Moontanman

You make your own! Send me some, damn it's been decades since I had fresh cracklin's! Some good hot sauce and some strong beer... WOW!

This is funny, great take on the creationists movement gurus. The GCA for 2009 goes to....

Location of Earth's magnetic north pole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole Magnetic pole reversals are thought to occur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal No one is really sure what consequences there would be if the pole reversed but it has happened many times and so far the Earth abides...

Where did you get that illustration michel? I'd like to know the source, I have my doubts that it is accurate. (not the size ratio but the illustration does not show a truly large dinosaur, it looks like a bird mimic and I don't think they were that large) It is not true that animals were any bigger overall than now, we dwell on the larger animals of the age of dinosaurs but we forget about all the small dinosaurs. There were enormous numbers of smaller dinosaurs, down to chicken sized and then as now small dinosaurs out numbered large one several to one. I think it is more probable that plants were more productive then due to higher CO2 levels and this allowed the really large plant eaters which of course required larger predators. Mammals have been larger than we see now as well but it is also arguable that mammal body plans might not be as advantageous to large animals as the dinosaur body plan was. Dinosaurs had better bones and better respiratory systems, these two facts alone could account for the large size of some dinosaurs. The idea that the Earth's gravity was some how lower 200,000,000 years ago is unsupportable and if it was true I would expect to see much less air then as well but we see indication the air pressure was if anything higher then than now. As well as leaving out all the small dinosaurs your illustrations are showing dinosaurs from widely scattered areas and time frames as though they all lived together, the large ones were not as common as your illustrations seem to show and it leaves out all the small ones who dominated the scene with numbers.

Nope, no joke, your phone must not be picking it up. I wish there wasn't so much anti creationism stuff at the beginning (evidently there is a bit of a war being fought with words and videos on you-tube between rationalists and creationists) but the idea of abiogenesis and this guys take on it is what i am trying to get across.

Here is a video about abiogenesis I found, I'm not sure how accurate it is. It does seem to be plausible but I am not familiar with this idea, it is new or old or more wild speculations?

There is a odd creature i see in my dreams a lot, a chicken with wings, four legs, teeth and a long tail, I'm pretty sure i never actually seen one....

No, crocodiles and their relatives are not dinosaurs, not descended from dinosaurs either, birds however, are thought to be and descended from dinosaurs.

I think it's probable that gravity would have an effect on the size of land animals. (The cube square law would apply) I have seen it postulated that a being like an octopus would be able to walk around on it's tentacles on Mars (no bones required) but of course Mars has such a thin atmosphere that large aerobic animals are not likely. As for the ancient Earth it is not true that dinosaurs were slow creatures barely able to move their own weight, that is an old idea that came into being before it was realized that dinosaurs were not reptiles but archosaurs and had fast metabolisms and moved around pretty much the same as animals of similar size and fast metabolisms do today. Yes there were very large dinosaurs but they moved at a rate comparable to large mammals today almost certainly. An animal the size of a mountain would present some real mechanical problems, I'm not sure if any present day or past animals had a body structure or respiratory systems that could allow such a thing. Higher gravity might result in animals evolving with many legs instead of four but still arranged like the legs of mammals and dinosaurs as we see on the earth today. For example, a high gravity version of an animal might have six legs, an intelligent hexapod might look vaguely like a centaur. Such creatures would have to adapt to a denser atmosphere but I see no problem with that. I'm not sure about life as big as a mountain, low gravity would seem to indicate a thin atmosphere and that would indicate a very large animal might have problems getting enough oxygen. If indeed the Earth had low gravity 200,000,000 years ago i would expect to find a thin atmosphere not dense and to find smaller animals as well.

There are two types of hypothetical silicon life, silicon and silicone, silicon life would have to be at low temps, like the surface of Titan, silicone life would have to be at high temps like the surface of Venus. I haven't seen any fiction with low temp silicon life but several stories with the high temp silicone life. Boron life is sometimes speculated about but so far not in fiction that i am aware of. John Varley's Gaea trilogy is a relatively odd habitat for life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaea_Trilogy

Drinking lots of water is the key, they tell the kids that at university now days, lol

Hmmm, eating pork and drinking tequela might get me passed over anyway...

Next week? I have a pig picking to go to, can you delay the party a few days?

Who is gonna disagree with AronRa? You have to be kidding, if he says anything that isn't backed up by real evidence he would be shredded like a shrub in a wood chipper, he has taken a stance of telling the truth, just because he is an ass, which he freely admits to, doesn't make him wrong but the purveyors of creationism are nothing but snake oil sales men, calling them store front preachers would be a step up for them, they lie, cheat, misrepresent and out right fabricate all of their information, there is no truth in what they claim to support their position and they are getting rich off the scams by lying to people, but as I said it was the animation i wanted you to watch, to understand the creationist stuff you would have to watch his vids from the beginning, at 18 or so of them. But it is wrong to assume AronRa is no better than the liars he is chopping up just because he has long hair and doesn't pull his punches, If i know anything about you i would guess you don't like liars either. . I understand how you want things set in stone Rigney but Science is not set in stone, science is always changing as new information comes in, you will not find the absolute truth set in stone in science. If someone tells you science is set in stone then they are misinformed as to how science works. The concrete will never set... BTW, sawing the limb out from under your ass is the last thing I would do but I won't kiss it either...

Rigney, as I tried to explain i was not trying to introduce creationism or "evolutionism" into this discussion, it was the illustration of how the big bang theory has been misunderstood and give a animation that attempts to explain that everything in the universe was not compressed down to the size of a singularity or what ever version of that turns out to be true but the universe it's self, everything, all of the forces of nature time space "existence it's self" the universe did not expand into anything, and trying to see what lies beyond is like trying to measure south of the North pole, the idea makes no sense. You have been discussing the ideas of the BB and I thought you might appreciate an illustration i had found to be very helpful in understanding the true meaning of the concept. I happen to totally agree with Aron he deals a death blow to the creationism movements claim of being science in this and several other videos and what he is saying is not philosophy it is science but that will have to be in or already is in another thread....

I received my copy of the economist today, the cover had a picture of OBL with the caption "Now Kill His Dreams" I think this was very telling...

OK Rigney my friend, this is the best explanation of how the universe came into existence, ignore the idiot asking the questions over and over and the need to continuously debate the creationist but listen to the guy who is explaining how the universe came into being....

Actually dark energy is thought to be pushing the universe apart. But dark matter is not anti-matter, and anti-matter should behave exactly like matter in the influence of gravity. I've toyed with the idea of matter reforming at the center of the universe as hydrogen gas as matter reaches the edge of the universe and is annihilated or something but i see no way to show this to be true, no reason to think there could even be an edge, and no mechanism for it to happen so at this time BBT does seem to account for the universe we see. Actually I partially based my idea on the old video game asteroids where if anything went off the screen (the edge of the Universe in the game) it reappeared back at the opposite side, just a mind game but no reason to think it could really describe the real universe.

Light storm, did you not see the ideas of the main proponent of EET? He does not say the Earth is not gaining mass as you have indicated and so you have to deal with the acquired mass which should be now 8 times the mass of what the Earth was then. At first he claims that hydrogen fusion ( a small sun at the center of the Earth) is creating energy that is turned into mass, can any one say WHAT? Then he claims matter is being made inside the earth by imaginary pipes that carry twists of nothing to the center of the earth where there is a small sun, which again somehow turns the twists of nothing (prime matter?) into mass I mean really!

Everyone is in rare form this day, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

If you can get by the good natured humor in this u-tube video you will see someone totally refute the idea of the EET. I enjoyed it and learned some things I didn't know.

I remember that, I have old books that show that as the reason we have mountains. It is a Time Life book called "The World We Live In" it's first printing was in 1952, my copy was printed in 1963, it shows the way the Earth wrinkled up to form mountains, there is no mention of plate tectonics. I saved up money from odd jobs to buy those books, I loved them, lots of cool illustrations.

Oops, sorry, I should pay better attention insane_alien... My calculations were simple do to my own lack of math skills but still relatively accurate and based on the idea that Mars has approximately the same surface area as the land surface of the Earth which was were the OP vid started out and that the Earth is approximately twice as big as mars, a little more i think, I got my idea by using this site http://www.johnbray.org.uk/planetdesigner/

The OP's original video show the Earth approximately the size of Mars 300 million years ago, this would indicate a volume increase today of at least 8 mars volumes. an expansion of almost an inch a year should be easily detectable by our instruments I would think.