100 million years with a vast soup of elements, complex molecules etc before one combination happened to work does not seem impossible to me.
There are theories about panspermia where in life was seeded in the form of simple single celled organisms or proto-protein chains in the vast nebula prior to the sun and planets forming.
The fact is we are here and life exists.
There are theories about panspermia where in life was seeded in the form of simple single celled organisms or proto-protein chains in the vast nebula prior to the sun and planets forming.
The fact is we are here and life exists.
Last edited:
Strict falsification is not widely accepted today that much.
When we run an experiment, we're not only testing the hypothesis itself, but also a large number of assumptions that can be interrelated. Negative result of such experiment might be explained by the fact the the main hypothesis is false or that some of the auxiliary hypothesis might be wrong.
This is a very practical problem, but falsification has more problems, IMO.
'X is so clumsy that it could never have been designed' sounds like a criticism.billshurv said:
No, just an observation. I didn't say man could do better. But (based on feedback from those experienced in the field) it bears all the hallmarks of something that evolved over time. A rotating proton pump is a very odd construct.
Add to that the fact that mitocondria have their own DNA so appear to be something that worked that ganged up with other things to make a cell and random processes over time frames our (or at least my) feeble minds cannot comprehend and balance of probability goes back to the primodial soup just cooking for millenia.
Add to that the fact that mitocondria have their own DNA so appear to be something that worked that ganged up with other things to make a cell and random processes over time frames our (or at least my) feeble minds cannot comprehend and balance of probability goes back to the primodial soup just cooking for millenia.
Well, look at some of the stuff here on the forum. The statement is absolutely valid in all cases . . .
Sure, but given the - already reaching about all boundaries - topic, I tried to avoid another one about epistemological topics .... 🙂
That's an interesting theor, er, hypothesis. Do you have any evidence for it?
ETA: I can see where ESP would be a valuable trait, but I've yet to find any good evidence for it. If anything, there's a lack of evidence in spite of the beliefs of its most fervent supporters/promoters (I may have posted this before):
Why I have given up - Dr Susan Blackmore
I interpreted "Wayne's uncle's insight" as "You can drill anywhere around here and you'll hit water."
And of course if you hit water, that means the dowser was right, right?
Last edited:
I can no longer find an interview with a dowser that explains how much of it is ordinary geoscience.
That would be interesting, but also, from what I've seen of dowsers on TV and such, highly misleading and disingenuous. I've not heard a dowser claim that the knowledge of the location of water came from anything other than the stick in his hand and what the stick is 'telling' him.
There is water dowsing and yes that can be knowledge of the terrain and water tables, ie geoscience.
Dowsing is not only for water, but also for ground radiation 'hot spots' which are intersections or nodal points of energy grid lines and erratic lines such as fault lines and water veins.
These high energy hot spots can be beneficial or 'geopathic' and have been known since forever and significant spots are often marked with stone circles or earth works and........
Dan.
Well, when you are selling something mystic, that's what you would say, isn't it?
Good, add some goop to the dowsing rods and you are on your way to penetrate the market; unless shame penetrates you first (which somehow I doubt).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.