Moontanman

That is exactly what i am saying, my example of the beach is true, it actually happened, the waves not only created the heart shaped pieces of brick it sorted them out by shape. I have seen this with many other shapes of particles on the beach and in rivers but the surf is better than a river at shaping and sorting objects. The heart shape caught my eye that day but the beach had both created and sorted out lots of other shapes as well, the surf blindly creates the shapes this way, it orders and arranges them by shape, size and density, it does it ever day of every week of every year from dust sized particles to boulders, 24/7/365 the surf never stops the processes it drives. I could take you to any beach any place on the planet and show you examples of this process. You need to read Freeman Dyson's book Origins of Life, short sweet and to the point, your objections not only fail they make no sense at all...

Exactly what do you mean by deterministic processes? It seems to mean anything you want so far in this discussion. Your "challenge" has changed more than a cuttlefish on LSD! You are using the concept of information entropy totally out of context, you have not even established the reality of information entropy, in the context you are suggesting. order can arise out of disorder by the input of energy, this applies to both shells on the beach and complex chemicals. Your constant obfuscation of the issue does not change the facts.

Wouldn't depend on how it was introduced?

As usual needimprovement your religious agenda has written checks it cannot cash. There are two versions of creation in the bible neither of which corresponds to the way science says the evidence suggests the Earth developed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

At first blush it looks like a piece of bone, possibly carved, but I see no reason from the pics to assume it's not a natural bone fragment shaped by natural forces.

There used to be a site I could go to that would let me pug in the variables and give me the half life of an atmosphere on a given object. But that site is long gone, here is the best info i could find. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=r37125q1mx351t60&size=largest http://www.geoffreylandis.com/moonair.html

Agreed, it takes far too much energy to make it practical. How many tons of CO2 would it take to provide atmospheric pressure great enough to allow water to be a liquid? I'm betting far more CO2 than the earth has in it's atmosphere. And where would that oxygen be? Locked up in the rocks of the moon? Good luck with extracting enough of that oxygen fast enough to maintain a partial pressure large enough to allow plants to grow. If you could somehow provide the moon with an instant atmosphere the same as the earths, it would last a million years or so but providing that instant atmosphere would be difficult I would think... Do you have some way of estimating the energy needed to shoot a trillion tons of anything to the moon vs the energy output of the gulf stream vs the environmental damage disrupting the gulf stream would do?

Only compared to humans, radiation will indeed kill cockroaches too. None, a trillion tons of CO2 would not provide enough pressure on the moon to allow water to be a liquid.

Cypress, your constant denial of the ability of random processes to cause apparent order does not make the denial correct, we have given you several examples of how this works and you keep moving the goal posts. It is a synergy of the energy input and the differences between the particles. and yes I can see an energy input sorting things by color, mechanical energy like wave action would not do this nor would, i think, chemical energy, but EM radiation could do so. Color is an actual property of an object unlike a arbitrary number invented by a human. No energy input no sorting, no differences between the particles no sorting, it doesn't matter what the particles are and no one has to direct the rise in order... Some where on Saturn's moon Titan, right now, there are streams that are sorting out rock hard pieces of ice the same way rivers here on earth do it with rocks, no design or intelligent input required.

Much of the middle east was lushly forested even into historic times but the forests were cut down to feed the growing human need for wood and charcoal. How ever that has no bearing on where oil comes from. Most authorities think that oil was created by the lust plant growth of the Carboniferous age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous (I happen to not be in that particular camp but that is for another thread) Some scientists blame man for why much of the middle east is barren, we are creating deserts even now by cutting away all the vegetation so it is plausible we did then too but it's important to remember the historical forests of the middle east have nothing to do with the oil under the ground there. Continental drift also has to be blamed for the changing climate but not in historical times, the Sahara desert was a lush area with forests and rivers 15,000 years ago so it is easy to see how fast a desert can form but the Sahara is thought to be caused by simple climate shifts. During th last ice age rain belts were more southerly and the Sahara was in the middle of these rain belts. When the glaciers retreated the Sahara dried up...

The good thing about lumber is that we can use it with out returning the CO2 back into the atmosphere, houses might stand for centuries and trees can be cut down and bury them in wet ground, a great was to store trees. We use trees dug up out of the swap that have been here for several hundred years and the trees were in great and made some of the most beautiful lumber i have seen. I know that if we are using resources to shoot CO2 pellets woulf take immense amounts energy we just don't have. If you want to do something constructive plant a tree, if every one on the planet had a tree planted it would draw down the CO2 quickly... Plant the trees, it's the best and fastest way to sequester CO2, bury the trees in a swampy area so they will be perserved for hudreds of years.

Yes trees do, they are made up of carbon and a few million trees would take a few billions tons of CO2 out of the Earths atmosphere, no need to shoot the CO2 to the moon. plant more trees than we cut down and CO2 would go down. It might take a many years but with cutting back on CO2 output and planting trees would lower CO2 levels much faster than we could by shooting it to the moon.

Planting a few million trees would be a better idea i think and work faster...

Ok, how much gas pressure would a trillion tons of CO2 provide on the moon? Enough to keep water as a liquid? That is doubtful. Then what do the plants do for oxygen before it builds up to a level high enough for plants? The days nights on the moon are 14 "Earth" days long, during the day temps would soar to above 200 degrees F and the nights would be far below zero. Where would the plants get nitrogen? Plants need both oxygen and nitrogen neither of which are present on the moon in sufficient quantities. Moving that much CO2 to the moon present a very big problem, I'm not sure we could generate enough electricity to do that with a rail gun, then you have the problem of the earth 's atmosphere, shooting through it would be very difficult, any projectiles would be heated tremendously by the trip through the air.

I can see at least three if not more problems with this idea, first shooting anything from the Earth to the moon as you propose is very difficult if not impossible. Second, there is not enough CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere to provide enough gas pressure on the moon to allow plants to live. Third the moons gravity is not strong enough to hold CO2 long term. Oh yeah, plants need more than just CO2 to survive, they need oxygen at night just like animals do...

You are of course completely correct, this is an example of how inflammatory headlines are used to draw attention, the UFO "community" has touted this as a genuine UFO (with the insinuation of alien spacecraft) but they have failed to acknowledge that it was identified as a balloon or some other common object but still unidentified (no one knows who's it is) Technically a UFO is only declared after all attempts at identification have failed and no explanation can explain the UFO. This is not a UFO in either the technical sense or the possible alien space craft sense. Yes, this is a far more reasonable way to approach this "sighting" it is quite possible that some one wanted to check out the nuclear site or that some one was trying to drop a bomb of some kind from a balloon. Then again those lying military bastards are just trying to throw us off the trail of yet another alien intrusion

Anything energetic enough to stop the rotation of the Earth immediately would turn the entire surface into molten lava. An object 300 miles in diameter is enough to boil away the oceans and vaporise the salts of the ocean as well, heating the surface to a dull red heat but such an impact would not be enough to slow the earth down to any degree measurable by anything other than very precise instruments. Yes it is possible to stop the sun from rising but at the expense of everything on the Earth. The depth of heating would likely not be enough to wipe all microbial life as some very heat tolerant microbes would persist deep in the earths crust but all surface life would be destroyed.

You are assuming that numbers are real, they are not, they are simply human constructs, no amount of energy input will sort a human idea. There have to be real differences between the particles not some arbitrary human idea of numbers. the synergy between energy input and some physical difference between the particles is what creates the apparent order of sorting, you cannot shoe horn the human concept of numbers into the idea.

I concur, we need to know exactly what double standard is being talked about here. I honestly do not see one on the side of reality (I do stand ready to hear any argument that shows me to be in error) but it stands out like a sore thumb on the side of people who believe unsupported conjecture.

Here is airport that alleges that Israel shot down a UFO over a Nuclear power plant, should have known if anyone was going to get one it would be the Israelis... http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6125190/israel_shoots_down_ufo_over_nuclear.html Of course they claim it was a balloon, B)

Well then someone has mislead you, radioactive dating is accurate enough for us to know the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, that life has been here for at least 3.5 billion years, nothing iffy about it needsimprovement. If? IF? If god did create the world? If frogs had wings they wouldn't bust their little wet asses every time they jump. How the hell can if be part of a serious discussion when there no evidence of an If... If god did that then he is totally disingenuous. If the Earth is the shell of a giant turtle that would change everything... totally unfair way to discuss anything neddsimprovement, a prime example of theist's not honestly discussing the topic. No needimprovement, only in your mind is there only one standard, only in your mind...

I don't think Rigney is coming from the arrogance type of ignorance, i know where rigney is coming from in broad strokes, there are two possibilities, either you embrace the darkness or you rail against it, rigney rails against it. Jackson start a thread about terra forming, i would be glad to discuss it, i think it will not happen in the way most seem to think but I have some thoughts on the subject. Rigney, I'm not completly sure I understand your OP question, are you asking why the earth and everything resists gravity or how this resistance affects the way life evolves? ?

No cypress, it's the synergy of energy input and the properties of the particles, with no energy input the properties of the particles would not result in any sorting. If the particles were not different in some way energy input would not result in any sorting of the particles at all. Both must be there to result in order from disorder.

The heat is caused by resistance in the wire, some things conduct electricity better than others, if you force current through a resistant material you get heat.