Why are we here?

@Thomas,

Quote:

To repeat: Proof cannot operate on unintelligible statements.

... and exactly which word in the question 'Why are we here?' you are so unable to understand?
- why: on what ground?; for wheat reason?; with what purpose?
- are: form of to be - to have state or quality
- we: the mankind; the human species
- here: on the Earth, in the physical world, as ILF in the universe
If you can understand all the words in a given sentence you cannot claim that it is incomprihensible, inaccessible, and/or unreadable.
You may dispute the semantics ... and hence the validity or invalidity of the statement, but not the legibility.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Thick as a brick. "Why are we here" is not a proof, so he is obviously not referring to that. Either you're being willfully obtuse, or your command of English is even poorer than i had previously thought.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Im having a really great time reading this guys rmblings . I see that he is convinced that "molecule by molecule" kinetics is necessary to the understanding of evolutionary flow. (Or is it a mere stone in the road to disengage Thomas' logic?)
He seems to eschew all that marvelous work on the ribonucleic acids in favor of a galactic Traffic Cop.

The fact that evidence heavily supports mindless opportunistic modification and all this modification is marvelously left as a "bar code" on an organisms genetic material. Behold the fssil record that so nicely patterns the development of life from key periods of time when (and after) mass extinctions would "sort out" the remaining and the new organisms from the dead and gone.
As spendi said, its all a matter of when and how. Why is a candidate for a philosophy class .
As its said, great leaps require great proofs and so far, I don't see any evidence that supports Herald's POV.
It always goes back to my Baltimore Catechism where all of us in grade 2 would recite the obvious claptrap response to why we are here.

1 Reply

Why did god make me?

To know him and love him in heaven.

Why did god make those vicious bitch nuns?

Whack!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

"molecule by molecule" kinetics is necessary to the understanding of evolutionary flow.

1. It is not 'to the understanding of the evolution' but to the understanding of the reverse energy flow going on for 230 MN years to decompose the CO2 into carbon (or any other carbon based substances).
You don't even have the vaguest idea of how much is that energy (that is needed to decompose 6800 x 2.13 BN of CO2).
This is something like swimming upwards the Niagara falls.
2. Evolution here is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it is owing to or despite of (the fake understanding) of evolution. This is an evidence with scientifically confirmed data ... and it cannot be explained by adaptation, mutation, genetic drift ... and book reading.
Forget about the fossil records and the mass extinctions and the other general talks - explain how was the CO2 processed against the laws of physics ... and biology.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald to Set:

Quote:

what is your conception for the purpose of life

Set's purpose is to put down other folks so he'll temporary feel good about himself.

We as a species exist because there's enough information in this world for an info-consuming species such as ours to prosper.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Set's purpose is to put down other folks so he'll temporary feel good about himself.

This is obvious.
This is the worst case scenario of a scientist (if she is scientist at all). In my view this looks like an absolute troll ... presenting herself as scientist.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

1. It is not 'to the understanding of the evolution' but to the understanding of the reverse energy flow going on for 230 MN years to decompose the CO2 into carbon (or any other carbon based substances).

what are you talking about. There were periods in the earths history when CO2 was much higher than now . Its cyclic (read some more about Daansgard Oeshger cycles in climatology). The question is whether anthropogenic CO2 and methane are even noticeable. The Ratios of C12/C13 and C12/C14 in atmospheric gases would let us deduce that human kinds portion is about 1% or less.

Quote:

Evolution here is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it is owing to or despite of (the fake understanding) of evolution. This is an evidence with scientifically confirmed data ... and it cannot be explained by adaptation, mutation, genetic drift ... and book reading.
Forget about the fossil records and the mass extinctions and the other general talks - explain how was the CO2 processed against the laws of physics ... and biology.

Im sorry but this post fragment is gobbledeegook. Its garbage , and is presented with poor grammar.

If you wish to discuss climatology in more detail , explain how CO2 is a "following" indicator if you re certain that anthropogenic CO2 is a cause of global warming.

Cycles of earths climatology are clearly displayed in Greenlnd Ice Cores where O16/O18 ratios clearly indicate warming seas BEFORE CO@ even shows up as being in a positively skewed occurrence.

Im a geoscientist whose worked in the field for alost 40 yers and many of my colleagues (and I) are non-politically involved in the climate debate. Im not convinced that humans are THE cause , nd in fact, Im not convinced that we can even measure our own components of "greenhouse gases" (That's a phrase that was coined by a newspapaer reporter, not a scientist)

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

1. It is not 'to the understanding of the evolution' but to the understanding of the reverse energy flow going on for 230 MN years to decompose the CO2 into carbon (or any other carbon based substances).

what are you talking about. There were periods in the earths history when CO2 was much higher than now . Its cyclic (read some more about Daansgard Oeshger cycles in climatology). The question is whether anthropogenic CO2 and methane are even noticeable. The Ratios of C12/C13 and C12/C14 in atmospheric gases would let us deduce that human kinds portion is about 1% or less.

Quote:

Evolution here is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it is owing to or despite of (the fake understanding) of evolution. This is an evidence with scientifically confirmed data ... and it cannot be explained by adaptation, mutation, genetic drift ... and book reading.
Forget about the fossil records and the mass extinctions and the other general talks - explain how was the CO2 processed against the laws of physics ... and biology.

Im sorry but this post fragment is total gobbledeegook. Its garbage , and is presented with very poor grammar. I have a feeling that you are fishing for phrases and sometimes, by chance, hit one correctly.

If you wish to discuss climatology in more detail , explain how CO2 is a "following" indicator if you re certain that anthropogenic CO2 is a cause of global warming.

Cycles of earths climatology are clearly displayed in Greenlnd Ice Cores where O16/O18 ratios clearly indicate warming seas BEFORE CO@ even shows up as being in a positively skewed occurrence.

Im a geoscientist whose worked in the applied science field for almost 35 years and many of my colleagues (and I) are non-politically involved in the climate debate. Im not convinced that humans are THE cause , and in fact, Im not convinced that we can even measure our own components of "greenhouse gases" (That's a phrase that was coined by a newspapaer reporter, not a scientist)

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

So and so you have read and understood a book, why don't you tell us how did the following process happen:
The Earth - 530 mya - CO2 in the air - 7000 ppm
The Earth - 300 mya - CO2 in the air - 200 ppm

No big secret: Photosynthetic bacteria.

Herald wrote:

How much energy is needed to do this BTW?

That would depend on unknown details of these ancient bacteria's metabolism. But whatever these details, 230 million years of sunlight is a lot of energy. There's no reason why the sun wouldn't be able to supply it.

Herald wrote:

can you explain to us how exactly the big bang manipulated the evolution in such a way that it was able to achive these results (having in mind also that such process has not been observed so far anywhere else in the whole universe).

Your question assumes that the big bang manipulated evolution in order to achieve certain results. I see no reason to believe this assumption. Consequently, I must abstain from explaining how this fictitious manipulation happened in the real world.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Quote:
To repeat: Proof cannot operate on unintelligible statements.

... and exactly which word in the question 'Why are we here?' you are so unable to understand?

That wasn't the unintelligible question. The unintelligible question was "what is the purpose of life?" It is unintelligible because purpose is not necessarily an attribute of life in the first place, just as smell is not necessarily an attribute of triangles. So you are playing bait and switch here.

As to the question "why are we here"? I answered that. We are here as an accident of cosmological, geological, and biological history. There need not have been any reason or purpose at the outset, nor any consciousness working out the reason or pursuing the purpose. Raw physics, churning away for billions of years, is all it takes to explain why we're here.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Herald wrote:
So and so you have read and understood a book, why don't you tell us how did the following process happen:
The Earth - 530 mya - CO2 in the air - 7000 ppm
The Earth - 300 mya - CO2 in the air - 200 ppm

No big secret: Photosynthetic bacteria.

Strike "bacteria". 530 million years ago, photosynthesis of any kind would have been available, be it from archaea, bacteria, or plants.

1 Reply

@Herald,

After reading through this thread, I believe you are not here.
I am here.
You are there.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

What a sad case you are. My response to Herald is based on two factors--one is the incoherence of what Herald presents, and the other is the fundamental dishonesty of what Herald presents. It is a matter of indifference to me what you think of me, but if you bad mouth me publicly, you can expect the same in return. You made this comment because you got your ass kicked after you made that stupid remark about h.s.s. exterminating h.n., and it still rankles. Grow up, and get over it.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I feel fine about myself whether or not i play with people like you who present idiotic theses which entail unsubstantiated assumptions, and which they are subsequently unable to support.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. If you were to claim that you were a scientist, i would not believe it. You're the one who makes ridiculous and hilarious claims about science in a failed attempt to prop up your theistic thesis. I attack your thesis on the basis of faulty logic and unsubstantiated a priori assumptions, as well as your use of definitions which suit your thesis, but which can easily be overturned on the basis of semantics.

I have also never claimed to be a "she."

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Herald wrote:
How much energy is needed to do this BTW?

That would depend on unknown details of these ancient bacteria's metabolism. But whatever these details, 230 million years of sunlight is a lot of energy. There's no reason why the sun wouldn't be able to supply it.

To run the numbers:

As of today, photosynthetic organisms absorb 3 * 10^21 Joule of sunlight per year, which they use to capture 2* 10^11 tons of CO2 per year.
Herald's time span is 2.3 * 10^8 years, allowing for 4.6 * 10^19 tons of CO2.
How does this mass compare with the observed capturing of CO2 that Herald talks about (*)? According to NASA, the entire weight of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.1 * 10^18 kg, or 5.1 * 10^15 tons. According to Herald, the CO2 concentration in it decreased by 6,800 parts per million (ppm) or 6.8 parts per thousand. That amounts to about 3.5 * 10^13 tons of CO2.

Putting it all together, then, the Earth received roughly a million times more solar energy than needed for Herald's (*) reduction in CO2. There is no energy mystery here. We don't need divine intervention to explain anything.
___________________
(*) I haven't checked Herald's numbers; I'm just playing along with them right now.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

No big secret: Photosynthetic bacteria.

Do you have any sample of this - any fossil traces or whatsoever.
O.K. photosynthetic bacteria - in equilibrium with what else? You should reconstruct the whole biosphere. Otherwise photosynthetic bacteria living on the lava from the volcanoes sounds 'very convincing'.

Quote:

There's no reason why the sun wouldn't be able to supply it.

Nobody disputes the energy of the sun. It is obvious that the sun was the source. What is disputable is the mechanism? How does it happen ... and can you reconstruct it today?

Quote:

Your question assumes that the big bang manipulated evolution in order to achieve certain results.

It is not my assumpotion. The evolutionists claim that everything in nature is a result of the well done job of the big bang, and nothing else. This is only part of the story.

Quote:

I see no reason to believe this assumption.

O.K. What is the probability for this event to be organized by random processes ... and to go on for 230 MN years. Can you drive your car rudderless ... on the road ... for 230 MN kilometers?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

The evolutionists claim that everything in nature is a result of the well done job of the big bang, and nothing else.

In this statement, you tip your hand. This is a well-known, and tediously repeated claim of the religious lunatic fringe. Evolution is not concerned with cosmic origins. Evolutionary biologists do not specify a cosmogony. Even the origin of life on this planet is not an essential piece of the evolutionary puzzle--evolution only takes place after life is present. How life arose is not a question in evolutionary biology, for all that it is a fascinating question. The closest that scientists come to origins is in the attempt to determine when self-replicating organic chemicals began to operate discretely--and even that is not necessary to an understanding of the evolutionary process.

This obsession of yours with the big bang is one of the biggest stumbling blocks you have in the presentation of your thesis, and i suspect that in another context, you would assert that all atheists are "evolutionist" (and vice versa). You show yourself not only to be a theist, but to be a fundamentalist theist. You also show yourself to be woefully ignorant of what evolutionary biology actually says, and you display once again your penchant for forming a thesis and then tailoring your claims and definitions to support it.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

photosynthesis of any kind would have been available, be it from archaea, bacteria, or plants.

... and how were these plants pollinated ... without insects. If there were insects, what would have stopped them from eating up everything ... to ground zero, etc.

6 Replies

@Herald,

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Woo-hoo . . .

Tell us more about your profound knowledge of science.

1 Reply

Why are we here?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know