If ice didn't float, life as we know it wouldn't be possible anywhere in the universe. (It doesn't exclude life that doesn't require water, though—if that's possible.)
Ice freezing and sinking would be an issue on earth, but the habitable zone extends much closer to the sun than the earth because extremophiles can survive up to at least 122 C.
Similarly a denser atmosphere more eventually distributes temperature so planets don’t actually need to have very high surface temperatures to avoid water freezing.
> If ice didn't float, life as we know it wouldn't be possible anywhere in the universe.
I cheerfully propose this is evidence of a hacked universe. More specifically that there was a design flaw in the core structures and that water got tweaked as a band-aid - rather than rip the germ-code apart and rewrite it.
subscript: my premise requires a fallible creator. the most interesting kind, imho
Evidence and a clue are very different. Just because a scientific hypothesis us incorrect, or there is no explanation, does not mean that alternatives must be right.
Eg: disproving darwinism does not mean creationism is correct. Just that darwinism is flawed. You have to affirmatively prove alternative theories, can't just disprove something else and claim that makes you right. Yet more, creationism is not falsifiable, that's outside the scope of science. In the realm of faith, clues are taken as evidence, and this is where I quibble with you if we are talking science fact.
What's the reasoning here? You think that life would not have survived ice ages if ice didn't float? Life would probably have adapted even if the oceans froze bottom-up with deep sea "snow" no? It could even have led to a more consistent global temperature as the albedo of earth didn't change through colder periods.
Retric|1 year ago
Similarly a denser atmosphere more eventually distributes temperature so planets don’t actually need to have very high surface temperatures to avoid water freezing.
WarOnPrivacy|1 year ago
I cheerfully propose this is evidence of a hacked universe. More specifically that there was a design flaw in the core structures and that water got tweaked as a band-aid - rather than rip the germ-code apart and rewrite it.
subscript: my premise requires a fallible creator. the most interesting kind, imho
seadan83|1 year ago
Eg: disproving darwinism does not mean creationism is correct. Just that darwinism is flawed. You have to affirmatively prove alternative theories, can't just disprove something else and claim that makes you right. Yet more, creationism is not falsifiable, that's outside the scope of science. In the realm of faith, clues are taken as evidence, and this is where I quibble with you if we are talking science fact.
baq|1 year ago
Shadowmist|1 year ago
nick7376182|1 year ago