Is There Visible Proof of God?


(Herculean Skeptic) #267

Arguably, you can only go so far back in time in order to find life. The reason being that the elements necessary for life were not created until after the first generation of stars died out. So, unless you are positing an eternal universe, that may not be a credible explanation. And, if you are, then you still have to deal with the steady state issues. As I said above, and you all know well, I’m not a scientist of any kind. So my explanations may be inadequate. In actuality, I only chimed in here because I could see that one comment was being misunderstood. :slight_smile:

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #268

Well the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The Solar System is 4.5 billion years old and the earliest life on earth is about 4 billion years ago. We know that there were whole stars and galaxies like the Milky Way by a 0.8 billion years after the Big Bang, so that leaves about 9 billion years for Pansermia on Earth and around the universe. Perhaps this was God’s plan. :sunglasses:

(Dale Cutler) #269

You may have seen this before:

(Dale Cutler) #270

And I guess you didn’t take me up on my dare:

(Herculean Skeptic) #271

It’s not when the stars formed, it is when they died. With the supernova, more elements were created. Successive generations of star death created and spread the elements needed for life around the universe. I’m not a cosmologist, either, so possibly one (@MStrauss) could reply? My understanding is that the first life could only have formed around the time that life arose on earth.

(John Harshman) #272

The first supernovae would have been within a few million years after the first stars formed, since the stars that go supernova are short-lived. Also, how do you know that all the heavy elements used by life on earth are necessary for life as we don’t know it?

(Dale Cutler) #273

Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity

(Herculean Skeptic) #274

I can’t answer. I don’t know enough about it. Just repeating what I had read. Hopefully some others that are more knowledgeable will jump in.

I’m sure that there could be a hydrogen-and-helium based life form, but it’s voice would be very high-pitched… Are you proposing silica-based life? I’m pretty certain that the carbon, needed for carbon-based life, was not in abundance until fairly recently. But, as I’ve said several times, I don’t know enough about the subject to answer authoritatively.

And, regarding the “life as we don’t know it”… would you imagine that (since we are talking about panspermia) that non-carbon based life would be the source of carbon-based life if panspermia were the answer to the first life on earth?

(Herculean Skeptic) #275

@John_Harshman Here’s an article that articulates some of the challenges to life evolving quickly, especially on its own. It is written by a cosmologist and is a very quick read with all sources cited.

(John Harshman) #276

You misunderstand. It’s only the elements heavier than iron that form in supernovas. Carbon is a fairly early fusion product. Now it’s true that everything except hydrogen and helium has been increasing in abundance over time. But your ideas on this are wrong.

No, that doesn’t seem likely. For the record, I think panspermia is a silly idea. I’m just dealing with some of your bad premises here.

(John Harshman) #277

It’s written by a creationist. And I’ve always idly wondered whether Hugh Ross is really a cosmologist.


I think you would still need a supernova to push all of that material out into a nebula where it could collapse again and form a solar system. The carbon in the core of a star is probably not able to form life.

(Herculean Skeptic) #279

I’m glad you are taking the time to argue with me in favor of an idea that you think is silly. Also that you get joy from focusing upon my bad premises, even after I repeatedly told you that I was not an expert and was paraphrasing what I read. Giving joy to the joyless is an honorable pursuit, so I’m happy to assist.

And now you’ve wondered it aloud, quite publicly and personally. Instead of taking issue with my points that I already told you may not be accurate, of which I was not an expert, and that you should instead ask people who are abundantly more knowledgable, why don’t you click the link and read what he, a cosmologist, says? Comment on your findings here and people will converse with you.

I’m just low hanging fruit for you. It makes you seem to be mean when you persist in this regard with me. Maybe that’s what you are going for. Who knows?

(John Harshman) #280

Happy to help.

That article doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with the subject. That was a comment.

I see that Ross was once an actual cosmologist, but it’s been decades since he did any scientific work.

(Herculean Skeptic) #281

Hahaha… very nice! :100:

(John Mercer) #282

One would think that if Ross was on the right track, he would have been productive.

(Dale Cutler) #283

He has been very productive, just not by any standard that you would allow as legitimate.

(John Harshman) #284

But not in science, eh?

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #285

Ross had done far more than most people to help YECs realize that the earth really is old. He gets an immense amount of credit for this.

(John Harshman) #286

Sure, but it isn’t science, is it?