Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I said Science confirms the Bible.
Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?
I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"
Read post # 580.
I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.
I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.
Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".
Seems than you have a big problem with Science confirming God's word. So therefore the two are not compatible, when they are.
Seems that your biased opinion is - the bible is a story only, yet Science has confirmed his written word and you refuse to see it let alone even accept the possibility.
God is the greatest Scientist of all.
Really? Has science confirmed that Jesus walked on water, and fed 4,000 people with a handful of fish and bread? Has it confirmed that Moses parted the red Sea, or that the Israelites blew their horns and brought the walls of Jericho down? You might as well try to argue that Paul Bunyan actually did drag his axe across the land and created the Grand Canyon for all the silliness you believe is true.
Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.
Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.
I said Science confirms the Bible.
Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?
I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"
Read post # 580.
I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.
Really? Then how do you explain the 3.8 billion years between the first appearance of microbes on Earth and the evolution of man?
Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".
Seems than you have a big problem with Science confirming God's word. So therefore the two are not compatible, when they are.
Seems that your biased opinion is - the bible is a story only, yet Science has confirmed his written word and you refuse to see it let alone even accept the possibility.
God is the greatest Scientist of all.
Really? Has science confirmed that Jesus walked on water, and fed 4,000 people with a handful of fish and bread? Has it confirmed that Moses parted the red Sea, or that the Israelites blew their horns and brought the walls of Jericho down? You might as well try to argue that Paul Bunyan actually did drag his axe across the land and created the Grand Canyon for all the silliness you believe is true.
Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.
Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.
Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.
I said Science confirms the Bible.
Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?
I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"
Read post # 580.
I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.
Fair enough, but that isn't science confirming the bible. Personally I don't see what difference it makes, I don't see how trying to prove the bible with science matters. Proving science does not disprove the bible, proving the facts of the bible would not prove the bible. God isn't limited by how we tell him he created the universe. If his choice was the big bang and evolution, who are we to say no, he can't do it that way? But you said science confirmed it, and I'm not seeing evidence of that having happened.
I personally grew up Christian. I believe the religion, I don't find the dogma relevant to that belief. I don't think historical facts being true or false has to do with what God does in my life today. I know God is real because I know the difference he makes in my life. Neither finding the garden of eden nor proving evolution would affect that at all.
Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?
I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"
Read post # 580.
I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.
Really? Then how do you explain the 3.8 billion years between the first appearance of microbes on Earth and the evolution of man?
You realize you didn't come up with a scenario that contradicts what she said, no?
Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?
I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"
Read post # 580.
I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.
Fair enough, but that isn't science confirming the bible. Personally I don't see what difference it makes, I don't see how trying to prove the bible with science matters. Proving science does not disprove the bible, proving the facts of the bible would not prove the bible. God isn't limited by how we tell him he created the universe. If his choice was the big bang and evolution, who are we to say no, he can't do it that way? But you said science confirmed it, and I'm not seeing evidence of that having happened.
I personally grew up Christian. I believe the religion, I don't find the dogma relevant to that belief. I don't think historical facts being true or false has to do with what God does in my life today. I know God is real because I know the difference he makes in my life. Neither finding the garden of eden nor proving evolution would affect that at all.
It would not affect mine either,but it might affect some non believers, like doubting Thomas who needed to see Jesus hands.
I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"
Read post # 580.
I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.
Really? Then how do you explain the 3.8 billion years between the first appearance of microbes on Earth and the evolution of man?
You realize you didn't come up with a scenario that contradicts what she said, no?
If it took her god 6,000 years to do his creation, it doesn't explain why it took 3.8 billion years before man appeared on the scene after the microbes first appeared. According to her mythos, man is a part of her god's creation, is he not? He's going to need a lot more time that she gives him.
Seems than you have a big problem with Science confirming God's word. So therefore the two are not compatible, when they are.
Seems that your biased opinion is - the bible is a story only, yet Science has confirmed his written word and you refuse to see it let alone even accept the possibility.
God is the greatest Scientist of all.
Really? Has science confirmed that Jesus walked on water, and fed 4,000 people with a handful of fish and bread? Has it confirmed that Moses parted the red Sea, or that the Israelites blew their horns and brought the walls of Jericho down? You might as well try to argue that Paul Bunyan actually did drag his axe across the land and created the Grand Canyon for all the silliness you believe is true.
Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.
Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.
Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.
Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.
Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"
Read post # 580.
I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.
Really? Then how do you explain the 3.8 billion years between the first appearance of microbes on Earth and the evolution of man?
You realize you didn't come up with a scenario that contradicts what she said, no?
If it took her god 6,000 years to do his creation, it doesn't explain why it took 3.8 billion years before man appeared on the scene after the microbes first appeared. According to her mythos, man is a part of her god's creation, is he not? He's going to need a lot more time that she gives him.
You need to read her post again because you obviously didn't read her last one. I helped you find the part that directly addresses your question by putting it in green for you.
Really? Has science confirmed that Jesus walked on water, and fed 4,000 people with a handful of fish and bread? Has it confirmed that Moses parted the red Sea, or that the Israelites blew their horns and brought the walls of Jericho down? You might as well try to argue that Paul Bunyan actually did drag his axe across the land and created the Grand Canyon for all the silliness you believe is true.
Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.
Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.
Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.
Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.
It was also a natural phenomenon that the sound of trumpets can cause them to fall also. But you will just dismiss that fact away.
Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.
Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.
Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.
Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.
It was also a natural phenomenon that the sound of trumpets can cause them to fall also. But you will just dismiss that fact away.
Yes that is what the mythology claims? And yet we have irrefutable scientific evidence from geology and archaeology that Jericho was destroyed at least nine times by earthquakes (and could well be destroyed again by earthquakes), while we have NO evidence that an iron age musical instruments could have brought those walls down. You people need to grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.
Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.
Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.
Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.
It was also a natural phenomenon that the sound of trumpets can cause them to fall also. But you will just dismiss that fact away.
Yes that is what the mythology claims? And yet we have irrefutable scientific evidence from geology and archaeology that Jericho was destroyed at least nine times by earthquakes (and could well be destroyed again by earthquakes), while we have NO evidence that an iron age musical instruments could have brought those walls down. You people need to grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.
No that is what Scientific experiments in sounds have claimed.
Like I said you would, you dismissed this science.
LOL. Sure thing. Next up, giants and talking donkeys, it's all very scientific.Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.
Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.
It was also a natural phenomenon that the sound of trumpets can cause them to fall also. But you will just dismiss that fact away.
Yes that is what the mythology claims? And yet we have irrefutable scientific evidence from geology and archaeology that Jericho was destroyed at least nine times by earthquakes (and could well be destroyed again by earthquakes), while we have NO evidence that an iron age musical instruments could have brought those walls down. You people need to grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.
No that is what Scientific experiments in sounds have claimed.
Like I said you would, you dismissed this science.
Yes the walls were destroyed many times by earthquakes but only one event happened where the walls fell inward and science proves that the trumpet sounds could have done it.
And if anyone cites the Miller-Urey origin-of-life experiments, here's a dose of reality about how irrelevant those experiments are:
Reasons To Believe Origin-of-Life Experiment Going from Bad to Worse
Rana has a PhD in biochemistry and has published a book titled The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry (2008) advocating creationism and denying evolution. He pretends in his book he is a secular intelligent design advocate however Rana is a devout Christian and Biblical creationist who is one of the founders of the Reasons To Believe organisation, a Christian creationist think-tank that promotes Christian progressive creationism.[1][2]
In fact, Rana's work is characterized by topics and arguments usually associated with young earth creationism. For instance, Rana has put some effort into trying to explain why harmful bacteria would exist if they were created by a good and benevolent god. He argues that they were created to be perfect, but have since evolved their harmful natures, which is strikingly similar, for instance, to articles written by Georgia Purdom for Answers Research Journal. Indeed, Rana and Reasons To Believe are no fans of Intelligent Design, recognizing at least that their creationism is firmly religiously motivated.[3] Instead, Rana and Ross attempted to develop their own "scientifically testable" origins of life hypothesis in their 2004 book "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off", including the hypothesis "First life was qualitatively different from life that came into existence on creation days three, five, and six." The book was heavily criticized for its twisting of facts, errors of scholarship, logical fallacies, and quote-mining.[4]
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A classic experiment proving amino acids are created when inorganic molecules are exposed to electricity isn't the whole story, it turns out. The 1953 Miller-Urey Synthesis had two sibling studies, neither of which was published. Vials containing the products from those experiments were recently recovered and reanalyzed using modern technology (Liquid Chromatography, a highly sensitive analytical technology that was not available when the original experiments were conducted). The results are reported in this week's Science.
One of the unpublished experiments by American chemist Stanley Miller (under his University of Chicago mentor, Nobelist Harold Urey) actually produced a wider variety of organic molecules than the experiment that made Miller famous. The difference between the two experiments is small -- the unpublished experiment used a tapering glass "aspirator" that simply increased air flow through a hollow, air-tight glass device. Increased air flow creates a more dynamic reaction vessel, or "vapor-rich volcanic" conditions, according to the present report's authors.
"The apparatus Stanley Miller paid the least attention to gave the most exciting results," said Adam Johnson, lead author of the Science report. "We suspect part of the reason for this was that he did not have the analytical tools we have today, so he would have missed a lot."
Johnson is a doctoral student in IU Bloomington's Biochemistry Program. His advisor is biogeochemist Lisa Pratt, professor of geological sciences and the director of NASA's Indiana-Princeton-Tennessee Astrobiology Institute.
In his May 15, 1953, article in Science, "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions," Miller identified just five amino acids: aspartic acid, glycine, alpha-amino-butyric acid, and two versions of alanine. Aspartic acid, glycine and alanine are common constituents of natural proteins. Miller relied on a blotting technique to identify the organic molecules he'd created -- primitive laboratory conditions by today's standards. In a 1955 Journal of the American Chemical Society paper, Miller identified other compounds, such as carboxylic and hydroxy acids. But he would not have been able to identify anything present at very low levels.
Johnson, Scripps Institution of Oceanography marine chemist Jeffrey Bada (the present Science paper's principal investigator), National Autonomous University of Mexico biologist Antonio Lazcano, Carnegie Institution of Washington chemist James Cleaves, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center astrobiologists Jason Dworkin and Daniel Glavin examined vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. Vials associated with the original, published experiment contained far more organic molecules than Stanley Miller realized -- 14 amino acids and five amines. The 11 vials scientists recovered from the unpublished aspirator experiment, however, produced 22 amino acids and the same five amines at yields comparable to the original experiment.
"We believed there was more to be learned from Miller's original experiment," Bada said. "We found that in comparison to his design everyone is familiar with from textbooks, the volcanic apparatus produces a wider variety of compounds."
Johnson added, "Many of these other amino acids have hydroxyl groups attached to them, meaning they'd be more reactive and more likely to create totally new molecules, given enough time."
The results of the revisited experiment delight but also perplex.
What is driving the second experiment's molecular diversity? And why didn't Miller publish the results of the second experiment?
A possible answer to the first question may be the increased flow rate itself, Johnson explained. "Removing newly formed molecules from the spark by increasing flow rate seems crucial," he said. "It's possible the jet of steam pushes newly synthesized molecules out of the spark discharge before additional reactions turn them into something less interesting. Another thought is that simply having more water present in the reaction allows a wider variety of reactions to occur."
An answer to the second question is relegated to speculation -- Miller, still a hero to many scientists, succumbed to a weak heart in 2007. Johnson says he and Bada suspect Miller wasn't impressed with the experiment two's results, instead opting to report the results of a simpler experiment to the editors at Science.
Miller's third, also unpublished, experiment used an apparatus that had an aspirator but used a "silent" discharge. This third device appears to have produced a lower diversity of organic molecules.
Research on early planetary geochemistry and the origins of life isn't limited to Earth studies. As humans explore the Solar System, investigations of past or present extra-terrestrial life are inevitable. Recent speculations have centered on Mars, whose polar areas are now known to possess water ice, but other candidates include Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's moon Enceladus, both of which are covered in water ice. The NASA Astrobiology Institute, which supports these investigations, has taken a keen interest in the revisiting of the Miller-Urey Synthesis.
"This research is both a link to the experimental foundations of astrobiology as well as an exciting result leading toward greater understanding of how life might have arisen on Earth," said Carl Pilcher, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute, headquartered at NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif.
Henderson Cleaves (Carnegie Institution for Science) also contributed to the report. It was funded with grants from the NASA Astrobiology Institute, the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass., and Mexico's El Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography is a research center of the University of California at San Diego.
The NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI), founded in 1998, is a partnership among NASA, 16 U.S. teams and five international consortia. NAI's goal is to promote, conduct and lead interdisciplinary astrobiology research and to train a new generation of astrobiology researchers. For more information, see http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai.
To speak with Johnson, please contact David Bricker, Indiana University, at 812-856-9035 or [email protected]. To speak with Bada, please contact Annie Reisewitz, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, at 858-534-9616 or [email protected]. To speak with NASA Astrobiology Institute Director Carl Pilcher, please contact Bill Steigerwald, NASA, at 301-286-0039 or [EMAIL='[email protected].[/quote'][email protected].[/quote[/EMAIL]]
And this one:
New Study Revisits Miller-Urey Experiment at the Quantum Level - Astrobiology Magazine
For the first time, researchers have reproduced the results of the Miller-Urey experiment in a computer simulation, yielding new insight into the effect of electricity on the formation of life’s building blocks at the quantum level.
In 1953, the American chemist Stanley Miller famously electrified a mixture of simple gas and water to simulate lightning and the atmosphere of early Earth. The revolutionary experiment—which yielded a brownish soup of amino acids—offered a simple potential scenario for the origin of life’s building blocks. Miller’s work gave birth to modern research on pre-biotic chemistry and the origins of life.
For the past 60 years, scientists have investigated other possible energy sources for the formation of life’s building blocks, including ultra violet light, meteorite impacts, and deep sea hydrothermal vents.
In this new study, Antonino Marco Saitta, of the Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Sorbonne, in Paris, France and his colleagues wanted to revisit Miller’s result with electric fields, but from a quantum perspective.
Saitta and study co-author Franz Saija, two theoretical physicists, had recently applied a new quantum model to study the effects of electric fields on water, which had never been done before. After coming across a documentary on Miller’s work, they wondered whether the quantum approach might work for the famous spark-discharge experiment.
The method would also allow them to follow individual atoms and molecules through space and time—and perhaps yield new insight into the role of electricity in Miller’s work.
“The spirit of our work was to show that the electric field is part of it,” Saitta said, “without necessarily involving lightning or a spark.”
Their results are published this week in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
An Alternate Route
As in the original Miller experiment, Saitta and Saija subjected a mixture of molecules containing carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen atoms to an electric field. As expected, the simulation yielded glycine, an amino acid that is one of the simplest building blocks for proteins, and one the most abundant products in the original Miller experiment.
But their approach also yielded some unexpected results. In particular, their model suggested that the formation of amino acids in the Miller scenario might have occurred via a more complex chemical pathway than previously thought.
A typical intermediate in the formation of amino acids is the small molecule formaldehyde. But their simulation showed that when subjected to an electric field, the reaction favored a different intermediate, the molecule formamide.
It turns out, formamide could have not only played a crucial role in the formation of life’s building blocks on Earth, but also elsewhere.
“We weren’t looking for it, or expecting it,” Saitta said. “We only learned after the fact, by reviewing the scientific literature, that it’s an important clue in prebiotic chemistry.”
For instance, formamide has recently been shown to be a key ingredient in making some of the building blocks of RNA, notably guanine, in the presence of ultra violet light.
Formamide has also recently been observed in space—notably in a comet and in a solar-type proto star. Earlier research has also shown that formamide can form when comets or asteroids impact the Earth.
“The possibility of new routes to make amino acids without a formaldehyde intermediate is novel and gaining ground, especially in extraterrestrial contexts,” the authors wrote. “The presence of formamide might be a most telling fingerprint of abiotic terrestrial and extraterrestrial amino acids.”
However, Jeff Bada, who was a graduate student of Miller’s in the 1960s and spent his career working of the origin of life, remains skeptical about their results and theoretical approach.
“Their model might not meaningfully represent what happens in a solution,” he says. “We know there’s a lot of formaldehyde made in the spark discharge experiment. I don’t think the formamide reaction would be significant in comparison to the traditional reaction.”
But Saitta points out that formamide is very unstable, so it may not last long enough to be observed in real Miller experiments. “In our simulation, formamide always formed spontaneously. And it was some sort of crucible—it would either break up into water and hydrogen cyanide, or combine with other molecules and form the amino acid glycine.”
Life’s Origin–on the Rocks?
Another key insight from their study is that the formation of some of life’s building blocks may have occurred on mineral surfaces, since most have strong natural electric fields.
“The electric field of mineral surfaces can be easily 10 or 20 times stronger than the one in our study,” Saitta said. “The problem is that it only acts on a very short range. So to feel the effects, molecules would have to be very close to the surface.”
“I think that this work is of great significance,” said François Guyot, a geochemist at the French Museum of Natural History.
“Regarding the mineral surfaces, strong electric fields undoubtedly exist at their immediate proximity. And because of their strong role on the reactivity of organic molecules, they might enhance the formation of more complex molecules by a mechanism distinct from the geometrical concentration of reactive species, a mechanisms often proposed when mineral surfaces are invoked for explaining the formation of the first biomolecules.”
One of the leading hypotheses in the field of life’s origin suggests that important prebiotic reactions may have occurred on mineral surfaces. But so far scientists don’t fully understand the mechanism behind it.
“Nobody has really looked at electric fields on mineral surfaces,” Saitta said. “My feeling is that there’s probably something to explore there.”
.
No doubt all the GOP candidates will be confronted with this question.
If you truly believe one thing or another, especially on an important topic, why not proclaim it?
What's the down side?
.
Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.
Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.
It was also a natural phenomenon that the sound of trumpets can cause them to fall also. But you will just dismiss that fact away.
Yes that is what the mythology claims? And yet we have irrefutable scientific evidence from geology and archaeology that Jericho was destroyed at least nine times by earthquakes (and could well be destroyed again by earthquakes), while we have NO evidence that an iron age musical instruments could have brought those walls down. You people need to grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.
No that is what Scientific experiments in sounds have claimed.
Like I said you would, you dismissed this science.
Yes the walls were destroyed many times by earthquakes but only one event happened where the walls fell inward and science proves that the trumpet sounds could have done it.
.
No doubt all the GOP candidates will be confronted with this question.
If you truly believe one thing or another, especially on an important topic, why not proclaim it?
What's the down side?
.
The down side is-
The arrogance of the left that think only their way of looking at things is the only correct way.
