What do scientists now think might be a possible cause of continental drift?
Convection currents in the mantle.
If scientists now prove that we might actually be aware that we died when we do, does that mean there could be an afterlife?
You do not have to guess at what happens after we die. You do not HAVE a soul, you ARE a soul.So when you die, you, the person-you, the soul, dies.Ezekiel 18:4 ‘the soul that sinneth it shall die ‘KJVYou are unconscious, unaware, in death,,,,,Eccl 9:5 ‘for the living know that they will die, but the dead, they know nothing at all’…NWTHowever all is not lost. There is a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.Acts 24:14 ‘And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.,KJV
Why are scientists now trying to prove god exists?
I wasn't aware of this but it makes perfect sense, and I agree with the effort. Most scientists are not religious but some are. Regardless of their stance on religion (which a lot of people forget is separate from a belief in god - you can believe in god without religion which is called “deism”). Anyway, if anyone on the planet is going to use a controlled and methodical method to try and find real evidence of god (if it can be found) it should be scientists. These are the real true investigators of our planet. A priest can't do this (unless he is also a scientist) because he already assumes god’s existence which breaks the rules of being unbiased in science (why they don't reconcile). While science and religion may not be reconcilable in the sense that they employ completely different means to discover truth (one uses the scientific method while the other just believes regardless of hard evidence). So this makes perfect sense. If there is a god I would want to know, and if anyone can figure it out or give a probability percentage to it it’s science, not religion. It would be a mistake to think that simply because a scientist is not religious or a believer in god that he or she could not investigate the possibility. The great thing about scientists is that even if they suspect god doesn't exist if they find solid evidence that a god does exist they will change their stance on it and then agree that god does exist. Religious people tend to not change their minds in the same way when evidence threatens cherished beliefs.
Why do some scientists now think that some early Americans may have arrived in the Americas via boat?
One can only come to conclusions, erroneous perhaps, that some Europeans escaped the besieging them at the time. Could have been someone trying to get away from the Egyptians and their slavery to any of the events during those ancient times. I too would have grabbed a boat and seeked to escape. That is all and well understood I am sure. It would be hard to say none escaped and got lost at sea only to be washed up on the shores of the Pre-Columbian Continent. And to survive here one would have to be something that could impress the natives well enough to let one live. Perhaps some new technology or ability to wield a sword and fight or probably both. So we have all these ruins left behind that show that something intelligent enough to construct them was here. A taught lesson among the natives or perhaps the whole taking of control by the visitor due to his or her advanced knowledge of how to do things like smelt gold, chisel rock, transport heavy objects and built incredible semblances of what had already been done in Egypt. The idea that in the future the Gods will come like "clouds over the ocean" with their sails and all had to come from somewhere. Quetzalcoatl was a red haired blue eyed leader who made the premonitions and had to run after losing the war over the use of human sacrifices. He ended up in Yucatan. This probably happened many times as the Egyptian Empire extended far and wide and for a long time. Many things happened during these times and it would be hard to think that it didn't happen.
Why do some scientists now think that some early Americans may have arrived in the Americas via boat?
c, because climatologists are pretty sure of the dates the glaciers in the Northwest made it all the way down to the sea, There was only a narrow gap in time and distance...about 15,000 years ago....that you could walk across the Straight and down through what is now British Columbia. otherwise solid glaciers from the Arctic to the Pacific made the Beringa route a dead end... problem is that there are some new discoveries that seem to say there were settlers in North America before that 15,000 years ago window.......maybe a lot before. If so, the only way around the glaciers would have been by boat along the coast......
Do scientists now believe that the fear of global warming is exaggerated?
It isn’t hard to find academic articles saying that global warming is a real concern. This one is fairly recent and in a very prestigious journal: Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changesAnother academic article says “…increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts. “ Understanding and responding to danger from climate change: the role of key risks in the IPCC AR5Which do you trust more, a newspaper or the scientific literature?What’s more, the scientists involved in the study cited in the article, disagree with the Daily Mail’s interpretation of it. (Clarification on recent press coverage of our '1.5 degrees' paper in Nature Geoscience ). That isn’t surprising because the Daily Mail has a history of publishing biased material on climate change. See this report: ‘The Mail on Sunday’ forced to acknowledge it published fake news about climate changeHere’s what Snopes says about the Daily Mail’s coverage: NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change DataThe Daily Mail’s bias is so great that you can even find an encyclopedia article discussing it.A study of the UK tabloid press (The Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and their Sunday equivalents) covering the years 2000 to 2006 found that "UK tabloid coverage significantly diverged from the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change.”Media coverage of climate change - WikipediaYou can get an extended discussion of that newspaper here: This is why conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail are 'unreliable'Yes there are some scientists who think that fear of global warming has been exaggerated. But there’s others who think that it may be worse than generally thought. There’s a healthy range of opinion in the scientific community. That’s normal science.
67% of scientists now say fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated. Do you agree with this new scientific finding?
Scientists are saying that "The Cretaceous period 65 million years ago was the hottest in the history of the earth. Man was not around at the time," and that fears of climate change amount to propaganda and "unnecessarily cause panic". Do these statements sound reasonable to you, and do you agree with them? http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news...