History of Everything.

[Nesslig20]

I don't want to spam ToL. If this goes against the rules of ToL, I see no problem having it removed. I just wanted to see what y'all think about the video I have made. My first that I have put on youtube.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

There is a whole Shameless Self-Promotion section for this stuff.

 

[Nesslig20]

There is a whole Shameless Self-Promotion section for this stuff.

Thanx

 

[Rhed]

Looks good as long as you don't take it seriously or use for educational purposes. Great for sci-fi.

To create life: explosions, pretty fireworks, chaos, hot boiling lava, asteroids, etc.

 

[Nesslig20]

Looks good as long as you don't take it seriously or use for educational purposes. Great for sci-fi.

To create life: explosions, pretty fireworks, chaos, hot boiling lava, asteroids, etc.

Not sci fi, though. It was taken from documentaries. Some had inaccuracies that I have noted in the description.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

To create life: explosions, pretty fireworks, chaos, hot boiling lava, asteroids, etc.

What else could there be? Magick?

 

[Rhed]

To create life: explosions, pretty fireworks, chaos, hot boiling lava, asteroids, etc.

What else could there be? Magick?

Don't we all believe in magic though? You believe explosions and chaos create life. I believe God created it. Both scenarios are incredible.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

To create life: explosions, pretty fireworks, chaos, hot boiling lava, asteroids, etc.

What else could there be? Magick?

Don't we all believe in magic though? You believe explosions and chaos create life. I believe God created it. Both scenarios are incredible.

Nope. I do not believe in magick, nor explosions and chaos creating life. However, I am glad you are admitting that what you believe (i.e. a god creating life) is magick. We are making progress.

 

[Rhed]

Don't we all believe in magic though? You believe explosions and chaos create life. I believe God created it. Both scenarios are incredible.

Nope. I do not believe in magick, nor explosions and chaos creating life. However, I am glad you are admitting that what you believe (i.e. a god creating life) is magick. We are making progress.

I don't believe in magic, but if you want to put supernatural in that category that is fine. But I also consider supernatural as something that violates natural law; such as non-life to life.

The video posted showed lots of fire, meteor impacts, planet impacts, erupting volcanoes, etc then life. I know I am simplifying a little bit, but you do need to have these types of events for life to begin in your worldview because of the faint sun paradox.

 

[Visaki]

I don't believe in magic

Then what would you call the creation of things out of nothing using an incantation?

 

[Rumraket]

Don't we all believe in magic though? You believe explosions and chaos create life. I believe God created it. Both scenarios are incredible.

Nope. I do not believe in magick, nor explosions and chaos creating life. However, I am glad you are admitting that what you believe (i.e. a god creating life) is magick. We are making progress.

I don't believe in magic, but if you want to put supernatural in that category that is fine. But I also consider supernatural as something that violates natural law; such as non-life to life.

Why do you think the transition from non-life to life is a violation of natural law?

The video posted showed lots of fire, meteor impacts, planet impacts, erupting volcanoes, etc then life.

Yes because that's how we know solar systems and planets form. The supernova remnants coalesce under gravity, forming larger and denser chunks of material, meteors, asteroids, comets and eventually culminating in the formation of entire planets.

That's what you get when a force of attraction is at work in a vacuum with gases and debris in it, you know, as we directly observe in telescopes.

As for why the early planet is depicted as hot and very geologically active, what the hell else would it be if it formed by what is effectively mountains smashing into each other and being compressed by their mutual gravity? From the standpoint of our knowledge of physical laws and forces (gravity, friction, radioactive decay), the early planet would unavoidably be hot. These things aren't just invented because they're "needed for life to begin". They're predictions of basic physical processes. Go bang two rocks together really hard for a good 5 minutes and tell me they didn't warm up. And if they're made of a highly radioactive material, chances are they're intrinsically warm.

I know I am simplifying a little bit, but you do need to have these types of events for life to begin in your worldview because of the faint sun paradox.

None of this blather makes any sense whatsoever. The early history of the planet's formation, and the subsequent geology, has zero to do with anything thought to be "needed" for life to begin. The geological and astronomical sciences are not concerned with manufacturing conclusions conducive to the origin of life, they just report what the best evidence and the best understanding of the physical laws acting on the material we see exists in space, would produce.

And what the flying fuck does the Faint young Sun paradox have to do with the origin of life, or the early geology of the planet? There is evidence of liquid water very early in the planet's history. Whether that implied a global ocean liquid from surfance to bottom, or a kilometre-thick ice-layer on top of a shallower ocean, punctured by occasional volcanoes, is completely immaterial.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Rumraket covered everything I would have said, but I would like to touch on this a bit more.

I don't believe in magic, but if you want to put supernatural in that category that is fine.

In what way is the supernatural different from magick?

 

[Rhed]

And what the flying fuck does the Faint young Sun paradox have to do with the origin of life, or the early geology of the planet? There is evidence of liquid water very early in the planet's history. Whether that implied a global ocean liquid from surfance to bottom, or a kilometre-thick ice-layer on top of a shallower ocean, punctured by occasional volcanoes, is completely immaterial.

Large impacts and volcanoes produce greenhouse gases for millions of years, which would help solve the problem of the evolution of life under the "young sun". That's what the Faint Sun Paradox has to do with the origin of life.

 

[Rhed]

In what way is the supernatural different from magick?

Supernatural meaning intelligence or beyond what is natural. A car for example is built by a conscious design but it's not supernatural. No physical laws have been broken when cars are built. However, cars are not built by natural processes either.

Magic is trickery and amusement.

 

[Rhed]

But I also consider supernatural as something that violates natural law; such as non-life to life.

Why do you think the transition from non-life to life is a violation of natural law?

Have we seen non-life to life yet naturally? Even with intelligent minds attempting to create life in a lab with ideal controlled parameters for the last half century hasn't even come close. Actually, the more we learn about the complexity of life the more implausible abiogenesis becomes.

 

[Rumraket]

And what the flying fuck does the Faint young Sun paradox have to do with the origin of life, or the early geology of the planet? There is evidence of liquid water very early in the planet's history. Whether that implied a global ocean liquid from surfance to bottom, or a kilometre-thick ice-layer on top of a shallower ocean, punctured by occasional volcanoes, is completely immaterial.

Large impacts and volcanoes produce greenhouse gases for millions of years, which would help solve the problem of the evolution of life under the "young sun". That's what the Faint Sun Paradox has to do with the origin of life.

In other words: It has nothing to do with the origin of life at all.

The origin of life is not the evolution of life. The faint young sun paradox might have implications for the origin of photosynthesis, but it has no bearing on the origin of life.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

In what way is the supernatural different from magick?

Supernatural meaning intelligence or beyond what is natural. A car for example is built by a conscious design but it's not supernatural. No physical laws have been broken when cars are built. However, cars are not built by natural processes either.

Magic is trickery and amusement.

Okay, so what did you mean when you said:

Rhed[/url]"]Don't we all believe in magic though? You believe explosions and chaos create life. I believe God created it. Both scenarios are incredible.

[Emphasis added]

If magic means trickery and amusement, that means you thought we both believed the origins of life was due to trickery and amusement? You understand my confusion, right?

 

[Rhed]

Okay, so what did you mean when you said:

Rhed[/url]"]Don't we all believe in magic though? You believe explosions and chaos create life. I believe God created it. Both scenarios are incredible.

[Emphasis added]

If magic means trickery and amusement, that means you thought we both believed the origins of life was due to trickery and amusement? You understand my confusion, right?

I understand your confusion. I should have said "Don't we all believe in the supernatural though".

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I understand your confusion. I should have said "Don't we all believe in the supernatural though".

Fair enough. Thus magic is trickery and amusement (something that is real and happens), well supernatural is intelligence or beyond what is natural (which has never been observed). Thus, magic is truer than supernatural. I think I am starting to understand you.

 

[Rhed]

Fair enough. Thus magic is trickery and amusement (something that is real and happens), well supernatural is intelligence or beyond what is natural (which has never been observed). Thus, magic is truer than supernatural. I think I am starting to understand you.

Perhaps you are understanding me, but to make sure...non-life to life is also supernatural.