Ashes to ashes
They've given rise to humans—and if we piss off Mother Earth for much longer, they may decide to put an end to us.
Clouds of sulfur dioxide billowing from erupting volcanoes may have kickstarted a chemical process that led to life on Earth more than four billion years ago, according to new research. Earth contained little oxygen and was mainly filled with carbon dioxide, water vapor, and nitrogen billions of years ago. The planet was also …
Pedantically; Mother relates to being a parent which in and of itself relates to one or more children. Therefore, the plural would not be incorrect.
More importantly , why suggest Mother Nature rather than just Pure Chance and/or simply Chemistry/Physics and Biology, commonly known as Science... or the laws of Science.
Not to be confused with Scientology which has its own doctrine concerning the creative process.... ;-)
This post has been deleted by its author
Spelling should not be decided by IUPAC bureaucrats. How we (in Britain) arrived at 'sulphur' is a matter of history and culture - they do not have the right to tell us how the word is to be spelled.
To people who say 'What does it matter?', indeed - but then if it doesn't matter, why should the IUPAC decide?
Whether people spell it with an 'f' or 'ph', the meaning is unambiguous: it's quite clearly the element, S, with 16 protons in its nucleus - so why insist upon one spelling over another?
Also, with 'aluminum/aluminium', they at least said 'aluminum' was an accepted variant - why was this courtesy not also extended to 'sulphur'?
It may seem trivial, but it's depressing - a bunch of unelected, faceless managers trying to impose their pettiness onto a whole culture, just to make their mark and feel important. They are pathetic.
So we've burnt up half of our original U-238....producing heat and elemental daughter atoms.
Jurassic pterodactyl wingspans indicate four times air density 60 million years ago.
Likely original atmosphere was magnitudes greater, but life is likely conscious manifestation.
This post has been deleted by its author
Faux Science Slayer normally has a link to his/her/its crackpot "science" site. I looked into some of it once, a spiel about supposedly recent and strange blast craters in Mexico.
A quick squiz via Google Earth revealed the truth soon enough. The "crater" in question is a sizable natural erosion basin with a defined outlet, ringed by a thin flat caprock layer. It happens to have the vague appearance of a blast crater when viewed from above, especially when the photo is grayscaled and noised up a bit as it is on that site.
So yes, we have a genuine crank on our hands.
Jurassic pterodactyl wingspans indicate four times air density 60 million years ago.
1) Jurassic pterodactyl wingspans work fine in current air density, too
2) Fossil rain drop craters indicate Earth's air density has been constant for billions of years
And of course the Imperial measures are so much more simpler. I mean, everyone can remember the sequence:
12 inches in a foot
3 feet make a yard
22 yards make a chain
10 chains make a furlong
8 furlongs make a mile
And don't forget thous, links, rods and leagues ...
All much simpler than this stupid EU metrification where everything is based on 10. I mean, who the hell can remember that ...
This post has been deleted by its author
Can you please clarify if you mean a US, Canadian or British inch? The newfangled 'standard' inches which replaced them are practically metric, so must be avoided (along with the French, scottish, German, swedish, Danish etc inches which are obviously deeply suspect).
OTOH, try doing construction work using the metric system. Need a standard, 8-foot, 2 by 4 (two inches by for inches) stud? What would you be asking for in metric units? Metric is great when solving problems on paper. It's tragic when you try to use it on measurements greater than a decimeter and less than a meter. Further, you can divide twelve (as in inches to the foot), by two, three, four, and six, making it easy for many calculations.
OTOH, try doing construction work using the metric system.
Easy peasy, if you think about it. Just use the metric foot of 300 mm and it can be divided 16 ways rather than the piddling 4 ways that twelve can be divided. Also 2x4 is only 2x4 when rough cut. After planing to a smooth surface it's smaller (which caught me out as a teenager) so 50x100 works.
"The metric system was first described in 1668 and officially adopted by France in 1799.".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_measurement
"The metric system was designed to have a set of properties that make it easy to use and widely applicable, including units based on the natural world, decimal ratios, prefixes for multiples and sub-multiples, and a structure of base and derived units. It also has a property called coherence, which means its units are related 1:1, so that conversion factors are unnecessary. In science, it has a property called rationalisation which eliminates certain constants of proportionality in equations of physics."
"On 20 May 1875 an international treaty known as the Convention du Mètre (Metre Convention) was signed by 17 states...".
The British problem was, of course, that is was French and strongly supported by Napoleon.
The wonderful and decisive, on going since 1875, story of Britain's move towards the metric system seems to have disappeared from the Wikipedia, sad.
FYI, the UK started going metric in 1670.-- Long before the United Kingdom was joined.
International agrrement was defered in 1790 because London wanted London to be the base lattitude for measurement of length: the French agreed in 1871
And I get downvoted for suggesting that the UK uses metric measures by consensus and agreement? Evidentally any mention of metrification triggers rabid responses.
Should the odds of finding other life in the universe be adjusted to reflect the increasingly bizarre set of circumstances that must occur for it to be created? Now, in addition to having the right atoms and molecules coming together, they must do so with the right catalysts and energies, and be absent any chemicals that could undermine the processes. Sounds like a once in a googol, or maybe a googolplex, event.
Hang on a minute. I was told years ago that all you needed was some soup, lightening and hey presto you had life. For years atheists have been telling us its must be so. Of course it turned out to be wishful thinking.
So atheists I challenge you - go on then make a cell. Just a really simple one. Oh wait - you can't can you. Now I know that its a 'god of the gaps argument but seriously after decades of research its a bloody big gaping hole of a gap which has got wider and wider as we find out how complex a simple cell is !
No I don't believe in life evolving on earth from naturalistic means - and I've seen nothing here to suggest otherwise. It should be easy because it has to happen under inhospitable conditions with an unguided process - and yet with all the supercomputing power we have, all the knowledge we've gained, all the intelligent design we possess - we can't make a cell from inorganic chemicals in ideal controlled, designed lab conditions let alone those of early earth. We can't even get all the building blocks ! DNA is a coded language with error correction. Most of the junk DNA has turned out not to be junk at all. The time available for the Cambrian explosion is incredibly small and well below the time required for a model based on natural selection. Far from science proving a naturalistic origin for life, its actually getting further away.
If that doesn't worry you atheists reading this then you don't understand the science !!!
Right I'm off to stare at a rock for a few billion years to see if I'm right.