Does every thread on science have to degrade into theology? ;-)

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Does every thread on science have to degrade into theology? ;-)

apparently it does. lmfao

i still stand by my statement it is highly illogical to think we are alone. there are infinite galaxies and infinite plaents in those infinite galaxies one is all it will take.

Quote:i still stand by my statement it is highly illogical to think we are alone.

The size of the universe itself doesn't eliminate doubt that there is no other intellegent life out there, especially when there is nothing else to support the idea.

What's illogical is to say that size alone ends the debate and that size alone makes the view that we're alone illogical.

It's very logical for someone to say we're alone based on the fact that there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Size alone is not enough evidence. Any scientist will tell you that.

Logic will say, we don't know.

but what is life?

Tulsaman Wrote:but what is life?

In the context of this discussion it's intellegent life right?

what defines intelligent life?

bacteria can be intelligent because it has survived for millions and millions of years being able to adapt this shows some form of intelligence in my opinion. humans can be argued have no intelligence ie warfare killing everything around themselves including themselves.

Tulsaman Wrote:what defines intelligent life?

bacteria can be intelligent because it has survived for millions and millions of years being able to adapt this shows some form of intelligence in my opinion. humans can be argued have no intelligence ie warfare killing everything around themselves including themselves.

Well, in the context of this discussion, aliens. Presumably aliens with the technology to travel through space and come here.

But passed that bacteria are not intelligent simply because they have survived. Mountains have survived for centuries, are they intelligent?

Intelligence brings with it the assumption that they did it by learning and adapting to their environment as opposed to just being able to survive in many different environments and evolving through natural means. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. If you want to argue that bacteria study their environment and then adapt accordingly I think you'd have a hard time selling that one.

And "how" the knowledge gained through intelligence is used is not an indicator of intelligence (man and war.)

In any case I don't see what any of that has to do with whether there are aliens out there.

yes but if it was intelligent it would probably scout out future planets to visit and Life scouted this planet i wouldn't come here because we simply aren't ready for other forms of intelligent life personally speaking.

Tulsaman Wrote:yes but if it was intelligent it would probably scout out future planets to visit and Life scouted this planet i wouldn't come here because we simply aren't ready for other forms of intelligent life personally speaking.

Life scouted this planet? I don't think I follow you. Are saying life was planted here by aliens?

no if Intelligent life is out there i think it is i think it would scout this planet Ie to make contact with humans in the here and now like right now in example to send a form of scout vessel or a recon ship to study humans to see if we are ready to make contact with the other form of life.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Does every thread on science have to degrade into theology? ;-)

Alright, you want it to go back to science? Here you go. This is a .pdf file and I don't know how to copy and paste it. Start in the middle of page 9 of the article and read down to the middle of page 13.

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/anchorag...nglish.pdf

N = R* fp ne f l fi fc L

http://www.airynothing.com/smackerels/Dr...ation.html

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Does every thread on science have to degrade into theology? ;-)

"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously."

Erwin Schrodinger, Nature and the Greeks, 1954.

Tulsaman Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Does every thread on science have to degrade into theology? ;-)

apparently it does. lmfao

It's not just us - the Pope and Stephen Hawking provide evidence of a phenomenon something akin to Godwin's theorem.

Tulsaman Wrote:i still stand by my statement it is highly illogical to think we are alone. there are infinite galaxies and infinite plaents in those infinite galaxies one is all it will take.

There are finite galaxies and finite planets in our universe. I agree it is logical to presume that there is, was, or will be other intelligent life in our universe, but at the same time don't believe we will ever detect such intelligence, at least not in our lifetimes.

Endzone2 Wrote:http://www.reasons.org/chapters/anchorag...nglish.pdf

Shouldn't this be under the LOTD thread?

well until we get a finite number lets assume it keeps going. ;-)

OwlJacket Wrote:

Endzone2 Wrote:http://www.reasons.org/chapters/anchorag...nglish.pdf

Shouldn't this be under the LOTD thread?

LOTD? I know a number of highly esteemed scientists who respect Hugh Ross.

Endzone2 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Does every thread on science have to degrade into theology? ;-)

Alright, you want it to go back to science? Here you go. This is a .pdf file and I don't know how to copy and paste it. Start in the middle of page 9 of the article and read down to the middle of page 13.

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/anchorag...nglish.pdf

How come I can't read all of it?

All this talk of probability, while interesting, ulitmately says nothing.

Since we're not talking about science, why don't you read the Kitzmiller decision. Start at page 1 and read through page 139.

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Does every thread on science have to degrade into theology? ;-)

"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously."

Erwin Schrodinger, Nature and the Greeks, 1954.

That's certainly one man's opinion. I don't think that science should be answering anything about things "that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us."

And in case nobody noticed, I brought religion into this initially, albeit humorously. My comment about people always bring religion into science was sarcastic. I just know that when I talk about scientific discoveries, I typically do not quote scripture to back up an observation or hypothesis

DrTorch Wrote:LOTD? I know a number of highly esteemed scientists who respect Hugh Ross.

That's fine. But "we don't understand, therefore it must be magic" does not meet any of the standards of the scientific discipline.