Science! (4 Viewers)

The long-sought wreckage of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, a World War II U.S. Navy destroyer escort that sank in the Western Pacific Ocean nearly 78 years ago, has been found off the Philippines, explorers have announced.


The vessel, now broken in two, lies at a depth of around four miles, the deepest shipwreck yet discovered. That’s deeper than Mount Kilimanjaro is tall, or 18 times the height of the Empire State Building.

The wreckage was identified and surveyed by American explorer Victor Vescovo, founder and sub pilot of Dallas-based Caladan Oceanic Expeditions, alongside Britain-based EYOS Expeditions…….

 
The long-sought wreckage of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, a World War II U.S. Navy destroyer escort that sank in the Western Pacific Ocean nearly 78 years ago, has been found off the Philippines, explorers have announced.


The vessel, now broken in two, lies at a depth of around four miles, the deepest shipwreck yet discovered. That’s deeper than Mount Kilimanjaro is tall, or 18 times the height of the Empire State Building.

The wreckage was identified and surveyed by American explorer Victor Vescovo, founder and sub pilot of Dallas-based Caladan Oceanic Expeditions, alongside Britain-based EYOS Expeditions…….

"18 times the height of the Empire State Building". That's a great method to help the reader of your post understand how deep is 4 miles ( the depth of the newly discovered wreckage). Anyway, good job!
 
"18 times the height of the Empire State Building". That's a great method to help the reader of your post understand how deep is 4 miles ( the depth of the newly discovered wreckage). Anyway, good job!
Yeh, it's another example of having to "dumb down" things for people. 324,000 miles is hard to grasp, but 4 miles? That's like, "Almost the distance to town" type of distance. lol
 
Yeh, it's another example of having to "dumb down" things for people. 324,000 miles is hard to grasp, but 4 miles? That's like, "Almost the distance to town" type of distance. lol
Remember the early weeks of the pandemic and “sing Happy Birthday twice when washing your hands”?

That’s right, for some reason we needed a life hack to count to twenty

I’m thinking “if there’s a need to elaborate, why is no one simply saying count twenty Mississippi?”

I saw the happy birthday thing literally dozens of times
 
Remember the early weeks of the pandemic and “sing Happy Birthday twice when washing your hands”?

That’s right, for some reason we needed a life hack to count to twenty

I’m thinking “if there’s a need to elaborate, why is no one simply saying count twenty Mississippi?”

I saw the happy birthday thing literally dozens of times
I think they were trying to be "fun". The people suggesting that likely thought the readers or hearers of their advice might be more likely to comply if their suggestion didn't seem tedious.
 
Remember the early weeks of the pandemic and “sing Happy Birthday twice when washing your hands”?

That’s right, for some reason we needed a life hack to count to twenty

I’m thinking “if there’s a need to elaborate, why is no one simply saying count twenty Mississippi?”

I saw the happy birthday thing literally dozens of times

As maybe an odd aside, I always found this advice to be absent of some key information.

When you wash your hands, there are spots you need to focus on.

Your hands don't touch things evenly. In other words, the whole surface area of your hands is not evenly impacted by dirtiness. Your fingertips touch stuff more than the rest of your hands, generally. Then your palms are perhaps next most touchy of stuff. Concentrate on your fingertips when you're washing your hands, mostly, first of all, then your palms secondarily. However, the focus on fingertips is more where people slack off in the handwashing business.

The soap makes bad things slippery, and the bad stuff is washed away when you add water to encourage this slipperyness of bad things on your hands. Rub your fingertips most vigorously -- according to science.
 
Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved.

Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection.

You may recall the gist from school biology lessons. If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival.

The longer they survive, the more chance they have to reproduce and pass on the genes that equipped them with slightly better eyesight.

Some of their offspring might, in turn, have better eyesight than their parents, making it likelier that they, too, will reproduce.

And so on. Generation by generation, over unfathomably long periods of time, tiny advantages add up. Eventually, after a few hundred million years, you have creatures who can see as well as humans, or cats, or owls.

This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers.

The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading.

For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place.

Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with.

“The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University.

“And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”……..

 
Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved.

Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection.

You may recall the gist from school biology lessons. If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival.

The longer they survive, the more chance they have to reproduce and pass on the genes that equipped them with slightly better eyesight.

Some of their offspring might, in turn, have better eyesight than their parents, making it likelier that they, too, will reproduce.

And so on. Generation by generation, over unfathomably long periods of time, tiny advantages add up. Eventually, after a few hundred million years, you have creatures who can see as well as humans, or cats, or owls.

This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers.

The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading.

For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place.

Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with.

“The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University.

“And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”……..

The complexity of the earth and all that is in the universe could not happen unless there was a Creator.
There are 78 organs in the human body. Only God himself could create such a complex being.
I think it takes way more faith to believe there was a big bang....then from our portion of the big bang's debris something eventually crawled out....then somehow there was an ape...which somehow evolved to being human.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that!
The correct solution to that brain twisting mystery is to accept that there was a creator God.
 
Scientific method relies on repeated observation of phenomena, ie demonstrable evidence. There are many things that it simply is not possible to get real evidence on at this time (maybe in the future, maybe not). We cannot go back in time and observe the conditions at the beginning of life on this planet and we have yet to be able to recreate those conditions for observation. Scientists hypothesize about possible cause/effects and attempt to test similar phenomena, but that is only one step toward a theory.
On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution, ie the facts and mechanisms as to how things 'evolve' has been observed and there is demonstrable evidence that evolution, indeed, occurs. But that, in and of itself, does not answer all of the scientific questions about the origins of life.
But just because there are unanswered questions does not mean that we should attempt to fill in the gaps. There is no demonstrable evidence of a creator. The lack of such evidence does not mean there isn't one and shouldn't in any way hamper someone's faith or belief. With science and with faith, it's okay not to 'know'. In fact, it's better - because to 'know' beyond a shadow of a doubt puts a hard stop on any further exploration.
 
I think the very fact that a woman can become pregnant and create a living human "from nothing", demonstrates that you do not need a creator to create. Life is it's own creator. Some children are born with defects, some are born with abnormally high intellect (Beethoven), some are born with red hair, etc.
 
I think the very fact that a woman can become pregnant and create a living human "from nothing", demonstrates that you do not need a creator to create. Life is it's own creator. Some children are born with defects, some are born with abnormally high intellect (Beethoven), some are born with red hair, etc.
WHY can a woman become pregnant and another human is growing inside her?
Where did that supposed mass that preceded the earth come from? What is ITS origin?
How could that mass of whatever breakaway and then this globe of rock there became water...then something crawled out of the water...then over ,million of years we have the human body with 78 amazing organs. Then we eventually have women who can get pregnant? Who or what is the great scientist who made all this possible?
WHY is everything but God something some people want to grasp on to?
 
The complexity of the earth and all that is in the universe could not happen unless there was a Creator.
There are 78 organs in the human body. Only God himself could create such a complex being.
I think it takes way more faith to believe there was a big bang....then from our portion of the big bang's debris something eventually crawled out....then somehow there was an ape...which somehow evolved to being human.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that!
The correct solution to that brain twisting mystery is to accept that there was a creator God.
Seriously? You're coming into a science thread to promote creationism?
 
WHY can a woman become pregnant and another human is growing inside her?
Where did that supposed mass of whatever come from. What is ITS origin.
How could that mass of whatever breakaway and then on it we eventually have women who can get pregnant?
WHY is everything but God something some people want to grasp onto?
I'm not going to get into a religious debate because I respect your and all people's belief. And this is all I'll say on the matter....the only "proof" of God is a book written long ago. Most everything else can be explained scientifically, observationally. The things we can't explain, yet, are things that we are trying to explain.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom