Human Race and Earth Endangered by New Strain

[bribrius]

The universe may in fact be eternal, but we may not be able to understand this anymore than a ant can understand orbital physics. When scientists try to determine why certain constants have the values that they do, they often come to the conclusion that the specific properties are rather arbitrary. However, these values are tuned in such a way that they make matter possible, and for us to be able to exist. Some see in this the hand of God. Others hypothesize that the "big bang" that created our universe is actually a bubble in a much larger space, where spontaneous generation of universes is an on-going process, with each created universe having a arbitrary set of basic properties. In most of those universes, the physical laws are different from ours, and in most life as we understand it would not be possible. So the fact that WE exist may be a cosmic coincidence where all the physical properties coalesced to values which would allow life as we know it. Personally, I have a hard time understanding how multiple universes could exist, but then my intellect has a hard time understanding time as the fourth dimension. Yet physicists have conceptualized universes with many more dimensions than four, and if that is in fact possible, then it's quite possible that the other dimensions are connected to the ones we perceive in ways that our minds cannot understand (yet). Sorry, Buckster, haven't yet watched your posted lecture. Planning to do that while I'm resting my tired body after doing some yard work which I'm going to start in a few minutes. It may have already answered some of the questions I'm asking.

The universe is eternal? Do you believe that? I have trouble believing that. Put it on a smaller scale. The ant comes upon a rock. Ant could suppose the rock was always there.....
Any matter (could just be my take on it) i figure started somewhere, and eventually gets traced back to a beginning from nothing.

 

[bribrius]

It is much easier and more comforting to assume that some benevolent force is watching over us rather than to contemplate that we may be rather stupid, albeit complex, organisms that are just muddling around in our little part of reality.

It is empowering and, in my opinion, rather pretentious to think that any one of us has actually some pull with this benevolent force.

One look at the "pillars of creation" , a structure with arms that are 4 light years long and that was destroyed 1000 years ago, should make any 'believer' wonder really about his importance in this cosmos. Persisting in belief after seeing this photograph is really a defense mechanism.

comforting? eh....... Various religions could be considered many things but in general a vengeful God looking to strike you dead or send you to fire and brimstone i wouldn't necessarily call comforting...

you know that whole thing... If you want to know the creator. Look at the creation.
Do not worship the creation though, but the creator.
meh, see, this is the line where i usually find myself on the other side. While i love 57 chevys i don't forget someone designed an built them.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Back some 1500 years ago or so the emperor Constantine assimilated the christian belief system into the Roman empire. He would welcome people into Constantinople/Istanbul to live but he would say to people "do you see that Aqua dome over there the water in that is only for christians".

Centuries later christian congregations such as the catholic church operate on the same principles, "come to church every Sunday pray to god and you'll get into heaven, O by the way god looks fondly on those who donate toward the popes helicopter payments.

The Bible is a book, the christian church is merely an extension of the Roman empire and both were constructed by men. I don't know about god but I do know that if I take a swan dive off the balcony I will fall at a rate of 9.18 meters per second squared until I reach terminal velocity or concrete.

 

[table1349]

 

[bribrius]

is it really a fight? Or can they be one in the same

 

[table1349]

is it really a fight? Or can they be one in the same

Oh you silly dreamer you. Give it another page or two and see what happens.

 

[Fred Berg]

is it really a fight? Or can they be one in the same

I thinks so, yes, and perhaps they are closer to one another than many realise . Early scientists were often religious men and women and this article might be of interest: Monastic medicine medieval herbalism meets modern science www.scienceinschool.org

 

[The_Traveler]

is it really a fight? Or can they be one in the same

I thinks so, yes, and perhaps they are closer to one another than many realise . Early scientists were often religious men and women and this article might be of interest: Monastic medicine medieval herbalism meets modern science www.scienceinschool.org

That is amazing astounding crap and totally off the topic.
Science doesn't need religion and, clearly, religion has no use for science except to try to incorporate reality into dogma.
Science doesn't care when the world 'began' except to understand how the cosmos works.
Science is anti-belief because belief inhibits progress.
Belief sets up barriers to change.

 

[Derrel]

This post deserves a Troll of The Month Award....

Masterful trolling, Keith, simply splendidly done! This is like a downrigger trolling pass, made with three spoons on the line, one at the end of the line, the other two sent down on sliders, and a three-fish salmon limit boated on one, single pass. The concept behind this trolling pass was perfectly chosen. Unfortunately, this afternoon's cellular phone privacy fearmongering post is starting off very slowly...but hey, who knows, maybe there will be an evening bite shortly before the sun sets and some flatlines up near the surface might draw some strikes.

 

[The_Traveler]

This post deserves a Troll of The Month Award....

Masterful trolling, Keith, simply splendidly done! This is like a downrigger trolling pass, made with three spoons on the line, one at the end of the line, the other two sent down on sliders, and a three-fish salmon limit boated on one, single pass. The concept behind this trolling pass was perfectly chosen. Unfortunately, this afternoon's cellular phone privacy fearmongering post is starting off very slowly...but hey, who knows, maybe there will be an evening bite shortly before the sun sets and some flatlines up near the surface might draw some strikes.

I've noticed that Derrel rarely makes a comment without a negative slam at someone or some attitude or some thing.
It must be difficult to keep that kind of negativity in check.

Now wait.
Soon there will be a long response from Derrel, often with quotes, etc.

 

[unpopular]

The universe is eternal? Do you believe that? I have trouble believing that. Put it on a smaller scale. The ant comes upon a rock. Ant could suppose the rock was always there.....
Any matter (could just be my take on it) i figure started somewhere, and eventually gets traced back to a beginning from nothing.

the rock has always been there. it just wasn't always a rock. the question isn't if the universe is eternal - I don't believe that everything popped up out of nothing - the question is will the universe always be something that humans can comprehend as the universe.

 

[table1349]

And so it begins.

is it really a fight? Or can they be one in the same

I thinks so, yes, and perhaps they are closer to one another than many realise . Early scientists were often religious men and women and this article might be of interest: Monastic medicine medieval herbalism meets modern science www.scienceinschool.org

That is amazing astounding crap and totally off the topic.
Science doesn't need religion and, clearly, religion has no use for science except to try to incorporate reality into dogma.
Science doesn't care when the world 'began' except to understand how the cosmos works.
Science is anti-belief because belief inhibits progress.
Belief sets up barriers to change.

Guess you will never change.

 

[Fred Berg]

is it really a fight? Or can they be one in the same

I thinks so, yes, and perhaps they are closer to one another than many realise . Early scientists were often religious men and women and this article might be of interest: Monastic medicine medieval herbalism meets modern science www.scienceinschool.org

That is amazing astounding crap and totally off the topic.
Science doesn't need religion and, clearly, religion has no use for science except to try to incorporate reality into dogma.
Science doesn't care when the world 'began' except to understand how the cosmos works.
Science is anti-belief because belief inhibits progress.
Belief sets up barriers to change.

Well, it might be interesting for some to read and it demonstrates that religion isn't only about miracles and faith but also has a pragmatic side to it: these early monks might well have prayed for the deliverance of their patients but they also understood that this probably wouldn't be enough on its own and so they applied what knowledge of medicine they had to help to alleviate the ailments.

But you seem to be avoiding the key issue in all this and your very strong views are beginning to look a bit like an avoidance tactic.
The article suggests that people are turning off from facts, losing interest in science perhaps. My thoughts on why this is, as summed up in my original post (which was clearly misread by some: probably the mix of humour and polemic was a bit heady and the irony was missed ) is because scientists have come to be perceived much in the same way as religious leaders: they tend to sermonise and to present their facts, which are often theories only, with omnipotent confidence in their verity. But more than this, scientists become unreasonably aggressive when challenged, they close ranks and seek to ridicule those who deign to question them. If you think this is not so, simply read through this thread from beginning to end and a clear enough pattern will emerge in support of my hypothesis.

An example. When I was asked to say which theories had been cobbled together by scientists to cover the gaps in their knowledge, I listed a number of very well known and older theories as well as one or two newer less well disseminated ones but which are hot topics right now. The response was a mixture of scorn and rancour from some and an attempt to show how these theories have been supported and proven with evidence gained through study and research from others. Evidence comes in many forms, though, and is not proof in and of itself, and the trouble with theories is that it is very difficult to corroborate and verify them. The theories I listed have become accepted by many as set in stone and yet they are all unproven, all still theories. That is not to say they are not useful, and the example of how GPS systems account for the so called dilation of time is a good example of how science can overcome difficulties whilst working with partial understanding and incomplete knowledge. The space-time continuum mathematical theory has helped in identifying an anomaly in recording devices which can then be overcome with adjustments, yet this is not to say that it is really understood what is happening and this anomaly once being observed does not provide enough evidence to prove that time is relative: not enough is known about time to jump to this conclusion.

And this is really the point: both science and religion are shrouded in mystery and half truths which some people turn away from.

 

[Fred Berg]

^^
I don't like what I see
I press the disagree
It adds no discussion
But feels good to me

 

[pgriz]

Well, perhaps it is semantics, but scientific theories can NOT be proven. They can, however be disproven. At best, our scientific theories are statements of our current understanding, with a confidence level that can be pretty high (but never 100%), and always subject to revision once new evidence is obtained.

Perhaps the response is due to the phrase "cobbled together", which implies an ad-hoc or rather unstructured collection of mostly-unrelated facts. That may be true for an inital hypothesis, but usually by the time the science gets enough information and tests the hypothesis many different ways, the resulting assembly of knowledge can be dignified as a scientific theory, and pretty much all such theories are subject to a rather rigorous process of verification and vetting.

Of course, science being conducted by humans, there is always the possibility of error and selection blindness, and a myriad of other human failings that can influence the expression of the theory, but in general the peer-review process is reasonably good at finding the chaff among the grain.

However, this discussion does not address the issues of the original post and article, which, although written in a humorous way, still points to the propensity for humans to selectively filter out anything that does not correspond to their current point of view.