Science How This Decade of Archaeology Changed What We Know About Human Origins

[yankeesince59]

Well not much to say, but Carry on!

Ditto. But try not to be so hard on yourself.

 

[noknobs]

You also leave to little to no proof of the significance of life, other then you said so.

If you think that was the purpose of my post then you missed the point entirely. I wasn't trying to prove anything, except how silly it is to think you can make a few "calculations" and then proudly proclaim, "virtually no chance for life to exist anywhere else". The rest of what I wrote was just illustrating- through the use of widely known facts- that if our solar system is any indication, the idea of life elsewhere doesn't seem farfetched at all.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

If you think that was the purpose of my post then you missed the point entirely. I wasn't trying to prove anything, except how silly it is to think you can make a few "calculations" and then proudly proclaim, "virtually no chance for life to exist anywhere else". The rest of what I wrote was just illustrating- through the use of widely known facts- that if our solar system is any indication, the idea of life elsewhere doesn't seem farfetched at all.

Fair enough. My opinion is different then yours but, Im not gonna try to claim I have any proof, as I simply dont know. It would not surprise me either way.

 

[Lanny]

Forget the fact we don’t even know how big the universe is… The smartest minds have yet to even figure out what over 95% of the knowable universe is (what they call dark matter/dark energy). That’s the extent of our current ignorance. So whether you want to extrapolate rough probabilities on a sheet of paper or on a supercomputer, the numbers you're inputting are so astronomically flawed that it renders the whole process, and results, pointless.



No, our planet is the result of a lot of randomness and chaos, something that exists virtually everywhere. Our existence isn’t luck, it just is. What we call “life” is an inevitable yet wholly insignificant byproduct from the creation of our universe and the resulting laws of physics and chemistry that govern the cosmos.



How can you think our existence is simultaneously the result of a lot of luck AND divine intervention? That is a hilarious contradiction. At any rate, I’ll pretend you didn’t mention divine intervention and will proceed as though you’re capable of rational thought.



I see, and how many solar systems have you heard of?

Because astronomers are quick to point out that they’re finding these larger gas giants and the “super-earths” you’re referring to because they are much easier to detect given their size and/or proximity to the star. It’s not a coincidence that 85% of the planets discovered are so close to the sun they’re tidally locked given the methods scientists are using.

As an example of how hard it is to detect planets further from the sun, there is now significant proof that there’s a planet nine in our very own solar system, waaay out beyond the orbit of Neptune in a highly elliptical orbit. Because of the distance/darkness they’ve yet to find it, they only see its effects. And that’s in our own solar system.

Going off memory I think they’ve discovered about 4,000 exo-planets. A very conservative estimate is that there are 100 billion planets in the galaxy alone. A very conservative estimate is that there are 100 billion galaxies in the known universe.

Taking the 4,000 planets (which are almost all very large and close to their stars as I’ve mentioned) that have been discovered and trying to extrapolate the probability of life in the universe from that is like scooping one of the 352 quintillion gallons of ocean water off the surface, not seeing any fish in it, and declaring that the probability of there being fish anywhere on earth is virtually zero. It’s so nonsensical it’s funny.




Again, that phrase presupposes that we were the goal of the universe to begin with. It also presupposes that the exact chain of events of our solar system are the only way to arrive at “life”.



I fail to see how this is in anyway rare? Nebulae extend light years and give birth to countless stars and mix with other interstellar gas clouds and innumerable rocky and icy bodies. Our sun is one of hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way alone that are third generation. Our sun isn’t even an extreme population 1 star which are the most metal rich. The sun is an intermediate Population 1 star. There may be even sixth generation stars in the Milky Way. Even conservatively, there are several billions of stars just like our own in the Milky Way alone.



The estimates I’ve seen say about 1 in 5 stars like our sun have at least one earth-sized planet in the habitable zone. There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy.

That said, many believe that even within our own solar system, the best candidates for life aren’t the planets, but the moons around planets, which are often far outside the goldilocks zone. Europa and Enceladus are the best candidates.

The three basic ingredients for life (as we know it) are liquid water, organic compounds and energy. Enceladus for example seems to have all three. An internal ocean, much deeper than our own, an energy source, not from the sun but likely from tidal heating, and ejected plumes that Cassini went through show that there are actually carbon-bearing molecules and complex organic compounds as well.

An even bigger trip is Pluto. It should just be a cold dead rock yet it’s got active geology, ice volcanoes, fast-moving glaciers, mountain ranges as big as the Rockies, etc. The active geology is driven by heat, however its too small to have retained any heat, it’s much too far from the sun, and it wouldn’t have tidal heating, so how? There’s good evidence that pluto has a deep subterranean ocean, and over time as the planet cools, the water must be freezing and as it freezes it releases a form of energy called latent heat. And that release of energy could be what is powering active geology.

When New Horizons passed by Pluto, the probe turned to take a photo of Pluto backlit against the sun. Scientists hoped to capture the unmistakable haze of organic chemistry. And they saw that atmosphere, a blue ring of nitrogen gas, just like we see on earth. That ring is basically manufacturing complex organic materials from the simpler building blocks in the atmosphere of Pluto, like carbon monoxide, methane, and nitrogen, which are then being broken apart in the faint sunlight and reassembled in these hazes into organic molecules.

There are actually areas on Pluto that are reddish-brown which is actually organics. If that organic chemistry is getting cycled down by the active geology, over time they could be transported to the area where ice melts and meets liquid water. And the chemical evolution of those organics molecules could continue there driven by Pluto’s heat.

That doesn’t mean life is on Pluto, but think about that. The three essential ingredients for life are found in so many places under such different circumstances in just our solar system (You'll notice I haven't even brought up Mars yet). This is notable because of panspermia. With all three ingredients being this common, think of the countless meteoroids, asteroids, comets, dust particles and even entire planets and moons that have been set free from the gravity of their original star and now drift randomly to every corner of the galaxy ready to seed whatever body they eventually run into over the course of billions of years.

1. The Universe can be one of two things:
a) It is the known Universe. This is the result of the Big Bang. The farthest reaches have been observed;
b) There is a possible addition to our known Universe which may or man not exist. There is no reason to think it exists and little reason to think it does exist. However, the possibility can never be ruled out.
2. Randomness is simply our inability to predict what's going on in sufficient detail. Perhaps in the future we'll get better at it. And, as Einstein said, God does not play dice.
3. Our sun is a third generation star. We are the result of perhaps an explosion of a fourth generation star.
4. I've heard of thousands of solar systems. Interestingly enough, almost all contain massive rocky planets such as the Earth only ten times as large. Very few are at the Goldilocks distance. Nearly all of those rocky planets are at a distance from their star that is within the orbit of our Mercury. How many got hit by a large enough object that would add it's iron core to ours making enough to create a magnetic field that could deflect our sun's radiation and yet small enough and at just the right angle to eject a molten glob that could become a moon just large enough to stabilize our wobble as we go around our sun? Impressive, huh.
5. Planet 9 is way out beyond the orbit of Pluto. The planets in other systems are detected in ways that won't work in detecting a planet 9;
6. I've never seen estimates of systems containing Earth size planets in the Goldilocks zone as you indicate. NEVER
7. Your carbon bearing molecules are likely methane.
8. Pluto has a single mountain range with mountains as high as 20,000 feet and it is icy. Are you suggesting that Pluto might have life? It's colder than hell there.
9. Even the simplest of complex life on Earth never existed before there was life in the oceans that could produce oxygen for breathing.
10. Your logic of "352 quintillion gallons of ocean water" is utter nonesense.
I'm tired of this game and wish to quit. It is pointless.

 

[Lanny]

I love that in two paragraphs you defeat your own arguments.

One paragraph were ignorant of everything, we dont know 95% of whats out there.
The next one, Ive figured out the universe and how how everything came to be.

Forget the fact we don’t even know how big the universe is… The smartest minds have yet to even figure out what over 95% of the knowable universe is (what they call dark matter/dark energy).

No, our planet is the result of a lot of randomness and chaos, something that exists virtually everywhere. Our existence isn’t luck, it just is. What we call “life” is an inevitable yet wholly insignificant byproduct from the creation of our universe andtheresulting laws of physics and chemistry that govern the cosmos.

You also leave to little to no proof of the significance of life, other then you said so.

You say life is insignificant, do you vote that way? Do you feel your friends and family are all insignificant?

I've seen calculations that say dark matter is 9 times as massive as matter we can see. I've also seen it said that dark energy has 9 times the effective mass of dark matter. That means that there is 99 times as much effective mass as the known mass. Now, that's impressive. It's been calculated that dark energy will eventually expand the known universe to the point that even atoms will be ripped apart.

 

[andalusian]

Im not sure one can scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural.

Let me help you there. The word supernatural means attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Godel's incompleteness theorem proves (as in, hard, cold cash proves, it is really misnamed as a theorem) that you can not prove every fact in an axiomatic system. Given that a supernatural is even beyond such a system - it is clear that you can not prove it's existence (or that it does not, for that matter).

From here on, there are only 2 available options:

1. Some sort of super-natural being

or

2. Pure randomness

There is no proof, and can be no proof of either. Godel himself believed in #1 at the end of his days - but anyone that claims there is proof of the existence of God does not understand Godel's theorem. Simple as that.

Personally, the only thing I believe in is that if option #1 is the right one - it does not look anywhere like anything the current religions claim it is - and if it is - it is not a super-being I care about, consequences be damned.

For those that really care - Musk's simulation hypothesis is always interesting to read:

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...-some-think-life-simulated-reality-ncna913926

 

[yankeesince59]

Let me help you there. The word supernatural means attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Godel's incompleteness theorem proves (as in, hard, cold cash proves, it is really misnamed as a theorem) that you can not prove every fact in an axiomatic system. Given that a supernatural is even beyond such a system - it is clear that you can not prove it's existence (or that it does not, for that matter).

From here on, there are only 2 available options:

1. Some sort of super-natural being

or

2. Pure randomness

There is no proof, and can be no proof of either. Godel himself believed in #1 at the end of his days - but anyone that claims there is proof of the existence of God does not understand Godel's theorem. Simple as that.

Personally, the only thing I believe in is that if option #1 is the right one - it does not look anywhere like anything the current religions claim it is - and if it is - it is not a super-being I care about, consequences be damned.

For those that really care - Musk's simulation hypothesis is always interesting to read:

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...-some-think-life-simulated-reality-ncna913926

But But But.... I was informed last night that Godel provided "mathematical proof".

 

[andalusian]

But But But.... I was informed last night that Godel provided "mathematical proof".

He provided mathematical proof of the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system - or in Jake Layman terms - every system has some axioms that you start with and prove other stuff with - in any system of that nature - you can not logically prove the axioms (and there is a very clever mathematical proof of that).

From here - there are really several interpretation one can provide trying to apply it to the existence of god - but they are, as I mentioned above, come down to 2 options. Which one you choose to believe is really up to you - but proof - it certainly is not. If anything, it shows you can not prove it.

Unfortunately, often people that do not understand the math read into stuff, put a spin on it and completely miss it.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Let me help you there. The word supernatural means attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Godel's incompleteness theorem proves (as in, hard, cold cash proves, it is really misnamed as a theorem) that you can not prove every fact in an axiomatic system. Given that a supernatural is even beyond such a system - it is clear that you can not prove it's existence (or that it does not, for that matter).

From here on, there are only 2 available options:

1. Some sort of super-natural being

or

2. Pure randomness

There is no proof, and can be no proof of either. Godel himself believed in #1 at the end of his days - but anyone that claims there is proof of the existence of God does not understand Godel's theorem. Simple as that.

Personally, the only thing I believe in is that if option #1 is the right one - it does not look anywhere like anything the current religions claim it is - and if it is - it is not a super-being I care about, consequences be damned.

For those that really care - Musk's simulation hypothesis is always interesting to read:

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...-some-think-life-simulated-reality-ncna913926

Did I show some sort of misunderstanding in his theorem? I'm not sure why this is directed at me like I needed help understanding the logic behind it. Our personal beliefs aside, you quoted me literally saying, "Im not sure one can scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural", so I obviously understand Godel didn't prove it, nor did anyone else, and nor have they disproved it. Maybe I am misreading your tone here, but it seems to be, "hey idiot, I'm smart I'll tell you how math works...", and I don't quite get why, am I John Lennox, or Stephen Hawkings, mathematically, no but I'm also not that ignorant of how math works. *shrugs*.

 

[MarAzul]

there are really several interpretation one can provide trying to apply it to the existence of god

I would not say he provided any prove of the existence of God. I think he proved that randomness is incapable of producing life in this system. You are correct, he indeed did believe the creation of life requires assistance from outside our known system.
You may extrapolate from there. This is good enough for me, it works. The anthropologists can continue to unravel the tale.

 

[MarAzul]

He simple proved mathematically that life requires the hand of god.

Did I show some sort of misunderstanding in his theorem? I'm not sure why this is directed at me like I needed help understanding the logic behind it. Our personal beliefs aside, you quoted me literally saying, "Im not sure one can scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural", so I obviously understand Godel didn't prove it, nor did anyone else, and nor have they disproved it. Maybe I am misreading your tone here, but it seems to be, "hey idiot, I'm smart I'll tell you how math works...", and I don't quite get why, am I John Lennox, or Stephen Hawkings, mathematically, no but I'm also not that ignorant of how math works. *shrugs*.

I don't think he is directing to you. More likely the sentence above where I made the logical extrapolation from the Logicians work. Since we do indeed have life here, there is only one extrapolation to grasp. Like it or not.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I don't think he is directing to you. More likely the sentence above where I made the logical extrapolation from the Logicians work. Since we do indeed have life here, there is only one extrapolation to grasp. Like it or not.

His opinion of me isn't all that important to me, but at the same time, he responded to me, with a post that seemed to indicate I was having a hard time understanding the logic and felt the need to tell me how it all worked so, whatever lol.

 

[noknobs]

1. The Universe can be one of two things:

a) It is the known Universe. This is the result of the Big Bang. The farthest reaches have been observed;

b) There is a possible addition to our known Universe which may or man not exist. There is no reason to think it exists and little reason to think it does exist. However, the possibility can never be ruled out.

What’s your point? Other than pointing out the inherent flaws in your original argument? Thanks by the way.

2. Randomness is simply our inability to predict what's going on in sufficient detail. Perhaps in the future we'll get better at it. And, as Einstein said, God does not play dice.

Randomness is randomness and it’s something that is observable to us everywhere we look in the sky. God is what some use to try to explain what’s going on in sufficient detail. So is science, however science accepts and admits that we don't yet have a clue. It attempts to continue to learn and discover as opposed to just lazily believing it's all due to some divine entity, for which there's no evidence of, that actually cares about each of us and puts us on some naughty and nice list like Santa Claus.

3. Our sun is a third generation star. We are the result of perhaps an explosion of a fourth generation star.

It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.

4. I've heard of thousands of solar systems. Interestingly enough, almost all contain massive rocky planets such as the Earth only ten times as large. Very few are at the Goldilocks distance. Nearly all of those rocky planets are at a distance from their star that is within the orbit of our Mercury.

It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.

5. Planet 9 is way out beyond the orbit of Pluto. The planets in other systems are detected in ways that won't work in detecting a planet 9;

It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.

7. Your carbon bearing molecules are likely methane.

We don’t have to guess… Cassini sampled the plumes from Enceladus and there weren’t just hydrocarbons, there were also traces of larger organics and “complex macromolecular organics”. You don’t have to take my word for it, this information is pretty much out there for anyone who cares to read about it: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-organic-compounds-found-in-enceladus-ice-grains. Although I’ve already made this clear I fear you may need me to repeat this part as well - This is not about me trying to prove life exists on Enceladus, or Pluto, etc, it’s simply me illustrating how even in our own backyard these essential ingredients for life can be found in multiple places, under varying circumstances.

8. Pluto has a single mountain range with mountains as high as 20,000 feet and it is icy. Are you suggesting that Pluto might have life? It's colder than hell there.

It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.

9. Even the simplest of complex life on Earth never existed before there was life in the oceans that could produce oxygen for breathing.

Okay?

10. Your logic of "352 quintillion gallons of ocean water" is utter nonesense.

It’s actually a great analogy illustrating how your argument, and how you arrived at your conclusion, was utter nonsense.

I'm tired of this game and wish to quit.

I’m sure you do. If you choose to believe in divine intervention I’m fine with that. I give two shits. Just don’t then pretend you’ve done some calculations and figured out a rough estimate of the probability of life in the universe. It’s fucking ridiculous.

 

[MarAzul]

he responded to me

Darned if I know why.

 

[andalusian]

Did I show some sort of misunderstanding in his theorem? I'm not sure why this is directed at me like I needed help understanding the logic behind it. Our personal beliefs aside, you quoted me literally saying, "Im not sure one can scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural", so I obviously understand Godel didn't prove it, nor did anyone else, and nor have they disproved it. Maybe I am misreading your tone here, but it seems to be, "hey idiot, I'm smart I'll tell you how math works...", and I don't quite get why, am I John Lennox, or Stephen Hawkings, mathematically, no but I'm also not that ignorant of how math works. *shrugs*.

I did not mean to offend you and if I did, I apologize. Your sentence was (as I quoted originally)

Im not sure one can scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural.

and my post was to provide the mathematical proof that makes it stronger - showing that it can not be proven using the word super-natural. So, I thought I was agreeing with you that it can not be proven, and actually providing said proof - given the use of the word super-natural.

Again, I apologize if you took it as something it was not meant to be.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Darned if I know why.

I may be an idiot, and that's perfectly fine to call me one. I have no delusions of grandeur in regards to my intelligence or pecking order on this earth if he believes me to be one so be it, plenty of stuff I don't know.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I did not mean to offend you and if I did, I apologize. Your sentence was (as I quoted originally)



and my post was to provide the mathematical proof that makes it stronger - showing that it can not be proven using the word super-natural. So, I thought I was agreeing with you that it can not be proven, and actually providing said proof - given the use of the word super-natural.

Again, I apologize if you took it as something it was not meant to be.

I wasn't offended and I probably should not have come off the way I did, it just read to me like, "you're so dumb!" lol. I'm perfectly good with you and I's banter on here, I'm definitely flawed in my own logic at times and probably took your post in an unintended way, and I apologize for that as well. Were good.

 

[andalusian]

FWIW - What Godel did was formally prove something that is very intuitive for anyone that thinks logically - which is that you can not use X to prove X as it becomes cyclical.

Basically, every logical system starts with an axiom - and we build proofs of things from these axiom (that's an axiomatic system) - where an axiom is defined as "a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true."

So, Godel proves that any system that starts with an axiom can not be used to prove said axiom - which some people take as "science can not prove everything" (which is true) and some others take further as "and thus god exists" - which is not a proof (not to mention that it certainly does not prove which god is the true one - a point people that use this proof conveniently ignore).

This kind of ties into @noknobs statement from above

God is what some use to try to explain what’s going on in sufficient detail. So is science, however science accepts and admits that we don't yet have a clue.

Which leads us to show how science evolves. Newtonian physics for example, tries to explain the world based on the axioms defined as "newton's 3 laws of physics". Einstein's special relativity shows that Newtonian physics are only true at low speeds - but when it uses that axiom that the speed of light is the same and capped - it shows that newton's laws are "true" at low speeds because at these speeds special relativity formulas can substitute 0 for the speed (as we are approaching zero compared to the full formulas) so they are true.

Likewise, Quantum mechanics show that the speed of light is not the max speed available - and general relativity (Einstein's attempt to expand on special relativity) breaks at tiny distances.

String theory tries to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics - but they have to keep adding dimensions to the formulas to do it (which probably means that the axioms are not there to correctly deal with it).

One of the most interesting quotes about the difference between religion and science came from Ricky Gervais (of all people) when he said that if tomorrow all books / data banks and every member of the world have their memory erased - the difference between science and religion will be that in several thousand years the new science books will look a lot like the science books we have today - but the religion books are likely to be very very different.

 

[yankeesince59]

FWIW - What Godel did was formally prove something that is very intuitive for anyone that thinks logically - which is that you can not use X to prove X as it becomes cyclical.

Basically, every logical system starts with an axiom - and we build proofs of things from these axiom (that's an axiomatic system) - where an axiom is defined as "a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true."

So, Godel proves that any system that starts with an axiom can not be used to prove said axiom - which some people take as "science can not prove everything" (which is true) and some others take further as "and thus god exists" - which is not a proof (not to mention that it certainly does not prove which god is the true one - a point people that use this proof conveniently ignore).

This kind of ties into @noknobs statement from above



Which leads us to show how science evolves. Newtonian physics for example, tries to explain the world based on the axioms defined as "newton's 3 laws of physics". Einstein's special relativity shows that Newtonian physics are only true at low speeds - but when it uses that axiom that the speed of light is the same and capped - it shows that newton's laws are "true" at low speeds because at these speeds special relativity formulas can substitute 0 for the speed (as we are approaching zero compared to the full formulas) so they are true.

Likewise, Quantum mechanics show that the speed of light is not the max speed available - and general relativity (Einstein's attempt to expand on special relativity) breaks at tiny distances.

String theory tries to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics - but they have to keep adding dimensions to the formulas to do it (which probably means that the axioms are not there to correctly deal with it).

One of the most interesting quotes about the difference between religion and science came from Ricky Gervais (of all people) when he said that if tomorrow all books / data banks and every member of the world have their memory erased - the difference between science and religion will be that in several thousand years the new science books will look a lot like the science books we have today - but the religion books are likely to be very very different.

That was pretty damn good...really.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

FWIW - What Godel did was formally prove something that is very intuitive for anyone that thinks logically - which is that you can not use X to prove X as it becomes cyclical.

Basically, every logical system starts with an axiom - and we build proofs of things from these axiom (that's an axiomatic system) - where an axiom is defined as "a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true."

So, Godel proves that any system that starts with an axiom can not be used to prove said axiom - which some people take as "science can not prove everything" (which is true) and some others take further as "and thus god exists" - which is not a proof (not to mention that it certainly does not prove which god is the true one - a point people that use this proof conveniently ignore).

This kind of ties into @noknobs statement from above



Which leads us to show how science evolves. Newtonian physics for example, tries to explain the world based on the axioms defined as "newton's 3 laws of physics". Einstein's special relativity shows that Newtonian physics are only true at low speeds - but when it uses that axiom that the speed of light is the same and capped - it shows that newton's laws are "true" at low speeds because at these speeds special relativity formulas can substitute 0 for the speed (as we are approaching zero compared to the full formulas) so they are true.

Likewise, Quantum mechanics show that the speed of light is not the max speed available - and general relativity (Einstein's attempt to expand on special relativity) breaks at tiny distances.

String theory tries to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics - but they have to keep adding dimensions to the formulas to do it (which probably means that the axioms are not there to correctly deal with it).

One of the most interesting quotes about the difference between religion and science came from Ricky Gervais (of all people) when he said that if tomorrow all books / data banks and every member of the world have their memory erased - the difference between science and religion will be that in several thousand years the new science books will look a lot like the science books we have today - but the religion books are likely to be very very different.

Gervais is assuming a lot though. If all that was wiped there’s 0 proof at all that science books would ever again exist. Or languages would be formed, or that the species wouldn't just die off completely.

Or that if there is some God and supernatural being that prescribed where religions came from, couldnt do it again.

So yea, I agree in some aspects, but even Gervais logic isnt all that completely solid.

 

[andalusian]

Gervais is assuming a lot though. If all that was wiped there’s 0 proof at all that science books would ever again exist. Or languages would be formed, or that the species wouldn't just die off completely.

Or that if there is some God and supernatural being that prescribed where religions came from, couldnt do it again.

So yea, I agree in some aspects, but even Gervais logic isnt all that completely solid.

I believe his point is that it is based on repeated observation and analysis - which in a nutshell is exactly the difference between science and religion.

One is based on observation and repeated examination and critic and the other is based on pure interpretation with much less allowance for critic / progression.

Which is why there are so many religions around the world and many of them are very much at odds with each other - where science basically converges.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I believe his point is that it is based on repeated observation and analysis - which in a nutshell is exactly the difference between science and religion.

One is based on observation and repeated examination and critic and the other is based on pure interpretation with much less allowance for critic / progression.

Which is why there are so many religions around the world and many of them are very much at odds with each other - where science basically converges.

If science converges then why is their so many scientific debates. I actually think both as more similar then we let on. Science is our observations of the workings of nature and the laws of nature, but as we know theres often two very educated people who see the details differently, theres always new information that changes how “science” is seen. Now Science is much better at seeing new information and adapting to it in general, but its still all what a bunch of very flawed minds are observing, which is why there’s differences there.

Religion’s converge on a lot of subjects as well, but differ greatly on many important things. Theres a lot of critic, and examination of religious beliefs as well, and it has caused huge shifts in different religions as they've matured, they do progress, albeit slower.

 

[andalusian]

If science converges then why is their so many scientific debates.

The debates are on theories and hypothesis, not on things that can be proven over and over.

There are no debates about Newtonian physics at low speeds and non-infinite distances.

Religions certainly do not converge - maybe the believers converge as religions become more popular - so we get bigger, more popular / established religions - but the reason for that is probably because people invented religions and are tribal people. Since many religions are created when people break from old ones for whatever reason - there at times they share some ideas - but the basic concepts of Hinduism and Judeo Christian religions for example are not close and never will as either one of these religions. Christians as we know them will not believe in multiple gods and reincarnation - no matter what - where Einstein - which was not a fan of quantum mechanic at all when it appeared - came to appreciate that it has a lot of truth and shows that his general relativity is not conclusive. (He still maintained that it is not true for everything - which is correct, but quantum physics got a lot more right than what he was willing to give it credit for).

"I have the greatest consideration for the goals which are pursued by the physicists of the latest generation which go under the name of quantum mechanics, and I believe that this theory represents a profound level of truth, but I also believe that the restriction to laws of a statistical nature will turn out to be transitory....Without doubt quantum mechanics has grasped an important fragment of the truth and will be a paragon for all future fundamental theories, for the fact that it must be deducible as a limiting case from such foundations, just as electrostatics is deducible from Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field or as thermodynamics is deducible from statistical mechanics."

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

The debates are on theories and hypothesis, not on things that can be proven over and over.

There are no debates about Newtonian physics at low speeds and non-infinite distances.

Religions certainly do not converge - maybe the believers converge as religions become more popular - so we get bigger, more popular / established religions - but the reason for that is probably because people invented religions and are tribal people. Since many religions are created when people break from old ones for whatever reason - there at times they share some ideas - but the basic concepts of Hinduism and Judeo Christian religions for example are not close and never will as either one of these religions. Christians as we know them will not believe in multiple gods and reincarnation - no matter what - where Einstein - which was not a fan of quantum mechanic at all when it appeared - came to appreciate that it has a lot of truth and shows that his general relativity is not conclusive. (He still maintained that it is not true for everything - which is correct, but quantum physics got a lot more right than what he was willing to give it credit for).

"I have the greatest consideration for the goals which are pursued by the physicists of the latest generation which go under the name of quantum mechanics, and I believe that this theory represents a profound level of truth, but I also believe that the restriction to laws of a statistical nature will turn out to be transitory....Without doubt quantum mechanics has grasped an important fragment of the truth and will be a paragon for all future fundamental theories, for the fact that it must be deducible as a limiting case from such foundations, just as electrostatics is deducible from Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field or as thermodynamics is deducible from statistical mechanics."

I will probably revisit this conversation at some point, but I have a bunch of meetings this afternoon and family stuff tonight.

I think Im mostly in agreement, though I know our personal beliefs are quite different.

 

[yankeesince59]

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

lmao...wtf ?

 

[barfo]

If science converges then why is their so many scientific debates.

Because we are always pushing the boundaries into new territory.

No one is seriously challenging whether the world is flat, or what the chemical makeup of benzene is, or what causes bubonic plague. There is a substantial base of scientific knowledge that has indeed converged.

barfo

 

[Lanny]

What’s your point? Other than pointing out the inherent flaws in your original argument? Thanks by the way.



Randomness is randomness and it’s something that is observable to us everywhere we look in the sky. God is what some use to try to explain what’s going on in sufficient detail. So is science, however science accepts and admits that we don't yet have a clue. It attempts to continue to learn and discover as opposed to just lazily believing it's all due to some divine entity, for which there's no evidence of, that actually cares about each of us and puts us on some naughty and nice list like Santa Claus.


It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.


It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.


It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.


We don’t have to guess… Cassini sampled the plumes from Enceladus and there weren’t just hydrocarbons, there were also traces of larger organics and “complex macromolecular organics”. You don’t have to take my word for it, this information is pretty much out there for anyone who cares to read about it: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-organic-compounds-found-in-enceladus-ice-grains. Although I’ve already made this clear I fear you may need me to repeat this part as well - This is not about me trying to prove life exists on Enceladus, or Pluto, etc, it’s simply me illustrating how even in our own backyard these essential ingredients for life can be found in multiple places, under varying circumstances.


It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.


Okay?


It’s actually a great analogy illustrating how your argument, and how you arrived at your conclusion, was utter nonsense.


I’m sure you do. If you choose to believe in divine intervention I’m fine with that. I give two shits. Just don’t then pretend you’ve done some calculations and figured out a rough estimate of the probability of life in the universe. It’s fucking ridiculous.

I've taken all I can take of this nonsense. I have neither the time nor the energy to show what's wrong with your statements just to have more nonsense posted. There's an never ending stream of such nonsense. Please debate someone else who might possibly believe in magic.

 

[noknobs]

I've taken all I can take of this nonsense. I have neither the time nor the energy to show what's wrong with your statements just to have more nonsense posted. There's an never ending stream of such nonsense. Please debate someone else who might possibly believe in magic.

Lol... I'm sorry you feel that well documented science is nonsense, but your response is quite predictable considering you have no other recourse.

 

[Lanny]

Lol... I'm sorry you feel that well documented science is nonsense, but your response is quite predictable considering you have no other recourse.

Science and math. is nearly all I have in these matters.
Interestingly enough, it is the concept of infinity that brought me back to the church. Well, that and a feeling I have deep down inside that builds and builds and is related to my church.