Young sun-like star shows a magnetic field was critical for life on the early Earth

March 16, 2016
In this artist's illustration, the young Sun-like star Kappa Ceti is blotched with large starspots, a sign of its high level of magnetic activity. New research shows that its stellar wind is 50 times stronger than our Sun's. As a result, any Earth-like planet would need a magnetic field in order to protect its atmosphere and be habitable. The physical sizes of the star and planet and distance between them are not to scale. Credit: M. Weiss/CfA

Nearly four billion years ago, life arose on Earth. Life appeared because our planet had a rocky surface, liquid water, and a blanketing atmosphere. But life thrived thanks to another necessary ingredient: the presence of a protective magnetic field. A new study of the young, Sun-like star Kappa Ceti shows that a magnetic field plays a key role in making a planet conducive to life.

"To be habitable, a planet needs warmth, water, and it needs to be sheltered from a young, violent Sun," says lead author Jose-Dias Do Nascimento of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) and University of Rio G. do Norte (UFRN), Brazil.

Kappa Ceti, located 30 light-years away in the constellation Cetus, the Whale, is remarkably similar to our Sun but younger. The team calculates an age of only 400-600 million years old, which agrees with the age estimated from its rotation period (a technique pioneered by CfA astronomer Soren Meibom). This age roughly corresponds to the time when life first appeared on Earth. As a result, studying Kappa Ceti can give us insights into the early history of our solar system.

Like other stars its age, Kappa Ceti is very magnetically active. Its surface is blotched with many giant starspots, like sunspots but larger and more numerous. It also propels a steady stream of plasma, or ionized gases, out into space. The research team found that this is 50 times stronger than our Sun's solar wind.

Observations taken with the 2.0-meter Bernard Lyot Telescope at Pic du Midi Observatory in France show that Kappa Ceti is a Sun-like star with an age of 400 - 600 million years. Credit: Jose-Dias Do Nascimento

Such a fierce stellar wind would batter the atmosphere of any planet in the habitable zone, unless that planet was shielded by a magnetic field. At the extreme, a planet without a magnetic field could lose most of its atmosphere. In our solar system, the planet Mars suffered this fate and turned from a world warm enough for briny oceans to a cold, dry desert.

The team modeled the strong stellar wind of Kappa Ceti and its effect on a young Earth. The early Earth's is expected to have been about as strong as it is today, or slightly weaker. Depending on the assumed strength, the researchers found that the resulting protected region, or magnetosphere, of Earth would be about one-third to one-half as large as it is today.

"The early Earth didn't have as much protection as it does now, but it had enough," says Do Nascimento.

Young sun-like star shows a magnetic field was critical for life on the early Earth
This computer model shows the magnetic field lines of the star Kappa Ceti as gray lines looping out from the star's surface. This young, Sun-like star generates a stellar wind 50 times stronger than our Sun's. As a result, any potentially habitable planet would need a magnetic field to protect its atmosphere. Credit: CfA / Do Nascimento et. al and TCD / A. Vidotto

Kappa Ceti also shows evidence of "superflares" - enormous eruptions that release 10 to 100 million times more energy than the largest flares ever observed on our Sun. Flares that energetic can strip a planet's atmosphere. By studying Kappa Ceti, researchers hope to learn how frequently it produces superflares, and therefore how often our Sun might have erupted in its youth.

Explore further: Harsh space weather may doom potential life on red-dwarf planets

Related Stories

Coronal mass ejections at Mars

September 24, 2014

Looking across the Mars landscape presents a bleak image: a barren, dry rocky view as far as the eye can see. But scientists think the vista might once have been quite different. It may have teemed with water and even been ...

Tau Ceti: The next Earth? Probably not

April 22, 2015

As the search continues for Earth-size planets orbiting at just the right distance from their star, a region termed the habitable zone, the number of potentially life-supporting planets grows. In two decades we have progressed ...

Close comet flyby threw Mars' magnetic field into chaos

March 10, 2016

Just weeks before the historic encounter of comet C/2013 A1 (Siding Spring) with Mars in October 2014, NASA's Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) spacecraft entered orbit around the Red Planet. To protect sensitive ...

Image: Picturing the sun's magnetic field

March 16, 2016

This illustration lays a depiction of the sun's magnetic fields over an image captured by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory on March 12, 2016. The complex overlay of lines can teach scientists about the ways the sun's magnetism ...

Recommended for you

Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

Rocky planet found orbiting habitable zone of nearest star

August 24, 2016

An international team of astronomers including Carnegie's Paul Butler has found clear evidence of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our Solar System. The new world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool ...

88 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1.5 / 5 (25) Mar 16, 2016
Nearly four billion years ago, life arose on Earth. Life appeared because our planet had a rocky surface, liquid water, and a blanketing atmosphere.

This is a pseudo scientific statement because it has no observational evidence to support it. It implies quite clearly that life arose from dead materials all by itself with no outside help whatsoever. That is just plain fantasy given firstly the approx. 6000 years of verifiable evidence that once dead, things always remain dead, i.e. there is no way for anything to jump to life from dead materials all by itself. Secondly the chemical complexity rules out any chance occurrence of life from dead materials all by itself.
The early Earth's magnetic field is expected to have been about as strong as it is today, or slightly weaker

Here again direct observational evidence calls the lie to this statement. The earth magnetic field strength is decreasing at a rate that would make it impossible for life in the next 100k years.

FredJose
1.7 / 5 (23) Mar 16, 2016
. Flares that energetic can strip a planet's atmosphere. By studying Kappa Ceti, researchers hope to learn how frequently it produces superflares, and therefore how often our Sun might have erupted in its youth.

Kappa Ceti might be about the same size as Sol but it certainly does not have Sol's super stability in flare control. Earth survives because Sol does not flare up like ANY other comparable star of its size and makeup. Sol instead appears to be so highly stable and fine-tuned that it's stability can only be ascribed to design.
If you disagree, please supply direct observational evidence to contradict this statement. Find another star like Sol that displays the same stability of flare control anywhere in the known universe. Good luck with that.
Sol is clearly NOT your everyday average garden variety of star. It is an extraordinary, exceptionally stable source of energy for exactly the purpose of supporting life on earth.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (21) Mar 16, 2016
The arxiv article speculates on that a magnetic field is necessary (or good), but doesn't quantify it. We don't even know when Earth's magnetic field kicked in...

**********
@FJ: "It implies quite clearly that life arose from dead materials".

Of course, how else? And we have strong evidence: the early Earth was accreted without life (not a planet yet, no atmosphere, too hot, et cetera), today there is life. Hence life emerged on Earth. (I note the remaining of your comment "is a pseudo scientific statement because it has no observational evidence to support it", so I don't need to respond to your magic superstition. What is that crap doing on a science site anyway?)
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2016
Nearly four billion years ago, life arose on Earth. Life appeared because our planet had a rocky surface, liquid water, and a blanketing atmosphere.

This is a pseudo scientific statement because it has no observational evidence to support it.


This is a pseudo scientific statement because it has no observational evidence to support it.
- FredJose

It is only PARTIALLY true. Water, solid surface, and an atmosphere are necessary to sustain and protect life forms. Life was CREATED in the waters of Earth between 1 - 2 Billion yrs ago. 4 BYA would have been too early as the Earth was still in the throes of extreme changes and disruptions. Up to 2 BYA was the FIRST Genesis. The first was when God created cells that evolved later into multi-celled organisms who DROPPED THEIR DNA into the clay; the same clay which scientists have recently discovered. Search clay dna
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (18) Mar 16, 2016
.
The early Earth's magnetic field is expected to have been about as strong as it is today, or slightly weaker

Here again direct observational evidence calls the lie to this statement. The earth magnetic field strength is decreasing at a rate that would make it impossible for life in the next 100k years.

- FredJose
Where is your "direct observational evidence" for such an assertion? Why wouldn't the mag field be as strong in the Earth's infancy as it is now? Also, what were the dynamics that would cause the magnetic field to diminish? Please enlighten me.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (22) Mar 16, 2016
The arxiv article speculates on that a magnetic field is necessary (or good), but doesn't quantify it. We don't even know when Earth's magnetic field kicked in...

**********
@FJ: "It implies quite clearly that life arose from dead materials".

Of course, how else? And we have strong evidence: the early Earth was accreted without life (not a planet yet, no atmosphere, too hot, et cetera), today there is life. Hence life emerged on Earth. (I note the remaining of your comment "is a pseudo scientific statement because it has no observational evidence to support it", so I don't need to respond to your magic superstition. What is that crap doing on a science site anyway?)
t larsson
Life did not "emerge", which is nonsense. It was CREATED. Life forms don't arise from dead matter, even randomly. Scientists are attempting to do the impossible, that is, to create life out of something that was not previously alive. It will never happen. Creation IS science.
obama_socks
2 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2016
. Flares that energetic can strip a planet's atmosphere. By studying Kappa Ceti, researchers hope to learn how frequently it produces superflares, and therefore how often our Sun might have erupted in its youth.

Kappa Ceti might be about the same size as Sol but it certainly does not have Sol's super stability in flare control. Earth survives because Sol does not flare up like ANY other comparable star of its size and makeup. Sol instead appears to be so highly stable and fine-tuned that it's stability can only be ascribed to design.
If you disagree, please supply direct observational evidence to contradict this statement. Find another star like Sol that displays the same stability of flare control anywhere in the known universe. Good luck with that.
Sol is clearly NOT your everyday average garden variety of star. It is an extraordinary, exceptionally stable source of energy for exactly the purpose of supporting life on earth.


- FredJose
Agreed. It is unique.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Mar 16, 2016
Life forms don't arise from dead matter, even randomly.
you do realise how stupid this sounds right... especially considering that you are literally made out of "dead" material

ever hear of organic chemistry?
Life did not "emerge",... It was CREATED.
oh, i gotta see the empirical evidence for this

don't forget to make sure it is in a peer reviewed journal
Search clay dna
you know, you never did link the study that showed where clay had DNA at all...

Antonaccio
3.8 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2016
Ya wow, the fundamentalists came running into this article.
Phil DePayne
3.1 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2016
From the Wikipedia article for Augustine of Hippo who profoundly influenced Catholicism and Calvinistic Protestantism:

"In The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a literal account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way"
...
"Augustine took the view that, if a literal interpretation contradicts science and our God-given reason, the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically. While each passage of Scripture has a literal sense, this "literal sense" does not always mean that the Scriptures are mere history; at times they are rather an extended metaphor."

I would buy this point of view instead we get the Kevin from Clerks II idiot point of view from these idiots
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2016
Taking another read, their own example of Mars argues against their idea. Mars did have a substantial atmosphere early on, despite loosing its magnetic field even earlier. It took 4 Ga for the atmosphere to mostly go. (I assume they will say that at twice the distance it had 1/4 the solar wind/CME, but that isn't much protection.)

***************

I am not going to argue trivial observations with crackpot creationists, if you mud wrestle with pigs you get dirty. Everyone in astrobiology knows and accepts this - they are welcome to peer review publish counter proposals with the necessary evidence. By the way, the current consensus is emergence before 3.5 Ga. But 4.3 - 4,0 Ga seems feasible, Earth was habitable > 4.3 Ga, see Valley's latest review on zircon data that shows a habitable ocean at the time.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2016
[ctd]

And of course it is the creationist misconception that scientists want to replay every bit of a likely 10s to 1000s of thousand year process. There isn't enough lab time...

Crackpots arise their own impossible 'criteria of evidence' (I say that loosely, because they aren't often testable and never relevant as actual evidence) in order to shore up their non-science. As everywhere else in evolution, biologists would be satisfied to show feasible pathways and phylogenetic evidence. Both these factors point to alkaline hydrothermal vents (AHVs) in the Hadean as our remote geological ancestor.

We are awaiting the creationist alternative peer reviewed testable mechanism that surpasses AHVs, or even the current consensus of "soup" theory, with bated breath. After 200 years of basic biology, you would expect them to have published _something_... (Not really, they have nothing. And they know they have crap.)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2016
Finally, this howler:

"Find another star like Sol that displays the same stability of flare control anywhere in the known universe."

Find another star where flares are measured first. I doubt you can.

What astronomers use, what I know, is a proxy called chromospheric activity. (Tells of convection vs radiation tramsport processes.) I cite:

"About 15% of these were found to have activity levels below the present solar minimum, which is comparable to the frequency of flat activity stars in the MWO and Lowell surveys. It is not clear, however, if these are truly in non-cycling states, or merely represent the minima of cycling stars."

[ http://solarphysi...olor.pdf ]

So not unique at all, it isn't even 2 sigma below average. As expected, since ours is a random system in a random galaxy far from any remarkable phenomena. Copernicus principle, and all that jazz.
humy
3.6 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2016
from the article:
"...In our solar system, the planet Mars suffered this fate and turned from a world warm enough for briny oceans to a cold, dry desert...."

Couldn't the cause of that be much more to do with the lack of gravity on Mars causing to slowly loose atmosphere to outer space than a lack of magnetic field?
Mars is, after all, much further away from the Sun than the Earth is from the Sun and would be exposed to much less than half the solar wind strength than Earth.
Has anyone even bothered to mathematically calculate and simulate which of the causal factors would be dominant here or did they just make assumptions here?
BartV
1.5 / 5 (22) Mar 17, 2016
Torbjorn, no, creationists are not crackpots. We are realists. We do not live life believing in the unfounded and unbelievable theory of evolution. Look at the long history of creatinist scientists before you, and the foundation of science that they passed on to you; instead of calling them crackpots. You just make yourself so small when you resort to namecalling.

humy
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
-continued-

-I just thought of another problem with the hypothesis that Mars has a thin atmosphere mainly because it lacks a magnetic field and not because of lack of gravity:

Venus is CLOSER to the sun than the Earth thus is exposed to MORE solar wind and yet has virtually NO magnetic field protecting its atmosphere and yet it has a THICK atmosphere!
Therefore, if Mars has a thin atmosphere because it lacks a magnetic field, then why on earth doesn't Venus have a thin atmosphere for the same reason!?
humy
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2016
Torbjorn, no, creationists are not crackpots. We are realists. We do not live life believing in the unfounded and unbelievable theory of evolution. Look at the long history of creatinist scientists before you, and the foundation of science that they passed on to you; instead of calling them crackpots. You just make yourself so small when you resort to namecalling.



Anyone who denies the vast mountain of irrefutable scientific evidence, whether for religious reasons (as in this case ) or not, is a crackpot in my book.
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2016
"Nearly four billion years ago, life arose on Earth. Life appeared because our planet had a rocky surface, liquid water, and a blanketing atmosphere."

This is the usual joke.

Why the Earth is so differrent in chemical and structural composition from the other planets in the solar system, when all was formed slowly by acretion for period of hundreds of milion years from homogenous cloud of gas and dust while it expanded at a rate significant part of the speed of light according to big bang theorists? It is even worst than the situation in the expanding with great speed nebula from super nova to form new stars and planets.
Why only the Earth have so stron magnetic field related to its mass and volume?
If we follow in details the methods that evolutionsts use to determine the age of diferent samples we will find interesting unscientific practices and bold assumptions.
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2016
According to cosmic evolutionist in the expanding with great speed cosmic clouds of dust and gas was formed slowly for hundred of milion of years planets, stars and big cosmic structures by the proccess of accretion due to the gravity which is not able to stop this fictional expansion.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2016
"Nearly four billion years ago, life arose on Earth. Life appeared because our planet had a rocky surface, liquid water, and a blanketing atmosphere."

This is the usual joke.

Why the Earth is so differrent in chemical and structural composition from the other planets in the solar system, when all was formed slowly by acretion for period of hundreds of milion years from homogenous cloud of gas and dust while it expanded at a rate significant part of the speed of light according to big bang theorists? ...


Nobody CLAIMS this, moron.
NOBODY says the dust cloud that formed the Earth was expanding while it was forming the Earth "at a rate significant part of the speed of light according to big bang".
viko_mx
Mar 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2016
The big bang theorist claim that the universe is expanding with the great speed closer to the speed of light, and even with greater speeds in the fictional early period of its existancewith the idea to bypass the known physical laws according to their popular diagram dear man.
humy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2016
According to cosmic evolutionist in the expanding with great speed cosmic clouds of dust and gas was formed slowly for hundred of milion of years planets, stars and big cosmic structures by the proccess of accretion due to the gravity which is not able to stop this fictional expansion.


viko_mx

NOBODY CLAIMS that the dust and gas clouds that formed the planets and stars where expanding at great speed (a significant proportion of c ) while they were forming the planets and stars.
And gravity not able to stop the expansion of the universe as a whole, NOT to be confused with gravity stopping an expansion of individual clouds of dust or gas within the universe so that it can form planets and stars which it often does, has nothing to do with it.
humy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2016
The big bang theorist claim that the universe is expanding with the great speed closer to the speed of light, and even with greater speeds in the fictional early period of its existancewith the idea to bypass the known physical laws according to their popular diagram dear man.


viko_mx

what has this got to do with planet formation?
How does the universe as a whole expanding at great speed contradict individual clumps clouds of gas and dust not expanding so they can form planets and stars?
NOBODY CLAIMS nor implies that every PART of the universe, no matter how small that part is, must also be expanding just because the universe as a whole is expanding.
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2016
"How does the universe as a whole expanding at great speed contradict individual clumps clouds of gas and dust not expanding so they can form planets and stars?"

If you can not understand how the our coversation is pointless.
What will stop this cloud to not expanding outward frictionless as big bang theorist claim. They even talk about accelerating expansion of the universe according to their red shift interpretation and calculations.

AnnoyingAtheist
3.8 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2016
It's this funny thing called "Gravity," viko. When enough particles collide and stick to one another, the whole starts to draw other nearby particles in a never-ending cycle.

Over time, the dust coalesces into stars, planets, asteroids, you name it. The stuff that makes up the fingertips you're spewing your crap from and the keyboard you typed it out on were originally made in supernovae.

You're hardly in a position to lecture humy here. He appears to have at least seen the science. You, on the other hand, wouldn't know what it looked like if it ripped off your right arm and beat you nearly to death with the wet end.
humy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2016
"How does the universe as a whole expanding at great speed contradict individual clumps clouds of gas and dust not expanding so they can form planets and stars?"
humy
...
What will stop this cloud to not expanding outward frictionless as big bang theorist claim.
viko_mx

Obviously local gravity due to local clumping of matter can (and often does ) stop an individual cloud from continually expanding ;
And that fact has nothing to do with the big bang theory nor "frictionless" ( don't know where you got that from ) , nor the universe expanding as a whole.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2016
@humy: Indeed, that was one attractive alternative, Mars is a borderline case according to some. MAVEN seems to have clinched the case of leakage due to insufficient magnetic field. (But that is my naive impression from early presentations, MAVEN's data is still looked at.)

**************

"creationists are not crackpots".

From Baez's Crackpot Index:

"
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
..."

[ http://math.ucr.e...pot.html ]

I could go on, but failing the first 5 points sthraight up means creationists are known crackpots. Come on, *everyone* knows this!

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2016
[ctd]

"namecalling".

A scientific diagnosis, useful to weed pseudoscience and crackpots alike. Other useful ways scientists can save time is to send the crackpot's respectively comments to other crackpots, so they can have their empty conversation with like minded.

" coversation is pointless".

Indeed, since you have no clue how either the universe or planet systems emerge and develop, while most who reads phys.org knows this. If you don't know, ask or check Wikipedia, it isn't rocket science. [I can agree with other commenters that it doesn't seem like this creationist knows what gravity is either, likely because he/she doesn't know what a force is. Someone let this individual down in the education system,,, :-/]
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2016
Obviously local gravity due to local clumping of matter can (and often does ) stop an individual cloud from continually expanding "

Obviuosly the universe is not expanding and was created instead of evolved.
If you assume tha that gravity is different in different zones of the universe, the whole theory of cosmic evolution will desintegrate without residue.

Do you have idea what intensity have the gravity in deluted cosmic clouds of dust and gas and what intensity have underpresure in this clouds?
humy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2016
Obviuosly the universe is not expanding and ...

viko_mx

How do you explain the observed red-shift Doppler effect of distant galaxies that apparently proves that the universe is expanding?
And what has whether the universe expanding got to do with clouds contracting under their own gravity to form planets?

If you assume tha that gravity is different in different zones of the universe, ...

viko_mx

I don't, and neither does anyone else.
The fact that exactly the same law of gravity applies everywhere in the universe is part of what explains local clumping of matter that leads to planet and star formation.
You don't need the law of gravity to be "different in different zones of the universe" (as you said ) for that to work.

Do you have idea what intensity have the gravity in deluted cosmic clouds of dust and gas

Yes, I do. I know how to do the maths and I guess you don't. What has that got to do with anything?

vlaaing peerd
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2016
. It was CREATED. Life forms don't arise from dead matter, even randomly. Scientists are attempting to do the impossible, that is, to create life out of something that was not previously alive. It will never happen. Creation IS science.


I think you meant lifeless instead of dead, but don't mind a foreigner being slightly pedantic over semantics.

Let's talk logic instead. So if I follow you correctly, life was created from previously living material and not lifeless material, in other words, life wasn't created, because it already existed(?)

So if it already existed, how does it need a creation?

Or was life created from lifeless material, but just not in a scientific way?

Or was it a fairy sprinkling magic life dust onto non-living, yet at the same time non-lifeless material?

Do enlighten me, it should make a good story.
AnnoyingAtheist
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2016

Obviuosly the universe is not expanding and was created instead of evolved.


I suppose that answers the question about whether or not you'd know science if it beat you with a stick. You have yet to establish that Cosmology and Evolution have anything to do with one another (they don't). Attempting to conflate the two neatly showcases your ignorance.

You can't even spell words longer than four letters in your native language-- I'm not about to take "scientific" information from you. Particularly since you got yours from Kent Hovind. Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life, and nothing else.

Your argument is again invalid, and you should feel bad.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2016
creationists are not crackpots. We are realists
@barfV
ROTFLMFAO
bannaman was a realist? ken Ham? Discovery institute?

need i remind you that every single "realist" that calls themselves creationist or intelligent design advocates refuses to actually accept evidence over delusion while denigrating the technological base they take for granted that was literally created by the evidence industry (science and the scientific method) which they are trying to undermine with their stupidity?

that would mean, as a "realist"... you are literally advocating for the removal of reality and infrastructure of modern technology and more for the sake of a belief that can't be substantiated by evidence

that isn't realism, that is insanity in every sense of the word... if we followed your creationist lead, we would be back in the dark ages burning witches and attempting to excommunicate devils instead of treating epilepsy or Tardive dyskinesia (common)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2016
Normally i ignore viko because she will refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever, or simply say "nuh-uh- cause the bible"... but this is too funny not to chime in
.
In the book of Genesis God says that made the Heaven and the Earth
@vikoTROLL
it also says he created plants GEN 1:12 before the sun and moon GEN 1:16
EPIC FAIL
was your omnipotent omniscient deity drunk? LMFAO
the seventh day which is the sabbath...In this day the chirsitians [sic] leave their secular deeds
except for you, right?
did your deity give you a holy mission and permission?
can we see the permission slip? LOL

because Saturday is the 7th day, and you regularly post on sat breaking the commandments and making you a liar

maybe you can pray away the evidence and all us folk always proving you an idiot?
try this - it's right up your alley

https://www.youtu...fLJVSdjg

Antonaccio
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2016
@humy

Venus does have a magnetic field it's just not generated internally. The solar winds interaction with the atmosphere and create an ionosphere that helps keep venus's atmosphere from being blasted off at a rapid rate.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2016
"How do you explain the observed red-shift Doppler effect of distant galaxies that apparently proves that the universe is expanding?"

Red shift have nothing to do with the fictional expansions of the universe. The space can not expand because is not physical but geometric object. The vacuum of space which is filled 3d geometric space of the universe is real physical environment with certain physical properties and limitations as every other physical object. One properties ot this environment is to propagate electromagnetic waves and particles with which is actively interacting.
Doppler effect manifest only in a static environment where can be mesured the change in the frequency of the waves approaching or moving away from a the reference point.
The electroamgnetic waves can not be considered as separate from the structure of vacuum of space physical phenomena. They are part of it nature.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2016
One of the properties of waves is to fade away with time and traveled path since they gradually give their energy to the physical environment in which propagating. This explain intuitively the observed red shift of light camming from the distant matterial structures in the universe.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2016
"it also says he created plants GEN 1:12 before the sun and moon GEN 1:16
EPIC FAIL"

You sounds like a desperate man. Do not you think that the Creator of the all stars in the universe Who knows their names need their light to work? Do not you know that the glory of God can outshine the whole universe?
What God says in the book of revelation for the beloved city? Will there be stars to shine or the God's glory will illuminate this city?
antigoresockpuppet
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2016
Antonaccio3.6 /5 (14) 20 hours ago
Ya wow, the fundamentalists came running into this article.


Fundamentalists have beliefs. These are just garden variety ass-hat trolls. Would you hide behind an alias if you were evangelizing? No, these are just gen X pieces of shite with nothing better to do than troll and parrot their masters' commands. They need to be spat upon whenever encountered.

chileastro
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2016
FartV 1.3 / 5 (13) 16 hours ago
Torbjorn, no, creationists are not crackpots. We are realists. We do not live life believing in the unfounded and unbelievable theory of evolution. Look at the long history of creatinist scientists before you, and the foundation of science that they passed on to you; instead of calling them crackpots.


What an arrogant git. A nobody addressing an accomplished person that way. Bite me you fucking oxygen thief. You make me want to kill myself rather than suffer the likes of your all too common kind. Maybe I can climb up your inflated ego and jump down to your IQ to do it.


You just make yourself so small when you resort to namecalling.


No, preaching about sky daddy to the "infidels" on a science site does that. Fucking mote.
chileastro
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2016
obama_socks 1.3 /5 (16)

[spew, jism, crap, vomit and other excrementia]


It would be nice if your mother could be involved in seeing that you got an education, but then she'd have to take a moment out from sucking off street guys. Is that why you like Jeebus? Because he fucked whores? Talk about kinky. His mama did pigeons.
jim_xanara
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2016
There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.

This is why they troll science sites. If I can make any pronouncement- even if it is truly heartfelt- there can be no consensus. This is why they hate climate change theories. Reeks of consensus. They hate groups because they're perennial outsiders. OK. Losers.
humy
not rated yet Mar 18, 2016
@humy

Venus does have a magnetic field it's just not generated internally. The solar winds interaction with the atmosphere and create an ionosphere that helps keep venus's atmosphere from being blasted off at a rapid rate.


That confirms my hypothesis that Mars didn't loose its atmosphere because it has a weak magnetic field.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2016

Red shift have nothing to do with the fictional expansions of the universe.

viko_mx

That statement shows you have no idea what causes the red shift .
The red shift proves that distant galaxies are moving away from us and that the universe is expanding.

The space can not expand because is not physical but geometric object.
..
Doppler effect manifest only in a static environment


How would you know this?
Have you studied physics at university like I have?
You are speaking from a position of complete ignorance.

humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2016
One of the properties of waves is to fade away with time and traveled path since they gradually give their energy to the physical environment in which propagating. This explain intuitively the observed red shift of light

viko_mx

No it doesn't.
1, the vacuum of space doesn't cause waves to "fade away". There is no known physical effect that would account for that.
2, you have given no explanation why light from distant galaxies has MORE, not less, red and infrared light, but does have less blue light.
Why has the red light not only not 'faded' but been apparently amplified at the expense of blue light!?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2016
"1, the vacuum of space doesn't cause waves to "fade away". There is no known physical effect that would account for that."

Is this scientific fact or inconsistent with rearlity declaration besed on wishfull thinking?

"2, you have given no explanation why light from distant galaxies has MORE, not less, red and infrared light, but does have less blue light."

Electromagnetic waves caming from the different sources in the universe have very different frequency and spectrum. Radio waves, Infrared, visible light, ultaviolet, x rаys, gama rays.
So whats bodder you? The problem is that scientist do not know what is the source of this electromagnetic waves. They can only guess.

Do not forget as I mansion in previous post that doppler effects manifest only in static environment. So if light source is moving away for the observer the light frequensy will drop in relation to it speed.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2016
If light source is approaching the observer, the frequency of emmited from it light will increase. This can be observed in the large rotating cosmic matterial structures as galaxies with significant circumferential speed.
humy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2016
"2, you have given no explanation why light from distant galaxies has MORE, not less, red and infrared light, but does have less blue light."

Electromagnetic waves caming from the different sources in the universe have very different frequency and spectrum. Radio waves, Infrared, visible light, ultaviolet, x rаys, gama rays.

-which is completely irrelevant to explanation why light from distant galaxies has MORE, not less, red and infrared light.

The problem is that scientist do not know what is the source of this electromagnetic waves.

False. We know perfectly well what the sources of light are. Stars are the most obvious example. And you just completely logically contradicted you previous statement of "..Electromagnetic waves caming from the different sources in the universe have " since logically we cannot possibly know that light comes from different sources if we have no idea what the sources of light are.

humy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2016
"1, the vacuum of space doesn't cause waves to "fade away". There is no known physical effect that would account for that."

Is this scientific fact

Yes.
humy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2016
The problem is that scientist do not know what is the source of this electromagnetic waves. They can only guess.

viko_mx

So we don't know that light comes from stars and we are "only guessing"?
Next time you get a chance, just look at our nearest star, the sun, and observe whether you can observe light from it and then come back to us.
Thirteenth Doctor
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2016
@humy

Dont waste any more time on Viko. He/she refuses to accept any evidence or explanations given to him/her EVEN while asking for it.

He asks the same questions that clearly demonstrate that he has ZERO knowledge about any of these subjects he comments on. And that he has no intention on learning the answers to his questions, even though he knows that they are there.

He once told me he would bring scientific evidence of creation. He never answered my questions and told me that I was "getting nervous" LOL.
Thirteenth Doctor
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2016
I remember when I was about 14 and VERY ignorant of science in general, but of cosmology, physics, and biology (evolution in general). I asked the same questions, not because I was curious but because I had religious bias and thought I had "gotcha" moments by asking what Viko asks.

That lasted until I decided to actually try and understand exactly what those subjects were explaining and I stripped away my religious bias so that I could fully understand. Best decision I have ever made in my life.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2016
"False. We know perfectly well what the sources of light are. Stars are the most obvious example."

Starts are only one of light sources. But the most easily detectable and luminous light sources are quasars with different principle of action. There are others sources too.
When cosmologists observe galaxies, they do not see individual stars of their composition, so do not know from where comes light with a specific spectrum. Therefore they do not know what is exactly it source and only can guess and extrapolate. In practice, the universe is unknowable to us if we observe it only from the Earth. The microcosmos, the world of building block of matter is unknowable too. In fact people have very limited opportunities on Earth and this has serious moral reason.

Thirteenth Doctor
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2016
When cosmologists observe galaxies, they do not see individual stars of their composition, so do not know from where comes light with a specific spectrum.


WTF is this statement????

https://en.wikipe...troscopy
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2016
WTF is this statement????

https://en.wikipe...troscopy

@Thirteen
you will enjoy this youtube series
https://www.youtu...5829426D

i wonder why viko doesn't try to make video's supporting his creationist stupidity on YT?
(not really... but it would be funny if he tried to take on an actual scientists like Thunderf00t though! at least we would be able to get a huge laugh at him... more than what we get here even!)

LMFAO
Thirteenth Doctor
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2016
you will enjoy this youtube series
https://www.youtu...5829426D


I so glad you linked this. I will watch the rest at home because this is great stuff! Viko needs to make a video and I hope it would be in his broken English.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2016
I so glad you linked this. I will watch the rest at home because this is great stuff! Viko needs to make a video and I hope it would be in his broken English.
@Thirteen
You're welcome
yeah, there is an hour long plus video where he gets into a conversation with one idiot religious fanatic Hovind - retard count thru the roof! LOL
https://www.youtu...fsHsVGNg

his site has some great stuff, like the Coulumb force explosion vids
https://www.youtu...AYnFF_s8

which lead to his study (Dr. Phil Mason = Thunderf00t)
http://www.nature...161.html

ENJOY
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2016
The obtrusive aggression of atheists in this forum living in sin, comes from their inner contradiction between the desire to be on the side of the powerful of the day, which is quite transient state and their internal doubts that they have chosen the wrong side, because they see that their agrumenits have no scientific value but adjuratory character. Like a man convinced of God's creation I am calm about my choice and atitude because I know that all scientific facts are helpfull for me, well know them and easily can argumenmt my position. I have always been puzzled by the blindness of religious atheists raised with communist materialistic worldview to be good consumers part of the mamonic system and to hope that the science and the technology will solve all their severe problems caused by spiritual poverty and lawlessness.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2016
@ All the above positors of Commentary:

You're all a bunch of groupie neophyte aficionados who imagine your IQs jump 50 points because you're so adept at your usual name calling routines.

All of you, go sit in a classroom & undergo the rigors of a Calculus course if you think you're so much smarter than everybody with whom you disagree here. Then go on to actually study Einstein's SR & GR, rather than depend on links to other websites where even most of those authors never put up the actual expository calculations from those studies because those authors get such a kick out of pandering to a bunch of 6th grade level pop-science aficionados like all of you.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2016
Life forms don't arise from dead matter, even randomly.
you do realise how stupid this sounds right... especially considering that you are literally made out of "dead" material


YOU are fixated on life coming out of "dead" material. Perhaps your father's sperm and your mother's egg were dead material, eh? Yep, that must be it.

ever hear of organic chemistry?


The KEY word is "ORGANIC". Life IS organic.

Life did not "emerge",... It was CREATED.
oh, i gotta see the empirical evidence for this


The evidence is all around, wherever there is life. The presence of life IS the evidence, fool.

don't forget to make sure it is in a peer reviewed journal
Search clay dna
you know, you never did link the study that showed where clay had DNA at all...
- Stump/Otto

The rocks in your head preventing you from googling "clay dna"?
Here, I'll give you one, free of charge
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
Here's three:

https://www.scien...2027.htm

http://www.news.c...ned-clay

http://www.ncbi.n...16719099

"Adsorption, desorption, and degradation by nucleases of DNA on four different colloidal fractions from a Brown soil and clay minerals were studied."

"...to determine the protection mechanism of DNA molecules by soil colloids and minerals against enzymatic degradation. Kaolinite exhibited the highest adsorption affinity for DNA among the examined soil colloids and clay minerals. In comparison with organomineral complexes (organic clays), DNA was tightly adsorbed by H2O2-treated clays (inorganic clays)."
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
"False. We know perfectly well what the sources of light are. Stars are..."

Starts are only one of light sources. But the most easily detectable and luminous light sources are quasars with different principle of action. There are others sources too.
When cosmologists observe galaxies, they do not see individual stars of their composition, so do not know from where comes light with a specific spectrum. Therefore they do not know what is exactly it source and only can guess and extrapolate. In practice, the universe is unknowable to us if we observe it only from the Earth. The microcosmos, the world of building block of matter is unknowable too. In fact people have very limited opportunities on Earth and this has serious moral reason.
- Viko

Viko_mx is Theghostofotto1923. Otto goes into its sock puppetry to make fools of you atheists and agnostics who feel offended when Otto puts on its phony Creationist act. Just like the phony Cajun accent in Otto's puppet, Uncle Ira.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2016
Ya wow, the fundamentalists came running into this article.
- Antonaccio

What fundamentalists? Where?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
-continued-

-I just thought of another problem with the hypothesis that Mars has a thin atmosphere mainly because it lacks a magnetic field and not because of lack of gravity:

Venus is CLOSER to the sun than the Earth thus is exposed to MORE solar wind and yet has virtually NO magnetic field protecting its atmosphere and yet it has a THICK atmosphere!
Therefore, if Mars has a thin atmosphere because it lacks a magnetic field, then why on earth doesn't Venus have a thin atmosphere for the same reason!?
- humy
Probably for the simple reason that Venus wasn't meant as a home for life forms, but Earth and Mars are.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2016
. It was CREATED. Life forms don't arise from dead matter, even randomly. Scientists are attempting to do the impossible, that is, to create life out of something that was not previously alive. It will never happen. Creation IS science.


I think you meant lifeless instead of dead, but don't mind a foreigner being slightly pedantic over semantics. - vlaaing peerd

NO...I MEANT DEAD MATTER...NOT LIFELESS.

obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016
"Let's talk logic instead. So if I follow you correctly, life was created from previously living material and not lifeless material, in other words, life wasn't created, because it already existed(?)"
- vlaaing peerd

No...you haven't followed me "correctly" and you have attempted to change what I've said. Before the Creation, there was NO living matter anywhere. Life WAS created....by God the Creator in the first Genesis of which there were two. Before that Creation, the Earth was devoid of any life.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
https://www.scien...2027.htm
@obutthead
STRIKE ONE
besides the fact that this is an article, NOT a study... it says "chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work"... it in no way says that Clay has "DNA", so NO, you never did link the study that showed where clay had DNA
http://www.news.c...ned-clay
STRIKE TWO
it says the same thing as above - and it is also an article, NOT a study
http://www.ncbi.n...16719099
STRIKE THREE
Ok, at least this one is a study.. but... it says the exact same thing as the above two
The information obtained in this study is of fundamental significance for the understanding of the behavior of extracellular DNA in soil environment
SO...where is the Clay genome, obutthead?
How can we compare our DNA to the DNA of clay without a genome you claim exists?

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
LMFAO
The KEY word is "ORGANIC". Life IS organic...
I MEANT DEAD MATTER...NOT LIFELESS
@oTROLLINGsocks
so, now all organic material is alive?
wow... i didn't know that... i better let someone know about that so you can go collect your Nobel !

don't forget to publish that paper so you can collect... i can't wait to see all that evidence... along with the evidence that we're created and not evolved !!!

Thanks!
What fundamentalists? Where?
you are the fundie... when you place your religious beliefs before the evidence you are a fundamentalist (and a few other choice ad hominem's too)

well, literacy aint your strong point, so i can understand why you didn't understand that one
LMFAO
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2016
I've never been able to figure out why cretinists think humans are made out of "special matter" when their bodies are made from $1.98 worth of chemicals that can be found in dirt.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.

This is why they troll science sites. If I can make any pronouncement- even if it is truly heartfelt- there can be no consensus. This is why they hate climate change theories. Reeks of consensus. They hate groups because they're perennial outsiders. OK. Losers.
jim_xanara

It isn't the so-called "climate change" fallacy that is hated. It's the fact that these climate change "authorities" have an ulterior motive and climate change (changed from "global warming") is just a ruse to facilitate the theft of great amounts of money from American taxpayers to line the pockets of those authorities and the little tinhorn despots who rule third-world countries. The poor people of those countries will never SEE that money or its benefits.
And WHY are these climate change authorities STILL flying around in big jet-fuel guzzling airplanes. Instead of flying over oceans, etc. they should use a sailboat with no engine.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
I've never been able to figure out why cretinists think humans are made out of "special matter" when their bodies are made from $1.98 worth of chemicals that can be found in dirt.

- Da Schneib
Notice how Da StumpDump twists my words around like the fat-assed liar that it is? Lots of people have noticed that already. It's a form of Nazi propaganda in order to indoctrinate those who don't know much about Stumpy/Otto's MO, so that they will see Stumpy/Otto as their savior, and eventually their "master" in this site.

See, that's what your problem is. You regard humans as nothing more than just a bunch of chemicals not even worth 2 bucks. With an attitude like that, no WONDER you reject the idea that mankind can have a higher purpose of a different nature than living under the impression that they are nothing more than the dirt on which they walk. I wouldn't want to be in YOUR shoes. Or StumpyDumpy's either. I don't envy you. I feel sorry for you b/c I KNOW what you are.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2016
It isn't the so-called "climate change" fallacy that is hated. It's the fact that these climate change "authorities" have an ulterior motive and climate change (changed from "global warming") is just a ruse to facilitate the theft of great amounts of money from American taxpayers to line the pockets of those authorities and the little tinhorn despots who rule third-world countries.
If you want to know why most of us don't buy your conspiracy theory it's because you ignore the real conspiracy-- the conspiracy *fact*-- to hide the inconvenient truth, by and for the rich and powerful.

You are a shill. Whether it's unwitting or not is a matter of opinion, but that you are is a matter of fact, and is proven by your continuing defense of a position that has been thoroughly debunked.

climate change authorities STILL flying around in big jet-fuel guzzling airplanes
Because if anything's going to get done, it has to be done quickly.

This is duh.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
Meanwhile, we are on the verge of creating artificial life. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are people who post on this site who would argue we *already have*.

As far as artificial intelligence, we're within grasping distance of it, once the people working on it figure out that you have to teach an intelligence just like you have to teach a child. We're within a couple orders of magnitude of having capable enough hardware; at this point, what's needed is a colloquium on how to grow the software, and then there will be artificial personalities.

There isn't any magic. A newborn baby is a tabula rasa, with certain inbuilt capabilities, no more. Its first education is how to sense its world, and how to manipulate it.

There isn't any magic. A newly divided cell is a tabula rasa, with certain inbuilt capabilities, no more. Its first education is how to sense its world, and how to manipulate it.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2016
Da Schneib:

I've never been able to figure out why cretinists think humans are made out of "special matter" when their bodies are made from $1.98 worth of chemicals that can be found in dirt.


.......talk about proof there is resurrection from the dead, you're it.

Next sunday morning should be devoted to your vast wisdom for the existence of the "great invisible, with yourself leading the congregation of the faithful in bowing down to the faith based teachings of zany Zwicky's invisible DM Cosmic Fairy Dust. Your throne will be located where? On top of El Stumpo's fire truck?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
It isn't the so-called "climate change" fallacy that is hated. It's the fact that these climate change "authorities" have an ulterior motive and climate change (changed from "global warming") is just a ruse to facilitate the theft of great amounts of money from...
If you want to know why most of us don't buy your conspiracy theory it's because you ignore the real conspiracy-- the conspiracy *fact*-- to hide the inconvenient truth, by and for the rich and powerful.

... and is proven by your continuing defense of a position that has been thoroughly debunked.

climate change authorities STILL flying around in big jet-fuel guzzling airplanes
Because if anything's going to get done, it has to be done quickly.
- Da Schneib
You defend your stance poorly. You are OBSESSED with the rich and their wealth. Power doesn't always come from being wealthy but you wouldn't know that. So you are defending those who want to take that wealth away & redistribute it...to WHO?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
(cont'd)
"climate change authorities STILL flying around in big jet-fuel guzzling airplanes"

"Because if anything's going to get done, it has to be done quickly." - Da Schneib

That is plain horse manure. Your Climate Change authorities have no intention of EVER giving up their ability to STILL be flying around in big jet-fuel guzzling airplanes & helicopters...even LONG AFTER the use of fossil fuels is banned under severe penalties. You're dreaming, Pollyanna.

IF your CC authorities were genuinely interested in averting global warming, they would have had to become a good example to everyone else. They would have had to remove EVERY DROP OF OIL AND GASOLINE FROM THEIR VEHICLES. They also would have suspended their own use of ALL PLASTICS BECAUSE ALL FORMS OF PLASTICS ARE DERIVED FROM OIL.

So, it comes down to "DO AS WE SAY, BUT DON'T DO AS WE DO". Your CC authorities are lying pieces of shitt, and they prove it over and over again.
LET THE INNOCENT CAST THE FIRST STONE.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2016
Hey torbjorn:
The arxiv article speculates on that a magnetic field is necessary (or good), but doesn't quantify it. We don't even know when Earth's magnetic field kicked in...
Hmmmm, I think maybe you might be a bit out of the loop on geology: http://science.sc...970/1238

There is evidence that the geomagnetic field existed 3.45 billion years ago; we know it has to have kicked in before that. These guys are even talking about the effects on the atmosphere when the Sun was more active than it is today.

Consilience FTW.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
Meanwhile, we are on the verge of creating artificial life.
As far as artificial intelligence, we're within grasping distance of it, once the people working on it figure out that you have to teach an intelligence just like you have to teach a child.


[qThere isn't any magic. A newborn baby is a tabula rasa, with certain inbuilt capabilities, no more. Its first education is how to sense its world, and how to manipulate it.

There isn't any magic. A newly divided cell is a tabula rasa, with certain inbuilt capabilities, no more. Its first education is how to sense its world, and how to manipulate it. - Da Schneib

Thanks for the pleonasm. As to a newborn baby's instinctive awareness of what s/he needs, it's called a "survival" instinct. All intelligent life forms have it. But even an amoeba will instinctively flee from danger or move toward its food.

AI with programmed intelligence will instinctively protect and defend itself...even against man.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016
Hey torbjorn:
The arxiv article speculates on that a magnetic field is necessary (or good), but doesn't quantify it. We don't even know when Earth's magnetic field kicked in...
Hmmmm, I think maybe you might be a bit out of the loop on geology: http://science.sc...970/1238

There is evidence that the geomagnetic field existed 3.45 billion years ago; we know it has to have kicked in before that. These guys are even talking about the effects on the atmosphere when the Sun was more active than it is today.

Consilience FTW.
Da Schneib
Agreed. It is only logical that a strong mag field was inherent to, and in, the formation of early Earth. Evidence is that the Earth's core is still hot, even after 4 billion +- years.
BTW, very early life forms in the waters of Earth were protected from the UV effects from the Sun by having been adsorped into wet/damp clay.
http://www.news.c...ned-clay
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016
The arxiv article speculates on that a magnetic field is necessary (or good), but doesn't quantify it. We don't even know when Earth's magnetic field kicked in...

**********
@FJ: "It implies quite clearly that life arose from dead materials".

Of course, how else? And we have strong evidence: the early Earth was accreted without life (not a planet yet, no atmosphere, too hot, et cetera), today there is life. Hence life emerged on Earth. (I note the remaining of your comment "is a pseudo scientific statement because it has no observational evidence to support it", so I don't need to respond to your magic superstition. What is that crap doing on a science site anyway?)
- torbjorn_b_g_larsson
LMAO What an opportunistic leech torbjorn-b-g really is. Taking Fred Jose's words out of context in order to deflect from the true meaning of what Fred Jose actually said, is SO deceptive and irresponsible in a website that is supposedly all about Truth. Typical GhostofOtto follower.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2016
As to a newborn baby's instinctive awareness of what s/he needs, it's called a "survival" instinct.
You obviously have never actually seen or dealt with a newborn baby.

AI with programmed intelligence will instinctively protect and defend itself...even against man.
Only if pre-programmed to do so, and only as programmed. It doesn't sound like you know much more about computers than you do about newborn babies.

Evidence is that the Earth's core is still hot, even after 4 billion +- years.
Thought you believed the Earth was created ca. 6000 years ago. Not much of a fundie, are you, given you don't believe in the Babble.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2016

No...you haven't followed me "correctly" and you have attempted to change what I've said. Before the Creation, there was NO living matter anywhere. Life WAS created....by God the Creator in the first Genesis of which there were two. Before that Creation, the Earth was devoid of any life.


oowwwww ouch. Sorry, I usually don't have these discussions with European Christians, this "science vs bible" seems really an American thing. It must be difficult rhyming reality with what's written.

But honestly, I wasn't trying to change what you've said, I was trying to take it as literally as possible.

And if you insist going into semantics, if your God indeed created life out of stuff that wasn't alive before, that would be "lifeless" material and not dead. "Dead" implies it was alive before.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2016
"And if you insist going into semantics, if your God indeed created life out of stuff that wasn't alive before, that would be "lifeless" material and not dead. "Dead" implies it was alive before."
- vlaaing peerd
No. Dead means dead; lifeless indicates something was alive previously. Dead matter explains all matter that had/has no life whatsoever and never had. The term "dead world" indicates a world without life. Mars is termed "lifeless" b/c it may have had life previously. You are mistaking the DEATH of something that was previously alive, with something that has NEVER had life at all, such as rocks and dust brought back from the Moon.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2016
Dead means dead; lifeless indicates something was alive previously. Dead matter explains all matter that had/has no life whatsoever and never had
yeah, like lipids, methane, carbon, peptides and sugars...
you know, organic chemistry?
... what you are made of?
the positively dead material that makes up your life which never was alive?

yep. you are "created" out of dead stuff, despite your claims
that the first man was endowed with life by that first "breath" from the Creator
so... why aren't your organic materials alive?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2016
""I've never been able to figure out why cretinists think humans are made out of "special matter" when their bodies are made from $1.98 worth of chemicals that can be found in dirt."

Your forget the invisible component of life. Without the breath of life the from the Creator, the life is impasible even in a body in perfect health.
People have very limited senses about the world in which they live. Many of processes and physical phenomenas stay hidden from them. God will not give more capabilities except needed for the survival, if people can not take resposibility for their actions.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2016
Your forget the invisible component of life.


In another article, you boast about scientists and their ridiculous invisible DM and yet there is this statement.

God will not give more capabilities except needed for the survival


God given capabilities of survival is genocide, rape and pillage. This is his preferred method.
Thirteenth Doctor
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2016
Many of processes and physical phenomenas stay hidden from them.


We have an entire period that we ascribe to willful ignorance such as this. Can you guess? (pssssttt......it was very Dark time for the Ages)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.