Given that life and its beginning can now be given date as an actual scientific " event", can it be established exactly how much later the first death of a living thing occured and perhaps,what specifically killed it?
This is SOOO basic. I think it's great that we can get people interested in this, but at the same time if people don't explore further they create their own ideas about how something came to be. My mind is tearing itself apart trying to enjoy this video and hate this video at the same time.
I prefer my pseudoscience with the traditional preamble: We/I/the Company, got no freekin idea how any of this came to be, here are some theories.
To pretend you know something, that is merely conjecture, makes even the best science video, ignorant to insulting.
Like what's the center of the earth like? We have no idea, and have no way to confirm or deny any theory about it. It is not science if it is not honest.
In fact, if you are not tearing down theories, maybe science is not your field.
"Like what's the center of the earth like? We have no idea,"
Yeah we do. Using the current model of Atomic theory we can Predict the core is comprised of a more stable element then the elements more commonly found on its exterior, this would be Iron. The EM field Further supports this.
It is important to know what is not established, so that the logical conjecture does not over ride actual logic, and actual facts. In the case of the unseen interior of the planet, it is far less understood as we learn more about it.
How much hydrogen does it take to condense into that much iron? What is the exact process of converting hydrogen into iron?
We lack this data and the theory of its formation is unproven. Speculation about its composition may be probabilities, not proof. yes?
I understand the Transition from Hydrogen to Iron reasonably well, do you?
Fusion is well documented Process and its just as real as Fission is.
Just because one cannot see something does not mean we are unable to know what it is, No one has seen hadron and leptons, does that mean Atomic theory is purely Conjecture?
Given that life and its beginning can now be given date as an actual scientific " event", can it be established exactly how much later the first death of a living thing occured and perhaps,what specifically killed it?
brilliantwatson 2 years ago
This is SOOO basic. I think it's great that we can get people interested in this, but at the same time if people don't explore further they create their own ideas about how something came to be. My mind is tearing itself apart trying to enjoy this video and hate this video at the same time.
WillSKB88 2 years ago 2
Awesome footage. Nicely put together too.
sgfellow 2 years ago
What kind of science can't take criticism, or tolerate dissent?
950horsepower 3 years ago
Argument from ignorance, 950horsepower, argument from ignorance. Read first and then comment.
DariusTul 3 years ago
I prefer my pseudoscience with the traditional preamble: We/I/the Company, got no freekin idea how any of this came to be, here are some theories.
To pretend you know something, that is merely conjecture, makes even the best science video, ignorant to insulting.
Like what's the center of the earth like? We have no idea, and have no way to confirm or deny any theory about it. It is not science if it is not honest.
In fact, if you are not tearing down theories, maybe science is not your field.
950horsepower 3 years ago
"Like what's the center of the earth like? We have no idea,"
Yeah we do. Using the current model of Atomic theory we can Predict the core is comprised of a more stable element then the elements more commonly found on its exterior, this would be Iron. The EM field Further supports this.
Cnidarious 3 years ago
It is important to know what is not established, so that the logical conjecture does not over ride actual logic, and actual facts. In the case of the unseen interior of the planet, it is far less understood as we learn more about it.
How much hydrogen does it take to condense into that much iron? What is the exact process of converting hydrogen into iron?
We lack this data and the theory of its formation is unproven. Speculation about its composition may be probabilities, not proof. yes?
950horsepower 3 years ago
Comment removed
Cnidarious 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again you present a lack of understanding.
Do you know what HelioSynthesis is?
I understand the Transition from Hydrogen to Iron reasonably well, do you?
Fusion is well documented Process and its just as real as Fission is.
Just because one cannot see something does not mean we are unable to know what it is, No one has seen hadron and leptons, does that mean Atomic theory is purely Conjecture?
Absolutely not.
Cnidarious 3 years ago
Sorry i don`t mean to be Offensive.
Its just that, i have a rather unique perspective on science as appose to most laymen.
I lived among the AECL "Atomic Energy of Canada Limited" for some six years.
I am also studying for a bachelor's degree in zoology after i complete my current Degree.
Cnidarious 3 years ago