Scientists are god-less liberals

[mook]

If you plan on killing everyone who annoys you and then using repentance as a get out of hell free card at the last minute, you're not truly repenting, and you end up with a go to jail – go directly to jail – do not pass go, do not collect $200 card.

It worked for Darth Vader.

 

[andalusian]

perhaps by "science" you mean scientific theory that contradicts religious belief, such as evolution?

Evolution and Creationism do not contradict. You only have to get your mind around the idea that man evolved, and when he could not figure out things, he created god as a relief mechanism to explain the unexplainable.

At the end of the day, I find organized religion to be too much like a shady salesman in a used car lot.

"It is what it is and you can not understand, but do it and get a reward in a place you can not get back to me to complain"...

If there is a god, and I have no clue if there is - I have no doubts it is nothing like the one painted, touched, retouched, blurred and reshaped by centuries of meddling men angling for their own benefit.

Let me just say that any god that rewards one for believing in him - is not a god worth following...

In the words of Mr. Terry Pratchett - "it's a god eat god world out there".

 

[maxiep]

Has anyone else ever had the experience where they reached the limit of their understanding? It's an amazing thing to happen, and I'd recommend it for everyone. I always assumed if I thought of something long enough and with sufficient energy, I could conceive it. It wasn't true.

I happened to me in a graduate class called "Asset Pricing Models" taught by a physicist. I hit a wall I simply couldn't climb. Endless conversations, self-study, trying to find other sources to explain the concept to me, and I couldn't get it. I really struggled with the realization, until it came to me there are some things that are simply not understandable. Even Einstein and Hawking have hit that barrier, albeit much farther down the road than did I.

It's at that point I see God.

 

[andalusian]

Has anyone else ever had the experience where they reached the limit of their understanding? It's an amazing thing to happen, and I'd recommend it for everyone. I always assumed if I thought of something long enough and with sufficient energy, I could conceive it. It wasn't true.

I happened to me in a graduate class called "Asset Pricing Models" taught by a physicist. I hit a wall I simply couldn't climb. Endless conversations, self-study, trying to find other sources to explain the concept to me, and I couldn't get it. I really struggled with the realization, until it came to me there are some things that are simply not understandable. Even Einstein and Hawking have hit that barrier, albeit much farther down the road than did I.

It's at that point I see God.

Isn't this exactly what I said? Man created god to explain the unexplainable...

Personally, I have no problems with people believing in a god - but I have a problem with organized religion - because, logically, even if I believe in a god - how can I trust this group of people telling me his commands over that group? At the end of the day... it comes down believing in people... - which brings us back to the claim that man created god...

 

[barfo]

Has anyone else ever had the experience where they reached the limit of their understanding? It's an amazing thing to happen, and I'd recommend it for everyone. I always assumed if I thought of something long enough and with sufficient energy, I could conceive it. It wasn't true.

I happened to me in a graduate class called "Asset Pricing Models" taught by a physicist. I hit a wall I simply couldn't climb. Endless conversations, self-study, trying to find other sources to explain the concept to me, and I couldn't get it. I really struggled with the realization, until it came to me there are some things that are simply not understandable. Even Einstein and Hawking have hit that barrier, albeit much farther down the road than did I.

It's at that point I see God.

I guess that's where traditionally things get ascribed to God, but it doesn't make sense to me in your example, since other mortals do understand it. It doesn't make sense to me to do so in general, because so many things previously ascribed to god have since been understood and explained by man, there is no reason to believe that things currently understood by no man will forever remain that way.

But yes, I've had that experience. I find it irritating.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

Has anyone else ever had the experience where they reached the limit of their understanding? It's an amazing thing to happen, and I'd recommend it for everyone. I always assumed if I thought of something long enough and with sufficient energy, I could conceive it. It wasn't true.

I happened to me in a graduate class called "Asset Pricing Models" taught by a physicist. I hit a wall I simply couldn't climb. Endless conversations, self-study, trying to find other sources to explain the concept to me, and I couldn't get it. I really struggled with the realization, until it came to me there are some things that are simply not understandable. Even Einstein and Hawking have hit that barrier, albeit much farther down the road than did I.

It's at that point I see God.

so you reached the limit of your understanding and saw god. that must have been some really good weed.

 

[ODENISGOD]

YES I BELIEVE IN A SPACE GOD AND ADAM AND EVE. ITS ALL TRUE, MY PRIEST EVEN TOLD ME SO..... IT WAS EVEN ALL WRITTEN DOWN BYE PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT THE WORLD WAS FLAT. I LOVE RELIGON!!!

 

[maxiep]

Isn't this exactly what I said? Man created god to explain the unexplainable...

Personally, I have no problems with people believing in a god - but I have a problem with organized religion - because, logically, even if I believe in a god - how can I trust this group of people telling me his commands over that group? At the end of the day... it comes down believing in people... - which brings us back to the claim that man created god...

It's not unexplainable. It's incomprehensible. There's a difference.

 

[andalusian]

It's not unexplainable. It's incomprehensible. There's a difference.

Splitting hairs, imho, if you understand something - you should be able to explain it in some way - but if it you prefer to think of it as incomprehensible, that's fine. It still does not change the premise that when man can not understand something - he invents a "magical" force that explains/helps to make sense of the situation...

... of course, with time - a lot of these things, as barfo pointed out, start to make sense and we understand them...

At the end of the day, to my mind, There is absolutely no proof that there is some divine being that created it all - but even if there is - the amount of inconsistencies in the laws and stories and explanations of the major organized religions makes believing in them a very illogical exercise - which I believe is what the original post/research was all about.

 

[Eastoff]

It's not unexplainable. It's incomprehensible. There's a difference.

you're missing his point though. you said yourself some others were trying to teach it to you. some others (humans) were trying to teach it to you. Just because I can't fly, doesn't mean birds are gods. Consider all of the knowledge that has been accumulated in the last century. Then consider 500 years ago, do you think anyone would have dreamed we could send videos (the concept alone impressive) within minutes to someone half way around the world? All of the things that go into making that possible are individually impressive. But that doesn't mean that we are true Gods to the past society.

 

[Denny Crane]

we don't know why the fixed constants of nature are what they are, but there's no reason to think they necessarily have to be "written" by an intelligent designer. lots of directly observable purely mechanical processes in nature result in things having emergent properties that are either random or adaptation to environment. constants such as the speed of light could easily be the result of mechanical processes.

I think the rules are random, too - basically due to chaos. If you have read about string theory and membranes and so on, it's clear that science is trying to make sense of why the rules are what they are.

On the other hand, science is about things observable, and one of the consistent things I hear from religious people is that they observe the work of god all around us. Maybe to see things you need a microscope or to be aware of what you're looking for/at...

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny-- You might be interested in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/symbiotic-uni...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251384108&sr=1-3
Really interesting exploration of how improbable conditions for life are, and some theories as to why it is so. I enjoyed it. But it's pretty old, though--there are probably better ones out there now.

Maybe I'll check it out, thanks.

I do think that Science is really optimistic about their Belief that there is life out there, and it's not really founded in Science. Not one shred of physical or observable evidence that there's even a microbe out there. The reverse is true - all we observe are frozen deserts, no liquid water anywhere, gas giants, or rocks burnt to cinders.

I am convinced that once life takes hold, it flourishes. If there were a microbe on Mars, Evolution would have done its thing and bazillions of species that adapted (natural selection) to the environment there would be quite evident. Same is true for all the planets and moons we can send robots to. Given enough time, and there's been plenty of it (on the order of 4.5B years), there'd surely be something intelligent - as much as a cat or a dolphin or elephant or even us.

I could be totally wrong, of course. And the minute they find a certifiable microbe of extraterrestrial origins, my thinking on this will flip 180 degrees. Since we'd have proof of life, all the things I said are still true (to me): once it takes hold, &c.

 

[crowTrobot]

I do think that Science is really optimistic about their Belief that there is life out there, and it's not really founded in Science. Not one shred of physical or observable evidence that there's even a microbe out there. The reverse is true - all we observe are frozen deserts, no liquid water anywhere, gas giants, or rocks burnt to cinders.

not entirely true. astronomers already think they have found an extra-solar planet that appears to be covered in liquid water, along with a few others that have the potential to be earth-like. the moon titan may have some water hiding. also mars probably had liquid water for millions of years early in its life before its core cooled.

the optimism in science about life elsewhere in the universe mainly stems from two things - the fact that we have found microbial life living in extreme conditions here on earth including deep under the surface where nobody expected it to be, and the fact that the evidence indicates there are potentially millions (if not billiions) of earth-like planets just in the visible universe.

If there were a microbe on Mars, Evolution would have done its thing and bazillions of species that adapted (natural selection) to the environment there would be quite evident.

not necessarily. as noted above mars has been a "dead" planet for most of its existence, lacking a several key factors that apparently drove evolution on earth, such as liquid water, oxygen-rich atmosphere, tectonic plate movement etc.

Same is true for all the planets and moons we can send robots to.

given that our current sample is exactly 2 out of billions, i don't think anyone can draw conclusions from what we haven't found so far. also we could have easily missed microbial life on mars if it is under the surface.

 

[maxiep]

you're missing his point though. you said yourself some others were trying to teach it to you. some others (humans) were trying to teach it to you. Just because I can't fly, doesn't mean birds are gods. Consider all of the knowledge that has been accumulated in the last century. Then consider 500 years ago, do you think anyone would have dreamed we could send videos (the concept alone impressive) within minutes to someone half way around the world? All of the things that go into making that possible are individually impressive. But that doesn't mean that we are true Gods to the past society.

I never said where I couldn't understand it. That would mean I thought Angel Serrat was a god instead of a drunken, potty-mouthed Spaniard. And I don't think Angel's a god; he's a cabron. I said where it couldn't be understood. Not that it couldn't be observed, but something that is incomprehensible.

 

[BlazerWookee]

...when man can not understand something - he recognizes a "magical" force that explains/helps to make sense of the situation...

Fixed...

 

[Denny Crane]

not entirely true. astronomers already think they have found an extra-solar planet that appears to be covered in liquid water, along with a few others that have the potential to be earth-like. the moon titan may have some water hiding. also mars probably had liquid water for millions of years early in its life before its core cooled.

the optimism in science about life elsewhere in the universe mainly stems from two things - the fact that we have found microbial life living in extreme conditions here on earth including deep under the surface where nobody expected it to be, and the fact that the evidence indicates there are potentially millions (if not billiions) of earth-like planets just in the visible universe.



not necessarily. as noted above mars has been a "dead" planet for most of its existence, lacking a several key factors that apparently drove evolution on earth, such as liquid water, oxygen-rich atmosphere, tectonic plate movement etc.



given that our current sample is exactly 2 out of billions, i don't think anyone can draw conclusions from what we haven't found so far. also we could have easily missed microbial life on mars if it is under the surface.

Unfortunately, the soil on mars was analyzed and found to be poisonous to life as we know it.

Not to repeat myself, but due to how life Evolves to be able to live in the harshest of conditions here, it seems like common sense that we'd be finding it all over the place where we do look (off world). And certainly we'd be hearing radio signals from the bazillions of planets out there with intelligent life.

 

[yakbladder]

Unfortunately, the soil on mars was analyzed and found to be poisonous to life as we know it.

Not to repeat myself, but due to how life Evolves to be able to live in the harshest of conditions here, it seems like common sense that we'd be finding it all over the place where we do look (off world). And certainly we'd be hearing radio signals from the bazillions of planets out there with intelligent life.

I've always though that something like SETI, looking for radio sources (or similar) was an extreme shot in the dark.

We followed one civilization / evolution path, another civilization could take an entirely different form. What if they are at some pre-electric stage (as we know out) and don't have radios? What if they use a different form of communication altogether? Mass brain messages, etc..

Just can't really tell until you find it...

 

[Denny Crane]

I've always though that something like SETI, looking for radio sources (or similar) was an extreme shot in the dark.

We followed one civilization / evolution path, another civilization could take an entirely different form. What if they are at some pre-electric stage (as we know out) and don't have radios? What if they use a different form of communication altogether? Mass brain messages, etc..

Just can't really tell until you find it...

I figure it this way... We've sent out radio since about 1900 and TV since about 1935. Figure round trip of 110 years for radio at speed of light would be 55 light years each way. Now look at how many stars are within 55 light years and it's in the thousands. One way would be the full 110 light years. There are about 15,000 stars within earshot, since we're only listening.

The odds those stars are near the same age as us is very high, if not certain. The planets around those stars would be the same age as us, roughly. If life out there is a certainty, I don't see why we wouldn't be hearing their radio programs sent out as many as 110 years ago by one of the tens of thousands of intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way alone that is supposed to be a conservative estimate.

 

[Eastoff]

I figure it this way... We've sent out radio since about 1900 and TV since about 1935. Figure round trip of 110 years for radio at speed of light would be 55 light years each way. Now look at how many stars are within 55 light years and it's in the thousands. One way would be the full 110 light years. There are about 15,000 stars within earshot, since we're only listening.

The odds those stars are near the same age as us is very high, if not certain. The planets around those stars would be the same age as us, roughly. If life out there is a certainty, I don't see why we wouldn't be hearing their radio programs sent out as many as 110 years ago by one of the tens of thousands of intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way alone that is supposed to be a conservative estimate.

I'll look around to try to find the article, but I heard somewhere that a new calculation has been done, and some have realized/proposed that the radio signals would be too weak by the time they get out of our solar system or maybe into the closest, i forget.

As far as the mars situation, one thing we take for granted is our wonderful spinning molten iron core. Why do you ask? Well I'm glad to explain that this spinning iron, creates a magnetic field, called the ionosphere! This ionosphere protects us from radiation from the sun and space that would go right through the rest of the atmosphere! Mars' core has stopped spinning long ago, although some believe it did spin at one time. The scary part, is that at some point our core will flip, and the ionosphere will disappear briefly. Birds will get messed up, and there will be A LOT of cancer cases.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll look around to try to find the article, but I heard somewhere that a new calculation has been done, and some have realized/proposed that the radio signals would be too weak by the time they get out of our solar system or maybe into the closest, i forget.

As far as the mars situation, one thing we take for granted is our wonderful spinning molten iron core. Why do you ask? Well I'm glad to explain that this spinning iron, creates a magnetic field, called the ionosphere! This ionosphere protects us from radiation from the sun and space that would go right through the rest of the atmosphere! Mars' core has stopped spinning long ago, although some believe it did spin at one time. The scary part, is that at some point our core will flip, and the ionosphere will disappear briefly. Birds will get messed up, and there will be A LOT of cancer cases.

I don't take it for granted at all. In fact, to find another earth, you aren't just finding a rock in some sun's temperate zone. The earth has the ionosphere, plate tectonics, and a moon that's huge in relation to the earth's size. To mention a few things.

The moon alone is a biggie. No other planet we know of has a moon as big (in relation to the planet). It strongly affects the tides. 4B years ago, it was way closer and the tides were like giant tsunamis - a serious kind of stirring things up in our oceans. The moon also keeps our precession from turning into a radical wobble that would cause violent weather pattern swings, from freezing to tropical, over very short periods of time. The Earth also rotated very fast on its axis before the moon was formed or captured, and the moon slows us down to the nice 24 hour rotation we have today. It also is a pretty big target for asteroids, meteors, and comets... Another factor is we have a huge Jupiter (and Saturn, too) far from the sun to protect us from those things.

The temperate zone is another big factor. If earth were just a little closer to the sun, the oceans would boil off. If a little further, the water would freeze over. There's not that much room for error.

As far as the radio signals, the intensity does weaken at an inverse proportion to the distance travelled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

 

[barfo]

On the other hand, science is about things observable, and one of the consistent things I hear from religious people is that they observe the work of god all around us. Maybe to see things you need a microscope or to be aware of what you're looking for/at...

Maybe. But if I tell you the interstate highway system is the work of the platypus, does that mean I'm correct?

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

I don't take it for granted at all. In fact, to find another earth, you aren't just finding a rock in some sun's temperate zone. The earth has the ionosphere, plate tectonics, and a moon that's huge in relation to the earth's size. To mention a few things.

The moon alone is a biggie. No other planet we know of has a moon as big (in relation to the planet). It strongly affects the tides. 4B years ago, it was way closer and the tides were like giant tsunamis - a serious kind of stirring things up in our oceans. The moon also keeps our precession from turning into a radical wobble that would cause violent weather pattern swings, from freezing to tropical, over very short periods of time. The Earth also rotated very fast on its axis before the moon was formed or captured, and the moon slows us down to the nice 24 hour rotation we have today. It also is a pretty big target for asteroids, meteors, and comets... Another factor is we have a huge Jupiter (and Saturn, too) far from the sun to protect us from those things.

The temperate zone is another big factor. If earth were just a little closer to the sun, the oceans would boil off. If a little further, the water would freeze over. There's not that much room for error.

This is all very true, how lucky we are! Although I think you might slightly exaggerating the temperate zone narrowness. The chemical atmosphere helps regulate our temperature quite nicely too.

 

[barfo]

The odds those stars are near the same age as us is very high, if not certain. The planets around those stars would be the same age as us, roughly.

I commented on this assertion in a different thread - I don't buy it. I don't think nearby stars need be the same age as ours, much less planets.

If life out there is a certainty, I don't see why we wouldn't be hearing their radio programs sent out as many as 110 years ago by one of the tens of thousands of intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way alone that is supposed to be a conservative estimate.

Maybe there aren't tens of thousands. Maybe there are only a few. Maybe they don't use radio. I don't see any reason to assume they are exactly like us except on a different planet.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

I commented on this assertion in a different thread - I don't buy it. I don't think nearby stars need be the same age as ours, much less planets.



Maybe there aren't tens of thousands. Maybe there are only a few. Maybe they don't use radio. I don't see any reason to assume they are exactly like us except on a different planet.

barfo

Seriously, as far as we know in physics, which i suppose a lack of complete knowledge is your basis, there is no other way to send communication then electric/magnetic waves.
Perhaps they know of some kind of sub space transmission (i've revealed too much of my nerd-dom) or particle entanglement communication.

 

[barfo]

Seriously, as far as we know in physics, which i suppose a lack of complete knowledge is your basis, there is no other way to send communication then electric/magnetic waves.
Perhaps they know of some kind of sub space transmission (i've revealed too much of my nerd-dom) or particle entanglement communication.

Ask Uhura to put their sub space transmissions through the universal translator.

Yes, maybe they've figured out how to use gravitons to communicate. Or maybe they just don't communicate over long distances. We had a civilization for hundreds/thousands of years before we came up with radio, after all.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I commented on this assertion in a different thread - I don't buy it. I don't think nearby stars need be the same age as ours, much less planets.



Maybe there aren't tens of thousands. Maybe there are only a few. Maybe they don't use radio. I don't see any reason to assume they are exactly like us except on a different planet.

barfo

Stars of the same class as the sun. I wouldn't assume that any other kind can support life.

You may not realize it, but if you're right, then drake's equation says there's no life anywhere.

The Drake equation states that:

where:
N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy in which communication might be possible; and
R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxyfp is the fraction of those stars that have planetsne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planetsfℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some pointfi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent lifefc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into spaceL is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space
Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were:

• R* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy)
• fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
• ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of supporting life)
• fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life)
• fi = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life)
• fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate)
• L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years)

Drake's values give N = 10 × 0.5 × 2 × 1 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10,000 = 10.


(Your fp would be on the order of a handful / 15000. Do the math for yourself

 

[barfo]

Stars of the same class as the sun. I wouldn't assume that any other kind can support life.

You may not realize it, but if you're right, then drake's equation says there's no life anywhere.

Disagree. From what you posted, Drakes equation refers specifically to civilizations in this galaxy which we can communicate. Not all life anywhere. Besides, we know there is life on earth, even if it isn't intelligent.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

Not to repeat myself, but due to how life Evolves to be able to live in the harshest of conditions here, it seems like common sense that we'd be finding it all over the place where we do look (off world).

not to repeat myself, but we've only "looked" in 2 places out of billions (moon, mars).

And certainly we'd be hearing radio signals from the bazillions of planets out there with intelligent life.

well, that's a different issue. even if life is abundant in the universe, the intelligence required to send radio signals strong enough to reach other stars could be relatively rare. there's no rule that says that type of intelligence is the inevitable endpoint of evolution. we may be an anomaly. after all life has existed on earth for 3 billion years and has been sending strong radio signals for less than 100.

 

[Denny Crane]

Disagree. From what you posted, Drakes equation refers specifically to civilizations in this galaxy which we can communicate. Not all life anywhere. Besides, we know there is life on earth, even if it isn't intelligent.

barfo

Do the math.

.01 * .01 * 1000 = 1

That would be:

• i = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life)
• fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate)
• L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years)

That leaves the # of planets that support life at zero.

 

[Denny Crane]

not to repeat myself, but we've only "looked" in 2 places out of billions (moon, mars).



well, that's a different issue. even if life is abundant in the universe, the intelligence required to send radio signals strong enough to reach other stars could be relatively rare. there's no rule that says that type of intelligence is the inevitable endpoint of evolution. we may be an anomaly. after all life has existed on earth for 3 billion years and has been sending strong radio signals for less than 100.

We've landed on more than just moon and mars.