TC, have you read or seen Ballard's word on the black sea, it seems to be a likely candidate for a real biblical type flood in ancient times which would explain so many cultures telling a story of a great flood.
Absolutely fascinating geological work done here, I agree this stuff is great. There is a book as well, done by a pair of geologists, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, dealing with the earliest evidence of the Black Sea flood, and the Mediterranean Flood analogue which was similar, but happened ~6 million years before. Great read along with good facts and reasoning. It was this work that predicted the shorelines that Ballard went looking for.
*Note, I hesitated to post this here, but I think it fits in well as this is a science thread which at times deals with religion, albeit we try to keep this on track. I just figured there is a lot of people who frequent this thread that will enjoy this immensely, so here you go; lets not turn it into a discussion on religion vs science.
1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
18. Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Isn't that what your video and post in general is about? Isn't there already a thread you made about this too?
There is? If so, would you be so kind as to direct me towards it. Thor should re-post this video there, and I can also restrict my inane ramblings to this thread as well.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
There is? If so, would you be so kind as to direct me towards it. Thor should re-post this video there, and I can also restrict my inane ramblings to this thread as well.
The posts I read in the Thor's thread on Evolution seemed to be all about Religion vs Science to me. You've posted in the thread, so you should know where it is.
First Trojan asteroid companion of Earth discovered, although more are thought to be out there, but are difficult to find. Unfortunately for my fellow stargazers out there, you likely won't be able to spot this guy (obviously, since it's taken this long to find it in the first place), because it's mostly visible from Earth during the day-time only. It does raise some interesting questions, though, now that one of these objects has been finally discovered, about the commercial potential of space and the possibility of mining asteroids for rare elements.
OH snap, this is neat, bring on the incoming AI apocalypse!
Quote:
A team of researchers lead by Lulu Qian from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have for the first developed an artificial neural network -- that is, the beginnings of a brain -- out of DNA molecules.
They turned to molecules because they knew that before the neural-based brain evolved, single-celled organisms showed limited forms of intelligence. These microorganisms did not have brains, but instead had molecules that interacted with each other and spurred the creatures to search for food and avoid toxins. The bottom line is that molecules can act like circuits, processing and transmitting information and computing data. BLOG: Artificial Intelligence Diagnoses Abuse
The Caltech used DNA molecules specifically for the experiment, because these molecules interact in specific ways determined by the sequence of their four bases: adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). And what's more, scientists can encode the sequence into strands of DNA molecules, essentially programming them to function in a predetermined way.
Without getting too complicated, Qian and her team created four highly simplified artificial neurons in test tubes comprised of 112 strands of DNA, each strand programmed with a specific sequence of bases to interact with other strands. The interactions resulted in outputs (or not), basically mimicking the actions of neurons firing. In order to see the DNA neurons firing, the scientists attached a fluorescent molecular marker that lit up when activated.
TC, have you read or seen Ballard's word on the black sea, it seems to be a likely candidate for a real biblical type flood in ancient times which would explain so many cultures telling a story of a great flood.
I did look it over, and I agree that it is all very interesting work. However, this does not change my opinion that the search for the flood is a fool's errand. Such a pursuit utterly misses the intent and purpose of the early flood myths, which served to enforce an ancient conception of order in nature that was sustained through religious practice. My concern is that in attempting to draw connections between these myths and actual events lends to the mistaken notion that there is any actual historical information in this literature. There is not—at least not insofar as it is discernible.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I did look it over, and I agree that it is all very interesting work. However, this does not change my opinion that the search for the flood is a fool's errand. Such a pursuit utterly misses the intent and purpose of the early flood myths, which served to enforce an ancient conception of order in nature that was sustained through religious practice. My concern is that in attempting to draw connections between these myths and actual events lends to the mistaken notion that there is any actual historical information in this literature. There is not—at least not insofar as it is discernible.
Oh i got that. But i don't think you can deny the fact that if anything the bible could be and prob is a book of history of a certain periods of the human race. There may be a lot of telephone, filler, junk and BS mixed in with some truths.. but i don't think it's hard to pull out what could be true and what is mere fabrication...A flood at the end of the last ice age - is more than likely true. As someone who is not religious and a science degree to boot...I cannot myself just ignore these things just so it maintains no credibility.
For years scientists told us there was no way the pacific northwest was geologically active, no way they said that earthquakes of monster size could happen here. Meanwhile in local native folklore there were plenty of stories past down about the area, about the where to live and where not to live and stories about the great earthquake of 1700. All that was ignored, not investigated or passed off as a bunch of baloney....until by accident they started to find evidence..and those stories had some fire to them. I understand that mere folklore isn't proof of anything, but to not at least use it as a basis for a scientific investigation is wrong. Accidently walking into evidence of a great earthquake years after some investigation could of started, does us a great diservice in this respect.
Science should know no bias and should never be a matter of fact.
Honestly i could care less about whats in the Bible, but science is fun - regardless if anything that may be theorized as true, doesn't change my opinion of the dam book
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 07-28-2011 at 04:59 PM.
While this isn't particularly news, it is an interesting video. I know very little about geology, astronomy or the evolution of planets but as a professional jigsaw puzzlist; it looks to fit.
Assuming it's true, when does planet growth stop and what happens when it does? I can only guess that growth stops when the planet density becomes too weak to sustain itself, but does that even make sense?
I'd feel more comfortable if this was in green text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yasa
While this isn't particularly news, it is an interesting video. I know very little about geology, astronomy or the evolution of planets but as a professional jigsaw puzzlist; it looks to fit.
Assuming it's true, when does planet growth stop and what happens when it does? I can only guess that growth stops when the planet density becomes too weak to sustain itself, but does that even make sense?
The Expanding Earth theory is more demonstrably false than Intelligent Design is. Its fallacies include:
1) No explanation for a driving force (i.e. why is the Earth less dense now than before spreading began?). The only story I have heard to explain this is a change in the universal Gravitational constant, which has not been observed in any other field, such as astronomy.
2) No reasonable explanation for compressive tectonic environments (i.e. the Rocky mountains), expressed in measurable current-day stresses as well as observable structures, including subsurface structures such as seismically imaged subduction zones. No explanation of earthquake data that shows compressive stress.
3) No explanation for accreted geologic terranes (bits of continent that have different ages, composition, fossil assemblage and geologic history than what they are accreted onto). Canadian examples include central BC (which is tropical in origin) and a piece of Newfoundland that is much more similar to rocks in Scotland, implying that the Atlantic Ocean was open (allowing for the development of discrete fossil assemblages) then it was closed (forming the Appalacian Range and sticking the bit of Scotland to North America) and then it was later ripped apart (leaving the slice behind).
4) No explanation for the disappearance of rifts (i.e. why is there no rift zone adjacent to California - the rocks get older to the west and not younger to the east like in every modernly active rift zone).
5) No satisfactory explanation for the presence and morphology of ocean-trenches.
/Resident Geologist
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bownesian For This Useful Post:
Haha, he does a pretty convincing job of it. I know that this theory is so dumb that it is hardly worth even attempting to debunk, but for me the biggest problem is water:
We currently have roughly 1,360,000,000 km3 of water on earth. I'm going to assume that the amount of water has not increased over time.
The land surface area of the earth is currently 148,940,000 km2. Pretty much all of that surface is on upper continental plates, so this is a good ballpark for what he envisions as the size of the earth, roughly 100 million years ago. (Compared with a total surface area of 510,072,000 km2 today).
Presently, there's about 2.7 km3 of water per km2 of surface area on the earth. Most of this water is in deep seas. If you spread the same amount of water over his theoretical late cretaceous earth, the water would be on average 9.1 km deep.
There's just no way that you can account for that amount of water on an earth the size that this guy is suggesting, unless the entire earth is under several km of water. And we know from the fossil record that it wasn't the case. Either that, or earth has somehow gained about a billion cubic km of water over the last hundred million years.
Haha, he does a pretty convincing job of it. I know that this theory is so dumb that it is hardly worth even attempting to debunk, but for me the biggest problem is water:
We currently have roughly 1,360,000,000 km3 of water on earth. I'm going to assume that the amount of water has not increased over time.
The land surface area of the earth is currently 148,940,000 km2. Pretty much all of that surface is on upper continental plates, so this is a good ballpark for what he envisions as the size of the earth, roughly 100 million years ago. (Compared with a total surface area of 510,072,000 km2 today).
Presently, there's about 2.7 km3 of water per km2 of surface area on the earth. Most of this water is in deep seas. If you spread the same amount of water over his theoretical late cretaceous earth, the water would be on average 9.1 km deep.
There's just no way that you can account for that amount of water on an earth the size that this guy is suggesting, unless the entire earth is under several km of water. And we know from the fossil record that it wasn't the case. Either that, or earth has somehow gained about a billion cubic km of water over the last hundred million years.
I think this is the same dude pimping "planet X" and 2012 a couple of years ago as well.
