2024 17:53:19 GMT
Doesn't the Bible say God made man from dirt? "Dust" means "flesh and blood". So, God made man from the "flesh and blood" meaning the animals that already populated the Earth. Here is the term "dust" being used in the proper context. It's at the very beginning. You don't have to watch the whole thing. He's wrong about hell though. Hell is mentioned in Numbers in the story of Korah. In context, it's not just dust; it's "dust from the ground." It also says the animals were made from dust as well.
|
|
ihm
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@ihm
Posts: 141
Likes: 21
Member is Online
|
Post by ihm on Jul 23, 2024 18:07:00 GMT
"Dust" means "flesh and blood". So, God made man from the "flesh and blood" meaning the animals that already populated the Earth. Here is the term "dust" being used in the proper context. It's at the very beginning. You don't have to watch the whole thing. He's wrong about hell though. Hell is mentioned in Numbers in the story of Korah. In context, it's not just dust; it's "dust from the ground." It also says the animals were made from dust as well. Well, if there's truly no way rationalize around it then the Bible is full of superstitious bullshit. And your all–better off ignoring it and focusing on science and progress before it enables you to destroy the world in Gog & Magog WW3.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2024 18:17:21 GMT
In context, it's not just dust; it's "dust from the ground." It also says the animals were made from dust as well. Well, if there's truly no way rationalize around it then the Bible is full of superstitious bullshit. And your all–better off ignoring it and focusing on science and progress before it enables you to destroy the world in Gog & Magog WW3. But science says the same thing... Um... guys. Genesis is actually DESCRIBING evolution. Abiogenesis, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2024 23:54:30 GMT
I don’t understand the dichotomy being made here since one thing has nothing to do with the other. The inverse of creationism is naturalism. Evolution doesn’t address the origins of the universe. Evolution is the mechanism by which species change and diversify over long periods of time due to genetic expression which provides a survival advantage when influenced by natural selection pressures. Evolution is also the theory which explains the common descent of all live, and common ancestry humans have with other great apes. Many religious people accept evolution because it doesn’t conflict with their interpretation of their religion. Since evolution doesn’t attempt to describe the origins of the universe, that leaves open (for them) the possibility of evolution by supernatural selection (or a guided process by God).
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Aug 10, 2024 18:21:32 GMT
... According to Wikipedia, the Earth slows by 1.7 milliseconds per century. A million years ago, a day on Earth was 28 minutes, 20 seconds shorter (0.0017*1,000,000 = 1700 seconds/60 = 28.33 minutes). So if you want to know what that is for 4 billion years ago, 4 billion/1 million is 4000 x 28.33 = 113,320 minutes shorter. Earth today has 1,440 minutes per day (assuming 24 hr/day). It was rotating 78.69 times per minute. ... Good mathematics, not-so-good physics If the earth were spinning more than 12 times in a 24-hour period, objects on the equator would start flying into space and all of earth would eventually fly into space. In other words, the earth has never rotated faster than 12 times in a 24-hour period. As the moon is the primary cause of slowing earth's rotation, the slowdown didn't start until the moon was formed. Today's deceleration is 1.7 ms per century, but it changes depending on such factors as the distance to the moon, the length of a lunar month (full-moon to full-moon), and other astronomical factors. It won't change much in our lifetime, but in fifty billion years (or so), the earth's rotation will be about 8 times per year at which point it will start to speed up. I'm looking forward to 500 hours of sunshine every day.
|
|
jimmyboy
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@jimmyboy
Posts: 242
Likes: 122
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by jimmyboy on Aug 10, 2024 22:32:31 GMT
... According to Wikipedia, the Earth slows by 1.7 milliseconds per century. A million years ago, a day on Earth was 28 minutes, 20 seconds shorter (0.0017*1,000,000 = 1700 seconds/60 = 28.33 minutes). So if you want to know what that is for 4 billion years ago, 4 billion/1 million is 4000 x 28.33 = 113,320 minutes shorter. Earth today has 1,440 minutes per day (assuming 24 hr/day). It was rotating 78.69 times per minute. ... Good mathematics, not-so-good physics If the earth were spinning more than 12 times in a 24-hour period, objects on the equator would start flying into space and all of earth would eventually fly into space. In other words, the earth has never rotated faster than 12 times in a 24-hour period. As the moon is the primary cause of slowing earth's rotation, the slowdown didn't start until the moon was formed. Today's deceleration is 1.7 ms per century, but it changes depending on such factors as the distance to the moon, the length of a lunar month (full-moon to full-moon), and other astronomical factors. It won't change much in our lifetime, but in fifty billion years (or so), the earth's rotation will be about 8 times per year at which point it will start to speed up. I'm looking forward to 500 hours of sunshine every day. My math was assuming a constant rate of deceleration for 4 billion years. Obviously there were other factors in play.
|
|