Stellar bodies (like our sun) collect things called accretionary discs. These are rings of small particles spinning around the body. Over time, these accretionary discs increase in volume, as the sun’s mass draws in (via gravitational force) other small objects flying through space.
After a really long time, these small particles begin clumping together - a bit like dust bunnies under a couch or behind a desk. Some of those clumps became planets. Others were destroyed in collisions with other objects, or thrown out of the Sun’s gravity well by impacts.
Over time, things like asteroids and comets (which are often composed largely of ice) impacted the earth, bringing water and other compounds.
A few billion years later, hey presto! Earth.
That’s somewhat oversimplified, but there are all sorts of resources here and elsewhere which offer a more complete picture.
Some of our members are astrophysicists and planetary geologists. I’m sure they will be pleased to help if you start asking questions in GQ.
Thanks for the heads up, Really All Not All That Bright and Kearson.
I’ll stay off this page from now on. I do understand how scientists say that the earth was created from particles etc. There is just no way to prove it. I’d be a fool to say I know how the earth was created without being able to recreate it in a lab.
It’s too bad that we can’t just agree to disagree on some things. I have an inquiring mind and try to never dismiss a point. Sometimes that is how I learn something new.
In that case, let’s teach the theory that the entire universe was formed out of my asshole yesterday morning too … I mean, as long as your mind is open to everything.
It can’t be recreated in a lab, but you can watch it being recreated in space anytime you like. The difference is simply that you have to accept that there are certain ways to date processes like that - since for obvious reasons you can’t observe them yourself (ie., you’d be dead before the clump was one millionth of its future size).
Here is the way we know things (in the loose sense) without doing them in a lab. (We never prove anything.) We have made only a subset of all the observations about something that we can make. Based on the observations we have made, and the hypothesis or theory, we predict what observations we are likely to make, and which things we shouldn’t expect to see. For instance, since we predict that a whale used to be a land animal, we can predict that we will find a fossil of a land dwelling ancestor to a whale someday. (And we have.) We can also predict that we will not find human remains, or the remains of any modern animal, in ancient fossil beds. (And we haven’t.)
I’m not sure of the predictions of the current theory of planetary development, except that since planets are being made all the time, we should see accretion in a dust cloud around some other star - and we have.
Now, we can create the earth in a lab, if by lab you are willing to accept computer models that obey the laws of physics. We can use these to see what happens under certain reasonable initial conditions. I don’t have a cite, but I am 99% sure these models have been built and planets result. Good enough for you?
As the overwhelming majority of Americans have been Christian throughout the nation’s history, it is entirely reasonable to speak of the United States as a Christian nation. However, insisting that America is somehow not a Christian nation because its political institutions were not specifically designed to be Christian is worse than merely stupid. It is both stupid and dishonest.
The nation’s founding document specifically prohibits any established religion. When the first amendment is repealed, your argument will hold water. For now, it is both stupid and dishonest.
It is entirely reasonable to speak of the United States as a *majority-*Christian nation, because it’s true.
The majority of Americans have also been white. That doesn’t make it a “white nation.”
The United States is a secular state with a majority Christian population, but calling it a “Christian nation” is misleading. The “nation,” as such, has no religion.
The first amendment has nothing to do with it. Christianity has been the overwhelmingly dominant religious influence in America ever since its founding, and it is absurd to insist that the first amendment somehow means America is not a Christian nation. You’re just playing silly word games here, and you know it.
Those founding fathers and their silly word games. I say we take this to the next level and discuss the silly word games inherrent in the 2nd amendment next. Hell, we can work our way right through the Bill of Rights and see what kind of shit we can stir.
That’s a whole 'nother thread. Don’t you people ever get tired of equating everything with race? In any case, as the overwhelmingly dominant cultural influence on the United States is European and most Americans are white, it is entirely reasonable to speak of the U.S. as a white nation. If you want to debate that, start another thread.
Putting words in “quotations” to make it “seem” as if those “words” are somehow “meaningless” or are “somehow” being “misused” is a very tiresome and sophomoric debating trick.
