The other major error is in his belief that the mass of the earth would have an effect of its orbit. When the orbiting body is significantly less massive than the body being orbited (about 1,000,000 to 1 here), then the only mass that has any significance in the two-body problem is the central mass being orbited.
quote:Anyway the point is that if the earth 4.5 billion years ago was so small compare to what it is righ now the earh should be farther away from the sun than what it is right now,what could be the consequences?NOT LIFE
is, like the rest of his claim, hokum. He has no understanding of orbital mechanics, in addition to no understanding of simple arithmetic.
Best Evidence Macro-Evolution: The only disputed ground between evolution and ID is macro-evolution. Micro is a fact and is agreed upon, origins, well, no one has any answers there, so no arguments. That leaves natural selection acting on random mutations to get us to novel body plans.
Now let's define macroevolution as used in science ... and then look at the evidence we have for that ... in the world around us, in the DNA record, and in the fossil record.
Of course global climate change is more correct than global warming, as most of the added energy goes into the atmosphere and is transfered into wind as well as heat -- more storms with higher energy winds, tornadoes and waterspouts in unusual places, etc. This can also be a reason for temps not matching the model -- the model is wrong on other energy transfers.
How to propose a great thread topic in the science forum??/
I do not seem able to get a proposed topic of discussion entered into the science forum. What am I doing wrong here?
////// suggested topiv"
Nothing in the Miller and Urey Experiment description is necessarily wrong, but doesn't really accurately reflect modern thinking on the origin of life on earth some would claim. What was essentially a special case of Spontaneous Generation, which started the unceasing multiplying of that initial protoplasm which became whole kingdoms of life forms, happened nearly 4 billion years. After all that time there is very little evidence to explain how abiogenesis was possible. Research since Miller/Urey has been very active and come quite a long ways, some "say", BUT we still know very little.
Modern speculation on the subject is very circumspect, including religious claims of a Spontaneous Generation, and the scientific suspicion of some concrete chemistry at work.
No recent responsible presentation would offer a simplistic scenario like Miller and Urey Experiment without making clear that it's just a very simplified and speculative summary of one possibility for abiogenesis (i.e. the de facto Spontaneous Generation which religion and science had long espoused over the centuries until this very day.
So, is this at present really support for the religious community which asserts that some unnatural forces created Life or is there evidence which science can use to show a more natural Cause an Effect relationship here?