| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2004 10:03:32 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
...- Our uncanny ability to use tools that sets us apart from mere 'animals'
- Our uncanny ability to simulate that really sets us apart from mere 'animals'
- That visual or spoken language is often the main tool we use to simulate stuff... |
- several species of apes, monkeys, even some birds have been observed to employ tools;
- contemporary science is still actively engaging research into the probability of language being employed by animals. Present findings are not conclusive by any means.
I consider myself a human animal and regard the gross distinction between one and the other as motivated by a desire for exploitation.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 10:41:23 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Its more logical to assume a highly advanced race stopped by Earth a few hundred million years ago and dropped off some seed; than some sort of magical creator there is no proof exists yet people assume he is watching us at all times (and therefore letting innocent people die daily who worship some version of him, and letting selfish gluttons run the world). |
Interesting point... Where did this "highly advanced race" come from? How did they evolve so fast that they could seed a planet while the universe was still just cooling off after the Big Bang?
Originally posted by Mousie:
There's a lot of stuff that points to us being a simulation created by the previous simulation up the chain, busily working on the next kajillion simulations down the chain.
Prove me wrong! I mean, without using a Bible. :)
|
Cause the universe, which we have a pretty decent measurement on with these tools you've mentioned, isn't old enough for your theory :) |
Current estimates are for about 14.3 Billion years ... that's more than ten times "several hundred million years" and so I don't think the (apparent) age of the Universe affects this theory either way.
We know that everything we are made of (Oxygen, Sulfur, Iron, etc.) was formed inside a previous star which then went nova, and the detritus of which combined with the remains of other dead stars to form our Solar system and ourselves. Seems like that's enough time for a starfaring race to have evolved somewhere ...
Personally, I suspect that if Terra appears at all on any map at an interstellar travel agency, it will have a big "Quarrantined" sign on it. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:45:11 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We know that everything we are made of (Oxygen, Sulfur, Iron, etc.) was formed inside a previous star which then went nova, and the detritus of which combined with the remains of other dead stars to form our Solar system and ourselves. Seems like that's enough time for a starfaring race to have evolved somewhere ... |
Just how do we "know" this? I don't think "we" do - "know" it, that is.
I am not one of the "we" you refer to as "knowing" that which you state. I think that some people just "accept" what you stated on "faith" because the "scientists" said so. And the scientist can't "prove" it.
What is so different in you having "faith" in science, and me having "faith" in God? Neither one of us can "prove" their theories to the other.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:49:55 PM · #229 |
| If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:51:30 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? |
There are many different species of monkey. |
|
|
|
11/06/2004 11:58:41 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Its more logical to assume a highly advanced race stopped by Earth a few hundred million years ago and dropped off some seed; than some sort of magical creator there is no proof exists yet people assume he is watching us at all times (and therefore letting innocent people die daily who worship some version of him, and letting selfish gluttons run the world). |
Interesting point... Where did this "highly advanced race" come from? How did they evolve so fast that they could seed a planet while the universe was still just cooling off after the Big Bang?
|
As General said, the universe has been around for billions of years. It̢۪s logical to assume other solar systems have life that was started before our own, possibly billions of years before.
If humans don’t kill themselves off (our current course); I believe we could eventually end up space travelers similar to the galaxy in Star Trek. After all, our planet is only a grain of sand on all the beaches in the world in comparison to the Milky Way galaxy and there are billions of galaxiesâ€Â¦
The key is getting our civilizations and humanities mentality to catch up with our scientific and technological advancements.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:05:17 AM · #232 |
Originally posted by RonB:
What is so different in you having "faith" in science, and me having "faith" in God? Neither one of us can "prove" their theories to the other. |
The process of science (it's a way of doing things, not a "thing" itself) generally establishes concrete evidence of a repeatable cause/effect relationship, which effects then build upon each other (rather like a proof in geometry) to form a general theory.
The main difference is that scientists, when presented with evidence that their theories are wrong, adjust their theories to fit the new facts, rather than stating that the facts must be "wrong" because they disagree with some translation of a translation of what some desert nomad wrote on a piece of papyrus 3000 years ago.
Which thread am I writing in? : ) |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:13:09 AM · #233 |
| Well, let me ask you this. With all this popping up of new creatures, why have we not seen some new ones come around every few years. After all, there are gazillions of old ones whats been around for some time now. Thats not to say creatures don't change and adapt, but, how many millions of years would it take for a wind to blow through a forest to evolve a house? |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:16:43 AM · #234 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? |
If dogs came from wolves, why do we still have wolves?
What's your point? No one has ever argued that eveolution constitutes a linear succession of species, one replacing the other.
Quite the opposite, it postulates ever-branching varieties of life filling the various specialized ecological niches where they can gain some competitive advantage in the struggle to survive long enough to bear their descendants.
Humans branched off from the other primates primarily by developing a spine and pelvic girdle capable of sustained bipedal locomotion, leaving the arms free for grasping and carrying, and eventually leading to the superiorly prehensile opposable thumb, which is the anatomical characteristic which most distinguishes our species from the other animals.
 |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:26:12 AM · #235 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, let me ask you this. With all this popping up of new creatures, why have we not seen some new ones come around every few years. |
"Every few years" -- do you have any concept of what a million years is? Evolution works over thousands and millions of years. We've only been keeping written records (and rather rudimentary and fragmentary ones at that) for some 8000 years ... a few million years is a thousand times as long as that.
Since it is estimated that substantially less than half of the species on Earth have yet to come to the attention of the taxonomic community, so we'd have no way of recognizing or distinguishing a "new" species from merely yet-undiscovered/descibed one anyway.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 00:27:04. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:30:57 AM · #236 |
| Yes, I have a pretty good idea what a million years is. I also understand a million one, million two, million three, etc. Where's all the new animals? |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 12:48:39 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
What is so different in you having "faith" in science, and me having "faith" in God? Neither one of us can "prove" their theories to the other. |
The process of science (it's a way of doing things, not a "thing" itself) generally establishes concrete evidence of a repeatable cause/effect relationship, which effects then build upon each other (rather like a proof in geometry) to form a general theory.
The main difference is that scientists, when presented with evidence that their theories are wrong, adjust their theories to fit the new facts, rather than stating that the facts must be "wrong" because they disagree with some translation of a translation of what some desert nomad wrote on a piece of papyrus 3000 years ago.
Which thread am I writing in? : ) |
OK. So present some evidencethat shows that the Bible is wrong.
Or, how about I show you something, instead?
Psalm 8:6-8 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
That highlighted phrase, intrigued Matthew Maury so that he determined that if God̢۪s Word said there were 'paths' in the seas, then there must be paths. So he set out to find them. And he did. In 1855, Maury wrote the first textbook on modern oceanography, The Physical Geography of the Sea and Its Meteorology.
Or, how about this?
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Hmmm. Ever hear of Dark Matter? The ‘standard model’ of the universe now seems to demand that the universe is about 5% ordinary matter, which is observed through telescopes; 22.5% is dark matter, which is not observed; and the remaining is a mysterious dark energy, 72.5%. The need for the dark energy has been invoked by a need to explain the acceleration of distant galaxies.
Looks like the Bible described conversion from dark matter to ordinary matter thousands of years ago.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 00:52:33. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:05:23 AM · #238 |
What? No answer? Are not all the elements there? Perhaps not a house but a boat, or a rickshaw?
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, let me ask you this. With all this popping up of new creatures, why have we not seen some new ones come around every few years. After all, there are gazillions of old ones whats been around for some time now. Thats not to say creatures don't change and adapt, but, how many millions of years would it take for a wind to blow through a forest to evolve a house? |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:14:22 AM · #239 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, let me ask you this. With all this popping up of new creatures, why have we not seen some new ones come around every few years. After all, there are gazillions of old ones whats been around for some time now. Thats not to say creatures don't change and adapt, but, how many millions of years would it take for a wind to blow through a forest to evolve a house? |
well, why hasn't god created any more new ones? She just stopped on the 6th day? Um..., OK.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:21:44 AM · #240 |
say goodnight Gracy
Oh, OK GRACIE....... is that better?
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 01:26:51. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:23:51 AM · #241 |
Goodnight Gracie.
And maybe George Burns was God -- his interpretation made perhaps as much sense as anyone's. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:23:58 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
say goodnight Gracy |
Goodnight, Gracie. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:31:14 AM · #243 |
Originally posted by RonB:
OK. So present some evidencethat shows that the Bible is wrong. |
As I recall someone figured out that according to the Bible, the Earth (Universe) was created some six thousand years ago, in something like 4004 B.C.
A technique known at Carbon-14 dating can and has accurately dated within a few hundred years organic artifacts which are at least 14,000 years old. Fossils have been found in strata dating to millions of years in age.
While God could have created all those things some 6000 years ago, in essentially their current "pre-aged" condition, the application of the principle of Occam's Razor would seem to require the an interpretation that the Bible is allegorical rather than a literal recitation of fact, and that the Earth is instead some millions or billions of years old, in contradiction to what is otherwise described as the infallible Word of God. Any other conclusion is based on faith rather than reason.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 01:32:20. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:37:25 AM · #244 |
BINGO......Queer man
Originally posted by Mousie:
|
Straw man!
.......I believe it's yet another attempt to discredit the ideas and ideals of people you don't disagree (agree?) with, by implying that any drug user can't possibly hold a valid opinion... because of their drug use.
Taking another step back, there's the implication that a homosexual can't possibly have a valid opinion on morality, because they are too steeped in gayness, and in the words of Anachronite, 'in denial'.
What a clever little way to preemptively discount any opinions supporting a moral choice made by anyone who behaves in a way you don't like. [/quote]
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 01:39:57. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 01:45:35 AM · #245 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
As General said, the universe has been around for billions of years. It̢۪s logical to assume other solar systems have life that was started before our own, possibly billions of years before.
|
The first few billion years the stars were forming and the planets were gas rings surrounding those suns. Next couple of billion years the rings were forming into planets... Why do you suppose the star and planet of the advanced star-travelers you believe in formed so much faster than Sol and Earth did? Insta-Solar-system? Quick Drying Hydrogen? Maybe they had a deal with Polaroid?
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:00:47 AM · #246 |
Sol is a second-generation (or greater) star. Other stars/planetary systems undoubtedly formed/matured billions of years prior to Sol.
Our Sun/Earth are about 4-6 billion years old. The Universe as we perceive it today seems to have existed for some 14 billion years. It seems probable there have been one-two generations of stars/planets before us, especially given the presence of so many heavy atoms (like everything heavier than Helium) in our system, which were apparently all formed as part of the life/death cycle of earlier stars, and not as part of the Big Bang..
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 02:01:12. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:04:05 AM · #247 |
| myqyl: If you've never read it, check out the story The Last Question by Isaac Asimov; it is perhaps most easily found in his anthology Opus 100. I think you would like it. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:14:37 AM · #248 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RobB:
OK. So present some evidencethat shows that the Bible is wrong. |
As I recall someone figured out that according to the Bible, the Earth (Universe) was created some six thousand years ago, in something like 4004 B.C. |
Umm, is it fair to say that someone's misinterpretation of the Bible resulting in the absurd premise that the Earth is 6000 years old is evidence that the Bible is wrong? Most credible Biblical scholars believe in the Big Bang Theory, as well as evolution. God's existence is proved by evolution. Particularly "Accelerated Evolution"... The probability that random chance alone could possibly have resulted in the evolution observable in fossil records is so small that if the existence of God is not a certainty, it is assuredly an astronomical probability. When I was an atheist, I tried to prove, mathematically, that God didn't exist. Once I crunched the numbers, I became a believer. 25 years later, I arrived at the conclusion that not only did God exist, but that the Bible is a message from God, suggesting the best way humankind can thrive in peace and happiness...
Do I expect anyone to believe (or understand) what I'm talking about? Nope :) The proof in in the journey... Check it out yourself...
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:19:36 AM · #249 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
myqyl: If you've never read it, check out the story The Last Question by Isaac Asimov; it is perhaps most easily found in his anthology Opus 100. I think you would like it. |
Thanks :) I'm on the last chapter of what I'm reading and was looking for a good next book :) I'm curious where the "generation"s of stars comes from? It wasn't around when I was in college, so it's obviously a theory conceived since Hubble etc... Any good links to papers on this? I haven't been keeping up like I should :)
Opps :) Not a book, huh? Is this it?
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 02:22:54.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 02:30:31 AM · #250 |
Yes, that's the story. Enjoy!
"Generations" of stars has been around for quite a while, but I'll have to look up some references -- I haven't taken an actual astronomy course since I went to college the first time in 1970-71.
Any of Asimov's books on the subject will help explain it -- it was his great gift to translate experts for the common person. |
|
