I read it in an issue of a science magazine or something very recently, so it's something published this year. I think it had something to do with the new CERN project or something, not sure. I hate it that I can't remember exactly where I read it.
But yes, you are right, it's a new weaker nuclear force. The problem with it is that it is so weak it's hardly detectible in the turbulent surroundings on earth. I'll send you a mail if I found out where I read it.
It's not as big a stretch as it might sound. My suggestion is that perfectly normal reptiles started living in trees (a lot of reptiles do to this day). Some of them probably evaded other tree-living creatures by jumping between trees. One reptile got skin-flaps between the arms and body, allowing it to jump further. Eventually those flaps where large enough that the reptile could fly freely.
Look at the flying squirrel today, it has such skinflaps. It can't fly, but it can jump very far between trees.
But you are right about the feathers, they are hard to explain. Maybe it happened similarly where the reptile had a few scales that extended from the arms, instead of skinflaps, that allowed it to jump longer (to sail on the air), which evolved into more scales and then feathers.
Some also believe that evolution isn't such a step by step process as I suggest here, but that there are critical points in evolution where giant leaps of progress have been taken at one time.
I think we're more interested in life that has evolved on other planets since it would prove that life is not indiginous only to Earth. This of course does not excuse our behaviour here, but NASA isn't an enviromental group, it's an agency that is aimed at space. Let's let Greenpeace and whatever they're called take care of the environment and let NASA send microbes into space.
Also, if these microbes survive in space, wouldn't that be wonderful for the preservation of earth life?:)
Yes, microbes can survive harsh treatment, but would it be contamination if they survived on Jupiter? I think IO or Europa are right out, but Jupiter is a viable option. I say, if they survive going in there with those pressures and that heat, they're welcome to that planet.:)
Actually, taking over the world is not really a priority for the cockroaches. They have all they need right here. Very successful lifeforms don't need intelligence. Look at the dinosaurs. They ruled the earth for millions of years. We've been here for a few thousand.
Really, mankind should try surviving for a few million years before it thinks itself the crown of creation.
Yes, but what if it's intelligence is only stored in the structure of gas molecules and is in fact dependent on being sucked down in the convective layers every now and again to revieve new energy to stay alive. One could speculate that enough gas molecules in a large cloud could interact in an ordered way by use of weak (or the recently discovered super-weak) forces. As I mentioned, only life as we understand it would be damaged by being pressure cooked. Maybe the entire planet of Jupiter is a large sentient being (maybe Earth too, if you look at it large scale, it does have sentience, it is sending out messages and recieving them, we are just microbes on it's surface doing it's job for it).
Of course, I'm just speculating wildly, any chance I have of being right is extremely remote. I seriously don't think there is any harm in crashing the sattelite into Jupiter.
Of course, we can never be sure about Jupiter either, only reasonably sure. We only measure life against what we know here. Who knows what kind of life could evolve on (in) a gas giant. Maybe there are huge gas whales floating around in there, living on the kinetic energy in storms.
Stephen Baxter, one of my favo SciFi authors, theorised that an alien life could be a complex structure of swirls that evolved in a muddy swamp-like planets surface.
God creating the universe requires it to be a construct of concious thought. The way scientists believe the universe was created requires no concious thought. Which is simpler?
Is it simpler to believe that someone constructed the universe in a structured manner and thought up every little aspect of it or that it just happened to turn out that way, because it was all very chaotic at first but through billions of years those pieces that don't work well together destroyed themselves?
Evolution requires only a very simple rule: That which works well will continue to work well and that which does not will die out.
This requires no concious thought at all, and no clever planning. This is just logical.
Belief is the discussion, not God
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
A discussion of whether God exists or not is futile. You have no proof of his existance. I have no proof that he does not exist. All we can discuss is why I do not believe in your God and why you believe.
Re:If you're in the shower, Occam's a fraud
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Read my reply here. We need to make things into one discussion, I have to repeat myself too much.
Because thats not the simple explanation. It's just a very short way of describing what happens in the bible (which I'm not sure we're talking about in the first place). If you want simple, then how about: "The universe just popped into existence." Thats simpler than "God just popped the universe into existence." You can't leave out a lot of detail and say it's simpler. I can describe a car as being a box with four wheels, but that leaves out a lot of important parts like the motor, steering-wheel, seats, doors and so froth, which are quite important to operating a car.
Which is simpler, that God thought out the entire universe in excrutiating detail, so that things would work well together (I hesitate to say perfect since I don't think the Universe is anything close to a perfect place), or that the universe was created a chaotic place but that natural selection (yes, Darwinism) weeded out those elements that fail to work together. Just take a look at our solar system, there are no planets going against the grain, they all spin the same way. There are very few comets going through our solar system on collision course with any planets. There are billions of asteroids waiting just outside the solar system (is it Oorts cloud its called? Don't remember), yet they won't all come tumbling into the solar system. Why? Because God decided that it should be that way, or because all asteroids that where flying around in here already have collided with all the planets and been destroyed since the solar system is many millions years old? Just because the latter took more words to describe, it's not the more complicated way, if you think about it, because it requires no contious thought, no "big plan", it just happens, whether you want it to or not.
Saying that God is outside anything we believe in and anything we could ever comprehend is just a very convenient way of not offering any proof of his existence. Once again I find this explanation much more unlikely than one that says he does not exist.
Re:If you're in the shower, Occam's a fraud
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Ok. I knew I'd have to answer if I was to read this.
Of course he has to prove himself to my satisfaction, how else am I going to be able to believe in him? Why should I believe in a God that I cannot prove in any way? What other criteria for determining what is real or not do you have than proof? If someone went up to you and told you that your mother was dead and replaced by a clever robot that you could not tell from a real person, would you blindly believe this person or would you ignore him, since he offers no proof of his statement and he claims that there is no way you can prove that your mother is NOT a robot. (I'm not attacking you or your mother in any way, this is just an example so don't blow up on me).
You are right. The simple explanation for me not answering the door if you come a'knocking is that I am not home. Why is that so hard to believe? Occams Razor can be wrong, but it is usually not. It is a rule that describes the universe beautifully. You can always make up examples where Occams Razor is wrong, but it is only useful until you have real proof one way or the other. It is really a statement of a statistical nature, Occams Razor is more right than wrong. I'm not denying that there could be a God. But the existence of God is so unlikely to me that I choose to believe that there is no God until it can be proven.
Just proves that Atheism is a religion as well, though one that has not killed as many people through history as any religion involving Gods.
Occams Razor. If God exists, why does he not prove he exists? The simplest explanation is that there is no God in the first place.
Now, I'm going tired of this discussion. It could go on forever, so I'm calling it quits here.
I changed my mind, I take it back (The Cardigans)
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
This is where Occams Razor comes in. Which is simpler, that there is a God who refuses to supply us with proof of his existance or that there in fact is no God?
This is the point I was trying to make. I was not trying to prove that God did or did not exist (it can't be done) only that no one can be omnipotent. You can always find some way to disprove any omni-$attribute
What is the difference between omnipotence (omni meaning all-encompassing and potency meaning power) and all-powerful? Does omnipresent not mean present everywhere? Does omnscent not mean all-knowing?
Now that the semantic issue is done, God can't lift a stone. "He" doesn't exist in a form capable of lifting the stone. Indeed, to modify a famous quote by the late great St. Augestine, weight is a property of the universe God created.
If he cannot lift a stone, then he is not omnipotent (all powerful). He can't do everything.
I don't know what you are saying. I bet there are a hundred similar ways to express this proof, however and it is not mine to begin with.
If God is all powerful, could he must be able to create an animal capable of beating him at chess. In that case, is he omnipotent if he can't beat an animal at chess?
I'm not proving or disproving the existence of God here, man. I'm just proving that any God would not be omnipotent.
What you are offering an alternate view. What an enterprising person presented with this problem would do is: "So you do not believe in me, mortal!? Lightning will strike you down!" boom
You're not offering any counter-proof to my statement, just something that could happen as well. There is no reason for them to not think that he is a God. Especially not if their religion talks about gods who can call down lightning from a staff or somesuch. Why would they believe that this person recieved this item from the Gods? Why would they not believe he made it himself?
You are right! I bow to your superior abilities at argumentation. You have successfully refuted my argumentation.
I still, however, do not believe in God.:) My reasons for not believing are intangible, as is probably most religious people's reasons for not believing.
If there is a God, why don't I believe in him? Can't he make me believe? He could very easily make me believe by making me observe some event that I could never explain in any other way (as giving me the power to fly, for five minutes or so). If he can't do this simple thing, what is the point of believing in this God that refuses to be proven? The simple solution to this problem is that there is no God (Occams Razor).
Actually, no. I'm talking about an age old proof that was put forth by some guy I can't remember the name of. It is described (by me) in one of these replies here, if you can find it.:)
If someone was omnipotent, he probably could know the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time. An omnipotent being would just change the universe so that the Heisenbergs law of Uncertainty does not apply anymore.
Either way, the transporters in Star Trek has an Heisenberg-compensator, so I guess that isn't going to be a real problem in the future.:)
Slashdot Mirror
But yes, you are right, it's a new weaker nuclear force. The problem with it is that it is so weak it's hardly detectible in the turbulent surroundings on earth. I'll send you a mail if I found out where I read it.
Look at the flying squirrel today, it has such skinflaps. It can't fly, but it can jump very far between trees.
But you are right about the feathers, they are hard to explain. Maybe it happened similarly where the reptile had a few scales that extended from the arms, instead of skinflaps, that allowed it to jump longer (to sail on the air), which evolved into more scales and then feathers.
Some also believe that evolution isn't such a step by step process as I suggest here, but that there are critical points in evolution where giant leaps of progress have been taken at one time.
Also, if these microbes survive in space, wouldn't that be wonderful for the preservation of earth life? :)
Yes, microbes can survive harsh treatment, but would it be contamination if they survived on Jupiter? I think IO or Europa are right out, but Jupiter is a viable option. I say, if they survive going in there with those pressures and that heat, they're welcome to that planet. :)
I'm also sure they can climb trees, they just haven't found any good reason to do it yet.
Really, mankind should try surviving for a few million years before it thinks itself the crown of creation.
Of course, I'm just speculating wildly, any chance I have of being right is extremely remote. I seriously don't think there is any harm in crashing the sattelite into Jupiter.
Stephen Baxter, one of my favo SciFi authors, theorised that an alien life could be a complex structure of swirls that evolved in a muddy swamp-like planets surface.
Is it simpler to believe that someone constructed the universe in a structured manner and thought up every little aspect of it or that it just happened to turn out that way, because it was all very chaotic at first but through billions of years those pieces that don't work well together destroyed themselves?
Evolution requires only a very simple rule: That which works well will continue to work well and that which does not will die out.
This requires no concious thought at all, and no clever planning. This is just logical.
A discussion of whether God exists or not is futile. You have no proof of his existance. I have no proof that he does not exist. All we can discuss is why I do not believe in your God and why you believe.
Which is simpler, that God thought out the entire universe in excrutiating detail, so that things would work well together (I hesitate to say perfect since I don't think the Universe is anything close to a perfect place), or that the universe was created a chaotic place but that natural selection (yes, Darwinism) weeded out those elements that fail to work together. Just take a look at our solar system, there are no planets going against the grain, they all spin the same way. There are very few comets going through our solar system on collision course with any planets. There are billions of asteroids waiting just outside the solar system (is it Oorts cloud its called? Don't remember), yet they won't all come tumbling into the solar system. Why? Because God decided that it should be that way, or because all asteroids that where flying around in here already have collided with all the planets and been destroyed since the solar system is many millions years old? Just because the latter took more words to describe, it's not the more complicated way, if you think about it, because it requires no contious thought, no "big plan", it just happens, whether you want it to or not.
Of course he has to prove himself to my satisfaction, how else am I going to be able to believe in him? Why should I believe in a God that I cannot prove in any way? What other criteria for determining what is real or not do you have than proof? If someone went up to you and told you that your mother was dead and replaced by a clever robot that you could not tell from a real person, would you blindly believe this person or would you ignore him, since he offers no proof of his statement and he claims that there is no way you can prove that your mother is NOT a robot. (I'm not attacking you or your mother in any way, this is just an example so don't blow up on me).
You are right. The simple explanation for me not answering the door if you come a'knocking is that I am not home. Why is that so hard to believe? Occams Razor can be wrong, but it is usually not. It is a rule that describes the universe beautifully. You can always make up examples where Occams Razor is wrong, but it is only useful until you have real proof one way or the other. It is really a statement of a statistical nature, Occams Razor is more right than wrong. I'm not denying that there could be a God. But the existence of God is so unlikely to me that I choose to believe that there is no God until it can be proven.
Just proves that Atheism is a religion as well, though one that has not killed as many people through history as any religion involving Gods.
Now, I'm going tired of this discussion. It could go on forever, so I'm calling it quits here.
This is where Occams Razor comes in. Which is simpler, that there is a God who refuses to supply us with proof of his existance or that there in fact is no God?
Which brings us back to the dealbreaker. Why believe in such a God? He refuses to do anything for or against you or anyone else anyway.
If God is all powerful, could he must be able to create an animal capable of beating him at chess. In that case, is he omnipotent if he can't beat an animal at chess?
I'm not proving or disproving the existence of God here, man. I'm just proving that any God would not be omnipotent.
You're not offering any counter-proof to my statement, just something that could happen as well. There is no reason for them to not think that he is a God. Especially not if their religion talks about gods who can call down lightning from a staff or somesuch. Why would they believe that this person recieved this item from the Gods? Why would they not believe he made it himself?
Yes it does, doesn't it. He predates Quantum Theory quite a bit as well. Interesting.
No, In this case (this is all an exercise is conjecture) I would be both wrong AND right!
I still, however, do not believe in God. :) My reasons for not believing are intangible, as is probably most religious people's reasons for not believing.
If there is a God, why don't I believe in him? Can't he make me believe? He could very easily make me believe by making me observe some event that I could never explain in any other way (as giving me the power to fly, for five minutes or so). If he can't do this simple thing, what is the point of believing in this God that refuses to be proven? The simple solution to this problem is that there is no God (Occams Razor).
If someone was omnipotent, he probably could know the position and velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time. An omnipotent being would just change the universe so that the Heisenbergs law of Uncertainty does not apply anymore.
Either way, the transporters in Star Trek has an Heisenberg-compensator, so I guess that isn't going to be a real problem in the future. :)