First Earth Like Planet Confirmed!!!

[The_Exile]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655

Knew this was coming for a while but amazing to read, what a discovery!!! 23 degrees centigrade, positivel balmy.

[Gatecrasher]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655

Knew this was coming for a while but amazing to read, what a discovery!!! 23 degrees centigrade, positivel balmy.

nice one, maybe we can head there when this planets done :thumbsup:

[Jack]

I thought this would be the first, you know, the one we're on!

That would be the second. :-P

[Eyrie]

We'd better hope there's intelligent life on Keppler 22-b, because there's none on this planet :wink:

However the odds on us ever meeting intelligent life (as we would recognise it) are vanishingly small, simply because of the timescales involved. Earth has been around for 4.5bn years, yet it's only in the last few thousand years that humans have evolved from hunter-gatherers to exploring space so where will we be in another million years? Life could have evolved on another planet and ceased by now, or have only reached the stage of the Cambrian explosion. That is even before we consider the problems of how to cross the distances involved if the speed of light is indeed the limit.

[PeeJay]

I thought this would be the first, you know, the one we're on!

That would be the second. :-P
Think it is the first: we're not "Earth-like", we're Earth:agree:

[RyeSloan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655

Knew this was coming for a while but amazing to read, what a discovery!!! 23 degrees centigrade, positivel balmy.

Totally agree....I find it amazing we can identify planets over 600m light years away.

And although these distances are almost beyond comprehension just now I'm sure someone like Galileo would have been thinking the same same about the Kepler telescope so the more we find and the more we discover the more it will drive ingenuity and progress!

[The_Exile]

This kind of stuff just absolutely blows my mind, it's been coming for the past couple of years, it's just a waiting game due to distances and observations etc, the first thing the missus asked me last night...."so will there be people there" :greengrin aye hen, it's where Hearts supporters come from.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16040655

Knew this was coming for a while but amazing to read, what a discovery!!! 23 degrees centigrade, positivel balmy.

Anyone know on which day god made this one?

:tin hat:

[Andy74]

Anyone know on which day god made this one?

:tin hat:

I'll ask some of my mates in Alabama. I'm sure they will have a view. :greengrin

[The_Exile]

The 12th of Never.

[Twa Cairpets]

Anyone know on which day god made this one?

:tin hat:

That was a practice one, which is why He's chucked it so far away.

[HibsMax]

Even if we could get there, I wonder what we would use for fuel, assuming there was no previous life on such a planet?

[Mixu62]

This kind of stuff just absolutely blows my mind, it's been coming for the past couple of years, it's just a waiting game due to distances and observations etc, the first thing the missus asked me last night...."so will there be people there" :greengrin aye hen, it's where Hearts supporters come from.

I hear our pink friends have already submitted a planning application for an out of town community stadium there.

[sleeping giant]

Anyone know on which day god made this one?

:tin hat:

The first day ! He created the heavens and the Earth on day one.

[sleeping giant]

Even if we could get there, I wonder what we would use for fuel, assuming there was no previous life on such a planet?

Dont even think that they could possibly consider using fossil fuels max . Considering the price per litre at the moment :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Even if we could get there, I wonder what we would use for fuel, assuming there was no previous life on such a planet?

Well the technology already exists to make rocket fuel on Mars using just the martian atmosphere so this will probably be one of the easier challenges to overcome...after we have travelled the 600m light years of course :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

The first day ! He created the heavens and the Earth on day one.

Ah, but he doesnt say anything about the other inhabitable planets.

[sleeping giant]

Ah, but he doesnt say anything about the other inhabitable planets.

Maybe they made them later :dunno:

I'm not a god worrier TC but i'm open minded about creation and give the same credence to some higher intellect creating this vast expanse of wonderfulness as i do to it exploding out of nothing. Nothing ! Thats a brain buster if ever there was one. How can there be nothing ?:greengrin

[The_Exile]

The most popular theory is that there was a singularity, a tiny one at that, possibly/probably (not definitely!) the size of a sub-atomic particle (ie, quite wee), so it's possible that time did exist before the big bang as there would have had to have been a process taking place within that singularity for the big bang to happen. For how long and to what extent, again, nobody really 100% knows for sure.

Usually hear a lot of religous folk saying (no aimed at you SG, just a common occurance!) "what happened before the big bang" whyich nobody can answer with certainty, but they do struggle to answer when then asked "well what happened before god?", truth is nobody knows, the end :greengrin

[sleeping giant]

The most popular theory is that there was a singularity, a tiny one at that, possibly/probably (not definitely!) the size of a sub-atomic particle (ie, quite wee), so it's possible that time did exist before the big bang as there would have had to have been a process taking place within that singularity for the big bang to happen. For how long and to what extent, again, nobody really 100% knows for sure.

Usually hear a lot of religous folk saying (no aimed at you SG, just a common occurance!) "what happened before the big bang" whyich nobody can answer with certainty, but they do struggle to answer when then asked "well what happened before god?", truth is nobody knows, the end :greengrin

Mate , i'm not religious. I just don't discount a creator.

I hope most folk would ask what happened before the big bang whether they were religious or not.

Anyway , i'm making the tea just now. Will come back to this later.
Love these threads:greengrin

[SRHibs]

Maybe they made them later :dunno:

I'm not a god worrier TC but i'm open minded about creation and give the same credence to some higher intellect creating this vast expanse of wonderfulness as i do to it exploding out of nothing. Nothing ! Thats a brain buster if ever there was one. How can there be nothing ?:greengrin

Well that's ridiculous, considering there's no scientific evidence to support creationism. :confused:

[sleeping giant]

Well that's ridiculous, considering there's no scientific evidence to support creationism. :confused:

Yet !

[HibsMax]

Well the technology already exists to make rocket fuel on Mars using just the martian atmosphere so this will probably be one of the easier challenges to overcome...after we have travelled the 600m light years of course :greengrin

I didn't know that but I think there a huge difference between creating rocket fuel and enough fuel to cater to the needs of a very greedy planet.

[SRHibs]

Yet !

?

Evolution is proven. Any evidence for creationism would be in direct conflict with Darwin's theory. There's no 'yet'. Creationism is a crock of ****.

[sleeping giant]

?

Evolution is proven. Any evidence for creationism would be in direct conflict with Darwin's theory. There's no 'yet'. Creationism is a crock of ****.

You're obviously more knowledgeable than me about Darwin but was Darwin not all about evolution of the species. If so , wtf are you talking about ??

We we're talking about the point before anything existed.

You don't believe that some higher intelligence created the universe , good for you. Neither do i !! I just don't discount it.

Why would a creator of the universe be in conflict with the theory of human evolution ?

Why do you assume that any creator of the universe had humans in mind when and if he was fashioning this existence ?


There is always a "yet". Surely , you being "scientific" have to acknowledge that :confused:

[--------]

We'd better hope there's intelligent life on Keppler 22-b, because there's none on this planet :wink:

However the odds on us ever meeting intelligent life (as we would recognise it) are vanishingly small, simply because of the timescales involved. Earth has been around for 4.5bn years, yet it's only in the last few thousand years that humans have evolved from hunter-gatherers to exploring space so where will we be in another million years? Life could have evolved on another planet and ceased by now, or have only reached the stage of the Cambrian explosion. That is even before we consider the problems of how to cross the distances involved if the speed of light is indeed the limit.


If there IS intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, I'm sure it's intelligent enough to keep well out of our way.

[SRHibs]

You're obviously more knowledgeable than me about Darwin but was Darwin not all about evolution of the species. If so , wtf are you talking about ??

We we're talking about the point before anything existed.

Well, you never corrected me when I mentioned creationism, so I assumed we were on the same page, and that we were talking about how everything came into existence - humans, plants, animals etc etc. The fact is though, that you're saying that you give the same credence to the Big Bang theory, as you do to the idea of a higher being 'creating this vast expanse of wonderfulness'. Well, we already know the latter is untrue. A higher being may have created the big bang, or set the wheels in motion anyway (unlikely, but you never know).



Why do you assume that any creator of the universe had humans in mind when and if he was fashioning this existence ?

Sorry?

There is always a "yet". Surely , you being "scientific" have to acknowledge that :confused:

?

How so? There's no 'yet' with creationism as a whole, because it's absolutely absurd.

[sleeping giant]

Well, you never corrected me when I mentioned creationism, so I assumed we were on the same page, and that we were talking about how everything came into existence - humans, plants, animals etc etc. The fact is though, that you're saying that you give the same credence to the Big Bang theory, as you do to the idea of a higher being 'creating this vast expanse of wonderfulness'. Well, we already know the latter is untrue. A higher being may have created the big bang, or set the wheels in motion anyway (unlikely, but you never know).




Sorry?


?

How so? There's no 'yet' with creationism as a whole, because it's absolutely absurd.

You are getting mixed up with "creationism" ie Kent Hovind etc and the start of the universe.

Just because someone states that they think the universe may have been created doesn't mean that that person thinks Jehova created it as is explained in the bible.
The universe could easily have been created by something that didn't even think that humans/life would develop. We may be a by product.

I'm not saying this is true by the way.
Whats to say that THIS universe did not start due to some experiment or accident.

I can never understand why scientific folk like yourself dismiss any other notion of creation apart from the big bang.

As far as i'm aware , the big bang theory is due to the expansion of the universe. Please correct me if i am wrong.
If i'm not wrong , then my problem with that is that the universe is expanding at THIS MOMENT in time. Who's to say its been expanding since creation.
I've heard theories that we have a trobbing universe. It expands and retracts due to gravity. When it retracts to the critical point where all matter is crammed together , it then explodes and expands again until gravity again takes hold and starts the retraction.

You can't just brush off any other ideas of how it all started.

As you are problably aware , i don't have the answers but my mind is not closed to other ideas like yours seems to be.

"The world is round "was ridiculed. Germ bearing diseases was ridiculed etc etc etc.

So for the last time , i'm NOT SAYING GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE but something else could well have.
Put it this way , something did !

[steakbake]

You are getting mixed up with "creationism" ie Kent Hovind etc and the start of the universe.

Just because someone states that they think the universe may have been created doesn't mean that that person thinks Jehova created it as is explained in the bible.
The universe could easily have been created by something that didn't even think that humans/life would develop. We may be a by product.

I'm not saying this is true by the way.
Whats to say that THIS universe did not start due to some experiment or accident.

I can never understand why scientific folk like yourself dismiss any other notion of creation apart from the big bang.

As far as i'm aware , the big bang theory is due to the expansion of the universe. Please correct me if i am wrong.
If i'm not wrong , then my problem with that is that the universe is expanding at THIS MOMENT in time. Who's to say its been expanding since creation.
I've heard theories that we have a trobbing universe. It expands and retracts due to gravity. When it retracts to the critical point where all matter is crammed together , it then explodes and expands again until gravity again takes hold and starts the retraction.

You can't just brush off any other ideas of how it all started.

As you are problably aware , i don't have the answers but my mind is not closed to other ideas like yours seems to be.

"The world is round "was ridiculed. Germ bearing diseases was ridiculed etc etc etc.

So for the last time , i'm NOT SAYING GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE but something else could well have.
Put it this way , something did !

Good post. As much as I don't believe that Jehovah created the world as explained in Genesis, neither do I think that we have evolved all the way to this point.

Evolution is, I think, a scientific fact in as much as it is an observable and measurable phenomenon when considering the variation of species and the development of them for the aim of survival. As to whether it fully explains our origins, I think it's the best theory we've got but to describe it as definitive is a bit too much of a claim.

Personally, there are all sorts of sources in Hinduism - particularly the Mahabarata and the Ramayama for example, which describe the rise and fall of at least four civilisations on earth which have reached similar levels of technology, science and knowledge to our own. In one case, arguably, the civilisation described was more technologically advanced than our own and destroyed itself in what seems like a nuclear war:.

"Dense arrows of flame, like a great shower, issued forth upon creation, encompassing the enemy....A thick gloom swiftly settled upon the Pandava hosts. All points of the compass were lost in darkness. Fierce winds began to blow. Clouds roared upward, showering dust and gravel.
"Birds croaked madly...the very elements seemed disturbed. The sun seemed to waver in the heavens. The earth shook, scorched by the terrible violent heat of this weapon. Elephants burst into flame and ran to and fro in a frenzy...over a vast area, other animals crumpled to the ground and died. From all points of the compass the arrows of flame rained continuously and fiercely."
"Gurkha, flying in his swift and powerful vimana [flying machine], hurled against the three cities of the Vrishnis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as the thousand suns rose in all its splendour...An iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas....The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; pottery broke without apparent cause, and the birds turned white....After a few hours all foodstuffs were infected.... To escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment..." - The Mahabharata.

The first translation of the book into English was in 1885 - long before our experiences of Hiroshima and the threat of nuclear warfare could be argued to bias the description. The original Sanskrit version was drawn together in the 8th Century from a number of far earlier sources, many of which it is argued by some, predate by hundreds of thousands of years, what we consider to be the dawn of our own civilisation around 5000 years ago.

I think it's worth just keeping an open mind because the fact of the matter is that none of us will probably ever really know and pretty much everything is up for grabs in some way or other.

[Lucius Apuleius]

The most popular theory is that there was a singularity, a tiny one at that, possibly/probably (not definitely!) the size of a sub-atomic particle (ie, quite wee), so it's possible that time did exist before the big bang as there would have had to have been a process taking place within that singularity for the big bang to happen. For how long and to what extent, again, nobody really 100% knows for sure.

Usually hear a lot of religous folk saying (no aimed at you SG, just a common occurance!) "what happened before the big bang" whyich nobody can answer with certainty, but they do struggle to answer when then asked "well what happened before god?", truth is nobody knows, the end :greengrin

In the beginning, God. Answer is therefore, nothing!!! :greengrin

[Andy74]

Good post. As much as I don't believe that Jehovah created the world as explained in Genesis, neither do I think that we have evolved all the way to this point.

Evolution is, I think, a scientific fact in as much as it is an observable and measurable phenomenon when considering the variation of species and the development of them for the aim of survival. As to whether it fully explains our origins, I think it's the best theory we've got but to describe it as definitive is a bit too much of a claim.

Personally, there are all sorts of sources in Hinduism - particularly the Mahabarata and the Ramayama for example, which describe the rise and fall of at least four civilisations on earth which have reached similar levels of technology, science and knowledge to our own. In one case, arguably, the civilisation described was more technologically advanced than our own and destroyed itself in what seems like a nuclear war:.

"Dense arrows of flame, like a great shower, issued forth upon creation, encompassing the enemy....A thick gloom swiftly settled upon the Pandava hosts. All points of the compass were lost in darkness. Fierce winds began to blow. Clouds roared upward, showering dust and gravel.
"Birds croaked madly...the very elements seemed disturbed. The sun seemed to waver in the heavens. The earth shook, scorched by the terrible violent heat of this weapon. Elephants burst into flame and ran to and fro in a frenzy...over a vast area, other animals crumpled to the ground and died. From all points of the compass the arrows of flame rained continuously and fiercely."
"Gurkha, flying in his swift and powerful vimana [flying machine], hurled against the three cities of the Vrishnis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as the thousand suns rose in all its splendour...An iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas....The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; pottery broke without apparent cause, and the birds turned white....After a few hours all foodstuffs were infected.... To escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment..." - The Mahabharata.

The first translation of the book into English was in 1885 - long before our experiences of Hiroshima and the threat of nuclear warfare could be argued to bias the description. The original Sanskrit version was drawn together in the 8th Century from a number of far earlier sources, many of which it is argued by some, predate by hundreds of thousands of years, what we consider to be the dawn of our own civilisation around 5000 years ago.

I think it's worth just keeping an open mind because the fact of the matter is that none of us will probably ever really know and pretty much everything is up for grabs in some way or other.

Why have we not found any evidence in the ground of technologies that existed previously ?

[steakbake]

Why have we not found any evidence in the ground of technologies that existed previously ?

I don't know - decay, rust? If you buried an ipod, how long do you think it would last? If our civilization was destroyed by nuclear heat, how much of it would be around in 100, 1000, 10,000 years?

Things like vitrified and scorched parts of the world - we have some here in Scotland (vitrified forts - where the heat on the stones has been enough to melt them). Ancient maps, diagrams in holy books of how to construct flying machines, ancient networks of pipes found in Baigong, China. There are things, but I think we just don't understand them and they are usually put forward as evidence way beyond their significance. Evidence of water erosion on the sphynx for example, would suggest it is much older than we currently rate it as given that the diluvian era w

Put it this way, we used to believe the oldest human skeleton we have is 125,000 years old. There is another, Ardi, which predates that by around a million years. It was found in 125 small fragments only very recently. I think we cannot really claim to know in any certainty, what prehistory or pre-CE (Common Era) history was like.

Beliefs is all we really have to go on. Creationism, evolution, interventionism - it's all stuff we've come up with in the last 2000 years or so to account for a human history which goes back over hundreds of thousands of years. Say for example, at the age of 30 you based your whole interpretation of your life up to that point on the basis of the last 2 years, then much of it would be based on what you had observed recently and the values you hold at that particular moment.

[Green Mikey]

Good post. As much as I don't believe that Jehovah created the world as explained in Genesis, neither do I think that we have evolved all the way to this point.

Evolution is, I think, a scientific fact in as much as it is an observable and measurable phenomenon when considering the variation of species and the development of them for the aim of survival. As to whether it fully explains our origins, I think it's the best theory we've got but to describe it as definitive is a bit too much of a claim.

Evolution is very strongly supported by empirical evidence. The advances in genetics and DNA since Darwins initial work has, in my opinion, created a nearly irrefutable case for evolution.

You say that we haven't evolved to this point. Why do you think that? There is plenty evidence available that traces the humna species back millions of years.


Personally, there are all sorts of sources in Hinduism - particularly the Mahabarata and the Ramayama for example, which describe the rise and fall of at least four civilisations on earth which have reached similar levels of technology, science and knowledge to our own. In one case, arguably, the civilisation described was more technologically advanced than our own and destroyed itself in what seems like a nuclear war:.

"Dense arrows of flame, like a great shower, issued forth upon creation, encompassing the enemy....A thick gloom swiftly settled upon the Pandava hosts. All points of the compass were lost in darkness. Fierce winds began to blow. Clouds roared upward, showering dust and gravel.
"Birds croaked madly...the very elements seemed disturbed. The sun seemed to waver in the heavens. The earth shook, scorched by the terrible violent heat of this weapon. Elephants burst into flame and ran to and fro in a frenzy...over a vast area, other animals crumpled to the ground and died. From all points of the compass the arrows of flame rained continuously and fiercely."
"Gurkha, flying in his swift and powerful vimana [flying machine], hurled against the three cities of the Vrishnis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as the thousand suns rose in all its splendour...An iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas....The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; pottery broke without apparent cause, and the birds turned white....After a few hours all foodstuffs were infected.... To escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment..." - The Mahabharata.

The first translation of the book into English was in 1885 - long before our experiences of Hiroshima and the threat of nuclear warfare could be argued to bias the description. The original Sanskrit version was drawn together in the 8th Century from a number of far earlier sources, many of which it is argued by some, predate by hundreds of thousands of years, what we consider to be the dawn of our own civilisation around 5000 years ago.

I think it's worth just keeping an open mind because the fact of the matter is that none of us will probably ever really know and pretty much everything is up for grabs in some way or other.

A few paragraphs in an ancient book don't stack up against evidence-based science. There is no evidence of civilisations with similar technology to ours existing in the past, in fact actually all the evidence points to the contrary. The information we have on past civilisations and the history of our species supports evolution and advancement not a boom-and-bust of advanced civilisations.

[steakbake]

Evolution is very strongly supported by empirical evidence. The advances in genetics and DNA since Darwins initial work has, in my opinion, created a nearly irrefutable case for evolution.

You say that we haven't evolved to this point. Why do you think that? There is plenty evidence available that traces the humna species back millions of years.



A few paragraphs in an ancient book don't stack up against evidence-based science. There is no evidence of civilisations with similar technology to ours existing in the past, in fact actually all the evidence points to the contrary. The information we have on past civilisations and the history of our species supports evolution and advancement not a boom-and-bust of advanced civilisations.

Darwin eliminated boom and bust civilizations. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

A couple of points:

Evolution: Has nothing to say about the creation of the Universe or the creation of life (abiogenesis). It purely describes the way in which species vsry over time. It has been changed, amended and developed as knowledge is gained (such as DNA) from Darwins initial concept but is essentially the same. It is probably the most widely accepted scientific theory (defining theory in its scientifc term not its "everyday" usage) in use, and is directly applicable in real world science in areas such as pharmacology, botany, biology, agriculture etc.

Creationism: Classic young earth creationism suggests that the earth is around 6000 years old and was essentially zinged into existence by God exactly in line with (what they take to be) literal bible translation. It builds on the coclusion reached by the Irish Bishop Ussher wgo calculated that the Earth was formed on the 23rd October, 4004BC. Its fair to say that the majority of christian theologians (in the UK at least) think this is nonsense. There are various variations on the theme, such as day-age creationism - all very interesting to read about.

First cause: Science doesnt claim to know how the Universe was created definitively - there are lots and lots of issues, I understand, with the details of Big Bang - an area I am no expert in beyond the fundamental concepts. It does however go some way on an evidential basis to give an explanation of how it happened. As for what was before that, that makes my brain throb, and like pretty much everyone, I dont know.

God: Not knowing doesnt mean by default that "God did it", regardless of which God you choose. God/ Allah/ Zeus may well have made the Universe, but there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to suggest this is true. It doesnt mean it isnt, but it certainly suggests strongly to me that it is unlikely.

The Hindu "stuff": I'd not come across this before and it's interesting, but the fact that there is zero evidence for anything along the lines you suggest is pretty powerful. If it was nuclear there would be clear evidence. We have evidence from pretty much every time frame across the history of the planet, and while, as with God, I'm not saying it's impossible, it seems to me that if the only claim is this one, passed down through oral tradition with absolutely nothing to back it up, its a pretty scant claim.

One last question, from a philospohical bent and getting back to the OP a bit, what would the view be if we could somehow identify that there is intelligent life on this recently discovered planet? How would that fit into a religious model?

[RyeSloan]

I didn't know that but I think there a huge difference between creating rocket fuel and enough fuel to cater to the needs of a very greedy planet.

Why would it be a very greedy planet, any new space colony would probably be the exact opposite! Anyway if you are talking about replicating the energy usage requirements on earth on this new planet (assuming it's effectively like for like) then I reckon we also already have the technology to do that as well.

Seems pretty clear to me that if we were to build an energy infrastructure from scratch on earth we could be significantly more efficient (superconductor transmission, advance renewables, efficient energy recycling etc) than we are currently.

Some of the advances being made in alternative fuels, renewables and even nuclear fusion also suggest to me that the era of fossil fuel use on earth is only being perpetuated because it is still relatively abundant and cost effective, as those ratios change and new technology gets more efficient then the world will move on. As I heard someone say the other day the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stone.

[steakbake]

Ultimately I think our destiny (if we make it that far) will be to colonise a new planet because we'll have rendered our own will generally have become uninhabitable.

I think though, what will be interesting is how we as a species decide who the colonisers will be.

[sleeping giant]

Ultimately I think our destiny (if we make it that far) will be to colonise a new planet because we'll have rendered our own will generally have become uninhabitable.

I think though, what will be interesting is how we as a species decide who the colonisers will be.

It might already be populated. It might even be populated by humans:faint:

[sleeping giant]

Why have we not found any evidence in the ground of technologies that existed previously ?

Technologies that we would recognise ?

Might be loads out there staring us in the face that we have not even contemplated.

If a cave man found a spearmint tictac he would have had no idea of the science that went into producing it.
Maybe we're still cavemen :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

There are some theories out there that the earth has disintegrated and reformed itself many times. If that is the case then any form of evidence to civilisations that might have existed prior to the last time the earth reformed itself will be non-existant.

[Twa Cairpets]

There are some theories out there that the earth has disintegrated and reformed itself many times. If that is the case then any form of evidence to civilisations that might have existed prior to the last time the earth reformed itself will be non-existant.

Although in the same breath any theory the the Earth has reformed itself many times over is equally lacking any evidence. And even if it was accurate, one would have to wonder how it is that Hindus got a bit of insight into the pre-disintegrated planet...

[steakbake]

Although in the same breath any theory the the Earth has reformed itself many times over is equally lacking any evidence. And even if it was accurate, one would have to wonder how it is that Hindus got a bit of insight into the pre-disintegrated planet...

...reincarnation: because some people remember it. (that's a suggestion, not an answer by the way!)..

[Eyrie]

There are some theories out there that the earth has disintegrated and reformed itself many times. If that is the case then any form of evidence to civilisations that might have existed prior to the last time the earth reformed itself will be non-existant.

There hasn't been much time for that to happen in however, given that the universe is 13.7 bn years old, our solar system formed about 5bn years ago and the Earth 4.5bn years ago.

As regards Ussher's calculation, doesn't that make the Earth a Scorpio? Slightly alarming thought!