Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 40 to 46 of 46
  1. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    9,422
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacskills View Post
    what I don't understand is if these galaxies, in the observable universe, are some 45 billion light years or so away, with the light from them taking some 13 billion years or so to get here, then how can they say what these galaxies are doing now ?

    so what would you call your theory ? the ' big suck ' ?

    Easy, if you have been paying attention to the MMCC discussion, they have been watching these stars/galaxies for just over 100 years, then they created a computer model that extrapolates the data and creates a model that looks a lot like Rachel Welch back in the 70's. Now since we know what Rachel looked like in the 70's and we know what she looks like today, since there is not a lot of change there then the galaxies must also look very much the same.

    Maybe MMCC would be more believable if their model didn't look like Soupy Sales or Phyllis Diller.

  2. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,329
    Post Likes
    Whatever created us purposely left out the ability for us to ever figure out how we got here....

  3. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    9,422
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Snapperhead View Post
    Whatever created us purposely left out the ability for us to ever figure out how we got here....
    In that case who says we are really here? Kinda thinking something along the lines of the Matrix.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    2,892
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter

  5. #44
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,413
    Post Likes
    Scientists discover cosmic factory for making building blocks of life
    September 15, 2013
    .
    Scientists have discovered a 'cosmic factory' for producing the building blocks of life, amino acids, in research published today in the journal Nature Geoscience.

    The team from Imperial College London, the University of Kent and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have discovered that when icy comets collide into a planet, amino acids can be produced. These essential building blocks are also produced if a rocky meteorite crashes into a planet with an icy surface.

    The researchers suggest that this process provides another piece to the puzzle of how life was kick-started on Earth, after a period of time between 4.5 and 3.8 billion years ago when the planet had been bombarded by comets and meteorites.

    Dr Zita Martins, co-author of the paper from the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, says: "Our work shows that the basic building blocks of life can be assembled anywhere in the Solar System and perhaps beyond. However, the catch is that these building blocks need the right conditions in order for life to flourish. Excitingly, our study widens the scope for where these important ingredients may be formed in the Solar System and adds another piece to the puzzle of how life on our planet took root."

    Dr Mark Price, co-author from the University of Kent, adds: "This process demonstrates a very simple mechanism whereby we can go from a mix of simple molecules, such as water and carbon-dioxide ice, to a more complicated molecule, such as an amino acid. This is the first step towards life. The next step is to work out how to go from an amino acid to even more complex molecules such as proteins."

    The abundance of ice on the surfaces of Enceladus and Europa, which are moons orbiting Saturn and Jupiter respectively, could provide a perfect environment for the production of amino acids, when meteorites crash into their surface, say the researchers. Their work further underlines the importance of future space missions to these moons to search for signs of life.

    The researchers discovered that when a comet impacts on a world it creates a shock wave that generates molecules that make up amino acids. The impact of the shock wave also generates heat, which then transforms these molecules into amino acids.

    The team made their discovery by recreating the impact of a comet by firing projectiles through a large high speed gun. This gun, located at the University of Kent, uses compressed gas to propel projectiles at speeds of 7.15 kilometres per second into targets of ice mixtures, which have a similar composition to comets. The resulting impact created amino acids such as glycine and D-and L-alanine.

    See the links:
    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-sdc091113.php
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  6. Likes Fender60 liked this post
  7. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,413
    Post Likes
    Ask Andrew W.K.: ‘How Do I Show Religious Freaks That Science Wins?’
    .
    Yo, Andrew.

    How can anyone believe in religion? It’s so ignorant and obviously fake. I’ve always backed science since I was a little kid, and now I’m proud to say that I’m studying to be a molecular biologist in college. The thing is, I’m surrounded by a lot of religious idiots at this school, and whenever I try to explain to them how believing in a man in heaven who rose from the dead and all that superstitious BS is literally causing the murder of millions of people, they argue back and tell me that “science is evil and is playing God,” and that I should develop my “faith” before I blow up the world.

    What is the best way to finally get through to these ignorant people and explain to them simply and finally that they’re wrong? If they would just give in and accept the scientific future, they would see that they don’t need religion to enjoy life.

    Thanks for your feedback,
    Enlightened Scientist

    Dear Enlightened Scientist,

    Science versus religion.

    I’ve always found this to be one of the most unnecessary arguments in contemporary society. Why does it have to be one way or another? I may not be the most mature or educated person, but when I see highly esteemed academics twice my age arguing about this, on and on, it puzzles and concerns me. Arguing about whether science or religion is better seems about as futile as arguing about whether day or night is better. Both have their qualities and shortcomings; neither can (nor should) be expected to replace the other. They are two sides of the same coin, and they both emerged out of — and are aspects of — a fundamental search for reality.

    Both science and religion came from mankind’s desire to know. Both are striving for truth. Science wants to understand truth. Religion wants to experience it. Science wants to get at truth from the outside in. Religion gets at it from the inside out. Science gives us the how; religion gives us the why. Science gives us the means to an end, religion gives us the meaning of that end. Science wants to bring comprehension to the universe. Religion wants to bring tangibility to the intangible.

    You say your argument is that science has never killed anyone like people have been killed in the name of religion. While people may not murder each other “in the name of science,” we do know that nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, eugenics and biological experimentation can also contribute to death and killing in an endless variety of ways. Both science and religion can be used as a method or justification by those who want to cause pain and suffering and break the rules of common sense and humanity. And even if one has a more extreme body count than the other, it doesn’t mean that one should exist and the other shouldn’t. None of the crimes that humanity has committed against itself mean that science is evil or that religion is bad. All it means is that people can do horrible things to each other using all sorts of convoluted reasoning.

    Ultimately, it seems that when people complain about the harm of religion, they’re often simply complaining about people behaving badly. They’re talking about their dislike of people behaving barbarically. As much as the truth of God may be beyond description and intellectual grasp, the truth of human cruelty and ignorance is all too familiar and measurable. And when people claim to talk about the evil of science, they’re actually just complaining about those unfortunate scientists who lack the ethical tools or moral integrity to guide and refine the use of their discoveries. Both religious people and scientific people can behave badly. A closed-minded scientist can be a jerk just as easily as a devout religious person can be a fool. No mode of thought or set of beliefs should be blamed for the lack of character in a particular individual. Nor should the vast array of benefits found in both science and religion be thrown away just because some people behave poorly in spite of them.

    So your complaint really shouldn’t be with religion or people who are religious, but simply with the unfortunately all-too-familiar shortcomings of the human race. Any religion that promotes hatred is not really a religion at all. And any scientist who cannot live with the spirit of brotherly love in his heart has more problems to investigate inside himself than in the material world. Every person who feels it necessary to battle over the definition or location of truth is neither in possession of any truth to begin with, nor do they have the possibility of experiencing any truth while existing in a prejudiced, spiteful, and unloving state of mind. We must do better than this. We have to grow.

    Out of all the principles we should tirelessly strive to live with, gentle kindness, flexibility of spirit, open-mindedness, and a type of pure and unconditional love are the most crucial — especially when we feel most compelled not to behave that way. We simply cannot claim to be real human beings until we can learn to live with the other human beings around us, no matter how religious or scientific they may or may not be. Learning to live with one another remains our first and most urgent challenge, and it starts with each of us honestly working at it from the inside. It’s much easier and much more tempting to lash out and attack everyone else we think is wrong, but we must start much closer to home. We can’t fix the world until we fix ourselves first.

    Someday, maybe science or religion really will claim dominance and beat the other once and for all. But until then, it seems that we each have plenty of work to do personally and internally, in order to become more gracious, more tolerant, and more humane human beings.

    Your friend,
    Andrew W.K.

    https://www.villagevoice.com/2015/04...-science-wins/
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  8. #46
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    6,413
    Post Likes
    Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things
    .
    A surprisingly specific genetic portrait of the ancestor of all living things has been generated by scientists who say that the likeness sheds considerable light on the mystery of how life first emerged on Earth.

    This venerable ancestor was a single-cell, bacterium-like organism. But it has a grand name, or at least an acronym. It is known as Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, and is estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

    The new finding sharpens the debate between those who believe life began in some extreme environment, such as in deep sea vents or the flanks of volcanoes, and others who favor more normal settings, such as the “warm little pond” proposed by Darwin.

    The nature of the earliest ancestor of all living things has long been uncertain because the three great domains of life seemed to have no common point of origin. The domains are those of the bacteria, the archaea and the eukaryotes. Archaea are bacteria-like organisms but with a different metabolism, and the eukaryotes include all plants and animals.

    Specialists have recently come to believe that the bacteria and archaea were the two earliest domains, with the eukaryotes emerging later. That opened the way for a group of evolutionary biologists, led by William F. Martin of Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany, to try to discern the nature of the organism from which the bacterial and archaeal domains emerged.

    Their starting point was the known protein-coding genes of bacteria and archaea. Some six million such genes have accumulated over the last 20 years in DNA databanks as scientists with the new decoding machines have deposited gene sequences from thousands of microbes.

    Genes that do the same thing in a human and a mouse are generally related by common descent from an ancestral gene in the first mammal. So by comparing their sequence of DNA letters, genes can be arranged in evolutionary family trees, a property that enabled Dr. Martin and his colleagues to assign the six million genes to a much smaller number of gene families. Of these, only 355 met their criteria for having probably originated in Luca, the joint ancestor of bacteria and archaea.

    Read the rest:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/s...stor.html?_r=0
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  9. Likes Fender60 liked this post
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •