|
|
#23
08-08-2007, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Three and a half billion years fossils!
[ QUOTE ]
Am I being levelled, or are you serious? [/ QUOTE ] I'm counting from the Late heavy bombardment which ended about 3.9. But it doesn't really matter because even if you count from 4.5 (earth start), I don't think the time required is anywhere near enough. Of course, all this is highly speculative. Science doesn't know how life started or when. It just seems incredible that fairly complex life could pop up on its own in 600 million or 300,000 - based on all probability calculations I've seen there's no difference. 
|
|
#24
08-08-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three and a half billion years fossils!
[ QUOTE ]
Am I being levelled, or are you serious? [/ QUOTE ] I don't know, but I feel I am doing the world a service by explaining scientific notation for numbers: 1 * 10^0 = 1 (One) 1 * 10^3 = 1,000 (One thousand) 1 * 10^6 = 1,000,000 (One million) 1 * 10^9 = 1,000,000,000 (One billion) 1 * 10^12 = 1,000,000,000,000 (One trillion) You are still two factors out notready. Edit: http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/ Edit: http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm
|
|
#25
08-08-2007, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three and a half billion years fossils!
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, all this is highly speculative. Science doesn't know how life started or when. It just seems incredible that fairly complex life could pop up on its own in 600 million or 300,000 - based on all probability calculations I've seen there's no difference. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have a link to a probability calculation? The way that Dawkins suggests life could have started in a Selfish Gene has always been a highly satisfactory/plausible explanation for me.
|
|
#26
08-08-2007, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three and a half billion years fossils!
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a link to a probability calculation? [/ QUOTE ] Coppedge did one many years ago - I read it when it first came out and though it is outdated I think it's a good illustration of the difficulties. Hoyle and Crick both understood the problem - Hoyle solved it by rejecting the Big Bang and going with an eternal universe, Crick solved it with panspermia. Many other calculations have been done so you should be able to find them on the web. I cite them only as something to consider - they aren't hard science because we don't really know what the first life was like so it all ends up as speculation.
|
|
#27
08-08-2007, 12:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three and a half billion years fossils!
[ QUOTE ]
You are still two factors out notready. [/ QUOTE ] 3,900,000,000 -3,870,000,000 = 30,000,000 Dang ratzafratzin zeros. Truth is though 50 zeros off wouldn't make much difference.
|
|
#28
08-08-2007, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three and a half billion years fossils!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You are still two factors out notready. [/ QUOTE ] 3,900,000,000 -3,870,000,000 = 30,000,000 Dang ratzafratzin zeros. Truth is though 50 zeros off wouldn't make much difference. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. Once a person is convinced they hold the truth then no amount of leeway is relevant to a discussion in that area with them. luckyme
|
|
#29
08-09-2007, 04:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three and a half billion years fossils!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 3.9-3.5 billion is 400 million, not 400 thousand [/ QUOTE ] Oh yeah, thanks. Well, that's obviously enough time to turn rocks and methane into microbes. [/ QUOTE ] it may well be. well, rocks, methane, and about 1000 other naturally occurring compounds. see manfred eigen's book 'steps toward life'
|
|
#30
08-09-2007, 10:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three and a half billion years fossils!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You are still two factors out notready. [/ QUOTE ] 3,900,000,000 -3,870,000,000 = 30,000,000 Dang ratzafratzin zeros. Truth is though 50 zeros off wouldn't make much difference. [/ QUOTE ] Well, you proved so far that you are well qualified to judge the work of people who have spent decades studying the subject. Bravo. And by your last comment above, you proved that you never were interested in the time scale anyway. That was a diversion because you simply are ruling out the process as impossible no matter how much time. So, you never were honestly debating to begin with. No surprise.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
