Slashdot Mirror
Early Earth Atmosphere Favourable to Life
mathinator writes "A study by researchers at the University of Waterloo indicates that Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet. The new study indicates that up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favourable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life. The paper was authored by doctoral student Feng Tian, Prof. Owen Toon and Research Associate Alexander Pavlov of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and by Prof. Hans De Sterk of University of Waterloo's Applied Mathematics department. The paper was published in the April 7 issue of Science Express, the online edition of Science Magazine"
Only if argued at the same critical and scientific level, and not argued on the "It's written here, so it's true" logic.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered
-----------------------
as is the theory of creation, both should be equally taken in with an open mind, and studied carefully.
-----------------------
Gravity is actually just a theory too, the whole law thing is just a name. So should consider non-gravity as a equal theory? How about the theory the earth is round, it's onyl a theory after all. Perfectly valid explanations of how it's "flat but all the evidence to the contrary is faked" also exist, should we consider both of the equally?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Can anyone tell me how many times these high and mighty evolution scientists have already backpedalled and changed their version of the truth to fit some new finding? I've already lost the count... pathetic, really.
Gosh.... yeah, it's awful how scientists are always changing their mind on encountering new data.
If we had any guts, we'd still believe in ether.
I don't think the parent is really a creationist at all; it's an anonymous coward trolling by pretending to be a creationist, providing a particularly easy straw man argument for us to knock down.
Which is utterly mysterious because there are plenty of authentic nutcases on slashdot.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!
I find it much more reasonable to believe that this awesome universe evolved exactly the way it did than that some mythical guy called God snapped his fingers and it all, like, happened dude! Funny how we both believe different, contradictary, things. It's almost as if beliefs mean crap all... I guess we have to fall back on that tried and true method of applying logic and evidence to the situation. What evidence do you have? Some crusty old multitranslated book written by some random people? Well I guess you win...
It really helps that you first of all not bunch up or confuse several different theories that have damn little in common. If you wish to believe in magic, go for it, but I for one am very interested in how things happened, not in simply handwaving the entirety of existence as some sort of unknowable act of Providence, because that is about as anti-knowledge as anything could be.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As opposed to what? I mean, the misery that humanity suffered so often really didn't start to be dealt with until the Enlightenment. Christianity specifically, and religion in general, had had thousands of years to do its part, but it wasn't until humanist philosophers and political theorists came along that suddenly we saw some real interest in making life better. All Christianity had done up until that point was to be used as an apologetic for tyrants of various types (popes, kings, princes and emperors) to do whatever they wanted. Even the chief Protestant himself, Luther, had little or no sympathy for the average peasant in Europe at the time.
At least secular society gives us some hope of living together despite religious differences. I doubt very much you would like to live in the alternative. I know myself that I would hate to live at the sufferance of the faithful, who might accept my own lack of belief in their deity today, but tomorrow might decide to revoke that acceptance.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The fact that evolution is a theory does not make creationism anything besides a middle eastern myth from ~3500 years ago, probably dreamed up (at least written down) by clerics trying to keep order among a peasant and slave class, passed to our time through a sketchy set of translations, and believed now by simpletons and Republicans. I can't stand when some Bible-beating dork states that, because creationism can't be proved, then any cockamamie story his grandmother told him is just as likely to be true. Crap, I say! Creationism isn't science, it's literature. Get over it.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
From your link:
If, therefore, a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false. A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true. He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket. He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.
This is complete bullshit. I am amazed how many times religious people sprinkle this kind of magic pixie dust to produce a holier-than-thou philosophy. The steps in the process are:
(1) identify something that we cannot possibly know one way or another (for example, the origin of the universe, or free will vs. determinism).
(2) pronounce some spiritual hocus pocus to answer the problem.
(3) ignore the fact that the spiritual answer suffers the same problem.
(4) take tithes from the ignorant.
(5) profit!
In this particular case, free will vs. determinism is not answered by postulating the existance of a soul because that "answer" suffers *exactly* the same problem: maybe thoughts move throught the soul in a deterministic way.
Much the same can be said for the cosmological (first cause) argument.