🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 21:33:32 UTC No. 16212485
>Carbon detected in galaxy observed 350m years after big bang
So is this a big deal?
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 21:38:09 UTC No. 16212495
>>16212485
That's how aliens can detect life on Earth.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 02:14:30 UTC No. 16212871
probably not
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 02:17:38 UTC No. 16212876
>>16212485
>omg guys a galaxy has... CARBON in it! it's a super rare element,, most galaxies probably don't have any!
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 04:55:41 UTC No. 16213091
>>16212485
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-galax
so basically I'm gonna paraphrase this fucking article, you can read just read it yourself though.
>big deal
sort of. We thought stars in the early universe wouldn't have heavier elements like carbon because the universe started out with just hydrogen and helium. Carbon wouldn't be there because it wouldn't have had time to form from fusion burning hydrogen and helium in stars. It's a bit spooky though, because carbon and heavier elements forming so early in the universe means life could have gotten started way earlier. Life getting started way earlier means spooky shit like Lovecraftian Elder Gods aren't implausible.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 05:05:00 UTC No. 16213093
>>16212485
Why is this special? Stars create heavy elements from hydrogen.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 05:18:28 UTC No. 16213100
>>16212485
Everything really far away is interpreted by inference upon inference upon inference. Nobody really knows exactly what they're looking at. They just want the photons to fit into the prevailing models and narratives.
We can just say there was more deuterium and dark matter or some other recipe for boosting carbon production and tweak the initial values until some model agrees with the data.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:16:48 UTC No. 16213366
>>16213091
Aliens dont exist and you're retarded. The chances of a single protein forming under perfection conditions is 1 in 10^174. The chance of any life forming is 1 in 10^44,000. No chance that could happen in even a trillion years of the universe existing. Abiogenesis is complete nonsense and total pseudo-science. Materialist need to be re-educated.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:18:40 UTC No. 16213368
>>16213100
>They just want the photons to fit into the prevailing models and narratives.
and that is why half of all the science we "know" is a steaming pile of horse shit.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:23:53 UTC No. 16213376
>>16213091
>Life getting started way earlier means spooky shit like Lovecraftian Elder Gods aren't implausible
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:31:05 UTC No. 16213474
life began in the time when the entire universe was temperate. far more room for it to begin than on planet islands.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:26:02 UTC No. 16217145
>>16213368
Why is your braindead chart trying to conflate evolution with abiogenesis? They're two completely distinct concepts.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:30:35 UTC No. 16217171
>>16213366
>The chances of a single protein forming under perfection conditions is 1 in 10^174. The chance of any life forming is 1 in 10^44,000.
These figures are completely made up, btw.
>Abiogenesis is complete nonsense and total pseudo-science.
It's more plausible than the universe being created by magic, which is what you believe.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 09:15:04 UTC No. 16219141
>>16217171
>These figures are completely made up, btw.
No they're not. You're off to a really bad start when your first claim is "you're lying!!!1one"
>There are 26 physics constants in our universe. These constants have the precise numbers for life. The thing is, numbers are infinite. So, the probability of A constant having the right value for life is 1/∞.
>Thus, the chance of having a universe optimal for life is 1/∞26 which basically is equal to zero.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_
>It's more plausible than the universe being created by magic, which is what you believe.
No it's not plausible because it is mathematically impossible.
>universe being created by magic, which is what you believe.
No one said that and you're also strawmanning. You've lost the debate before it even started.
>>16217145
Macro evolution could happen without abiogenesis if there is Telos.
Most evolutionist believe in abiogen which takes a lot of faith to believe in since it is mathematically impossible.
Macro evolution has many things that refute it but little to no evidence to support it. You're a dogmatist and brainwashed.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 09:16:24 UTC No. 16219143
>>16213376
>>16219141
Le spooky monster alien god is more plausiable than God xDDD
more retarded than panspermia nonsense which serves as a rescuing device that only kicks the can down the road.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 09:18:34 UTC No. 16219145
>>16213366
>>16213368
>>16213376
>>16217145
notice how the chuds had no actual argument? evolutionist and materialist will be remembered as ignorant morons.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:34:57 UTC No. 16219897
>>16219141
>No one said that and you're also strawmanning.
You do believe the universe was created by magic, you're just too much of a coward to admit it.
>macro evolution
Not a real concept. There's no "macro" or "micro" evolution, there's just evolution.
>Most evolutionist believe in abiogen
Even if that is the case, evolution doesn't describe the origin of life. It explains diversity of life. Criticism of abiogenesis is not a criticism of evolution.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:38:11 UTC No. 16219906
>>16219143
>Le spooky monster alien god is more plausiable than God
True. Spooky monster aliens are at least falsifiable, unlike God, who exists entirely as a philosophical question and not as anything measurable in the natural universe.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:46:19 UTC No. 16219926
>>16213366
>we dont know ToE
>implying we can tell probabilities fundamentals
lmao keep believing in sointist church
Artemis3 at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:01:20 UTC No. 16220445
>>16212485
It proves the Big Bang is just a circular gang bang of scientists pumping each other's asses for accreditation and consensus.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:17:09 UTC No. 16220473
>>16212485
Not until they find 2 more in a similar or younger universe age range. Ie within a 250-350My block of time. One is simply an event, an oddity worth validating through secondary and tertiary confirmation. If they find 3, then that's a pattern and then they need to study more and find more candidates so that total discoveries are outside the margin of error. Once it gets to that point, it's a big fucking deal. Until then, it's a "interesting, let's observe some more."
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:38:14 UTC No. 16220520
>>16213474
underrated
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:39:30 UTC No. 16220524
>>16219897
>Criticism of abiogenesis is not a criticism of evolution.
based and actchually pilled