ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,10:46) | | Quote | | Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years. |
Mmmm ... I actually think it does, when you consider the time required for the planet to cool, the right chemical to collect in all the little pools, the first amino acids to spontaneously form proteins, etc., etc. How about it? Someone besides Eric. Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this this? |
Nope, actually it doesn't, Dave. The oldest known fossils (bacterial mats called stromatolites) are approximately 3.8 billion years old. Let's say the first life on the planet is 200 million years older than that. Some evolutionary biologists believe life could have arisen as little as a few hundred million years after the earth formed. And there was essentially no other life on the planet for almost another three billion years after that.
But none of this helps your young-earth hypothesis, Dave, and all of it hurts it. We already know it would take almost a hundred million years for the earth to cooled from a completely molten state to a point where liquid water could exist at the surface. How does your "hypothesis" explain the earth cooling to the point where Adam could walk around on it in less than a week?
Yet another question you've never even acknowledged, Dave, let alone answered, which brings us to…
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
