Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 30, 2024, 4:11 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New theory on Aboigenesis
#11
RE: New theory on Aboigenesis
(February 26, 2015 at 7:31 am)robvalue Wrote: Tiberius is the guy who generously runs this site out of his own pocket.

Ah. Now that you mention it, I believe I've heard the name before.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?

[Image: LB_Header_Idea_A.jpg]
Reply
#12
RE: New theory on Aboigenesis
(February 26, 2015 at 6:48 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:
(February 26, 2015 at 6:19 am)Heywood Wrote: Why isn't there life on the moon, or mars? Light has been falling on the moon for billions of years. It would seem if this theory is correct we should see life anywhere light falls for a long time....and that is just not the case.

The article says, life would form where conditions are correct.

The article says:

Quote:“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

Now I understand that plants require other conditions to emerge, but what the article seems to say is that any random clump of atoms will begin to arrange itself in a way which dissipates heat better when light is shown upon it. If this is true than rocks at the bottom of craters where light never shines should be different than rocks exposed to constant light. Or I should be able to crush up a rock into dust, divide that dust into two samples. Place one sample in constant light and the other in constant darkness. After a while the one in light should have arranged itself in a way which dissipates heat better,.

The article lacks any details for one to draw actual conclusions. Claims that it puts "God on the ropes" or has "creationist terrified" amount to nothing more than atheistic masturbation.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Star Trek theory Won2blv 10 1567 June 24, 2023 at 6:53 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Simulation Theory according to Dilbert Neo-Scholastic 110 18062 May 10, 2017 at 12:06 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Intelligent Design as a scientific theory? SuperSentient 26 6812 March 26, 2017 at 11:07 pm
Last Post: SuperSentient
  Simulation Theory Documentary Neo-Scholastic 25 6092 August 30, 2016 at 3:45 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  New theory on how life began KUSA 19 4220 March 3, 2016 at 6:33 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Can you give any evidence for Darwin's theory? Walker_Lee 51 11159 May 14, 2014 at 11:30 am
Last Post: Simon Moon
  Creationists: Just a theory? Darwinian 31 8099 October 26, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  PZ Myers destroys Daniel Friedmann's YEC theory little_monkey 1 1275 June 17, 2013 at 10:56 am
Last Post: Silver
  Big Bang theory confirmed (apparently) and amendments to make Joel 2 1989 March 21, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Last Post: Joel
Thumbs Up Does Death Exist? New Theory Says ‘No’ Phish 30 14675 March 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Last Post: ManMachine



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)