I don't know if anyone's actually said this yet, but the best estimates say that the collision that caused the moon happened about 4.25 billion years ago.
I think most of the people who responded to this are missing the point.:)
IMHO, it seems like yet another flimsy idea to try to bolster evolution. The fact is that evolutionists are struggling to find the extra time required for evolution to be possible (possibly better phrased as not impossible ie P=10^-(100000!) or something) given the youth of the universe, the youth of earth, and the small fraction of that youth where the earth can actually support life. Saying that Mars was able to support life earlier than Earth, and that it is possible (again probably better phrased as not impossible) that some bits of it were blasted here somehow, survived and evolved extends their time frame a little bit. Little do they realize that it even further diminishes the probability that evolution is the right way to think about the origin of life. If any respected evolutionist actually gives this idea any credence, then I'm going to grab a Bible and start praying my ass off, and maybe join a monastary (?sp?). It would say to me that they've really given up on life evolving here, so they have to make wild "well-it's not TOTALLY impossible" claims to try to hold their position of being able to look down their noses at creationists.
The last ridiculous "convincing argument" for evolution I read went like this... Women have greater ankle flexibility than men, which means the female precursors to humans climbed around in trees a lot. This idea was backed up by the observation that boys tend to have nightmares where the threat is coming from the side whereas girls have nightmares where the threat is coming from below. Is anyone else annoyed by this idea yet? I remember a frequent nightmare where I was in a witch's cooking pot. That must mean the male precursors to humans practiced cannibalism. This is not science people, this is called guessing! In science, little things like ev-i-dence give credibility to a idea, not proof by the "anything is possible" theory.:)
Geez, I'm sooooooo tired of reading about totally unsubstantiated theories. Where's the science?? It seems to me that they (whoever they are) will take an observation, a single datum, associate it with some random element in the set of all possible explanations, then call it a convincing argument! No no no... that is not science. We must learn to differentiate science from guessing because, despite what this life on Mars implies, they are not not not the same.
By the way, in case there was ever any doubt... don't believe the hype. Life evolving on Mars, then getting blasted here, surviving, and contributing to Earth life's evolution, is SOOOOO insanely improbable it's safe to say it didn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if anyone's actually said this yet, but the best estimates say that the collision that caused the moon happened about 4.25 billion years ago.
I think most of the people who responded to this are missing the point. :)
:)
IMHO, it seems like yet another flimsy idea to try to bolster evolution. The fact is that evolutionists are struggling to find the extra time required for evolution to be possible (possibly better phrased as not impossible ie P=10^-(100000!) or something) given the youth of the universe, the youth of earth, and the small fraction of that youth where the earth can actually support life. Saying that Mars was able to support life earlier than Earth, and that it is possible (again probably better phrased as not impossible) that some bits of it were blasted here somehow, survived and evolved extends their time frame a little bit. Little do they realize that it even further diminishes the probability that evolution is the right way to think about the origin of life. If any respected evolutionist actually gives this idea any credence, then I'm going to grab a Bible and start praying my ass off, and maybe join a monastary (?sp?). It would say to me that they've really given up on life evolving here, so they have to make wild "well-it's not TOTALLY impossible" claims to try to hold their position of being able to look down their noses at creationists.
The last ridiculous "convincing argument" for evolution I read went like this... Women have greater ankle flexibility than men, which means the female precursors to humans climbed around in trees a lot. This idea was backed up by the observation that boys tend to have nightmares where the threat is coming from the side whereas girls have nightmares where the threat is coming from below. Is anyone else annoyed by this idea yet? I remember a frequent nightmare where I was in a witch's cooking pot. That must mean the male precursors to humans practiced cannibalism. This is not science people, this is called guessing! In science, little things like ev-i-dence give credibility to a idea, not proof by the "anything is possible" theory.
Geez, I'm sooooooo tired of reading about totally unsubstantiated theories. Where's the science?? It seems to me that they (whoever they are) will take an observation, a single datum, associate it with some random element in the set of all possible explanations, then call it a convincing argument! No no no... that is not science. We must learn to differentiate science from guessing because, despite what this life on Mars implies, they are not not not the same.
By the way, in case there was ever any doubt... don't believe the hype. Life evolving on Mars, then getting blasted here, surviving, and contributing to Earth life's evolution, is SOOOOO insanely improbable it's safe to say it didn't happen.