The ISS in of itself qualifies as a worthwhile experiment as far as I'm concerned. We've probably learned just as much from building it as we would have if all the experiments planned had been completed. That's certainly worth something.
Or maybe they're just pandering to the voters. Have you ever heard a politician say that taxes are too low?? Do you thinks that's because that statement has never been true?
You make a good point. Raising taxes isn't a blanket solution and we should be careful when we raise them. But I think, at the moment, it's warrented.
"when it did in fact happen" is a statement of unequivocable faith
No shit, lol, weren't paying much attention were you:p. I have unequivocal faith that humans do exist and that life did evolve on this earth. Don't you?
I'm saying that if the theory shows that the probability of that happening is slim (when it obviously did, cause... y'know... me and you are sitting here typing and all....) then chances are there is something wrong with the theory.
Take for example the big bang theory. Mathematically is was sound, it's possible that things happened that way. But it required very specific conditions in the initial universe to arrive at the state of the current universe. Those conditions had to be so finely tuned that the theory in suggested that it was very unlikely that the universe would have unfolded as we see it today. But obviously the universe did unfold as we see it today. So the big bang theory was modified into inflationary cosmology which explained the universe just as accurately, and did not require the fine tuning thus did not imply a statistical abnormality in the current universe as we see it.
Do you see what I'm saying? It's not that it was actually very unlikely for life to evolve, it's just that we don't understand the process as it affected us and have not been able to observe it in another location. So to someone who doesn't get the idea of scientific progression it would seem like life is unlikely, but chances are much greater that we just don't understand it yet.
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how science approaches this situation. Years of scientific progress has shown that if a scientific model predicts a very slim chance of something happening, when it did in fact happen, then that's evidence that the model is flawed, not that the event was unlikely. The fact that science shows lifes evolution on earth to be a fluke implies that science doesn't yet know much (if anything) about this process, not that this process is in itself a statistical abnormality.
Yea, but what's the alternative theory, creationism?? I don't think so. It's definitly not perfect, but it's better then the rest, and theories aren't everlasting, people are still studying and reasearching, and trying to improve our understanding.
Eavesdropping can't possibly destroy the information in every case. The recieving unit has to be able to recieve the information so their must be some way to decode it (would be a pretty useless system if their wasn't, lol). If there is some way to decode it then I have a hard time believing that it is unbreakable.
I don't see how that's straightforeward at all. Why doesn't anything ever cross the event horizon? So stuff that falls into a black hole just stops halfway to the center??
Logic and reason are built upon faith-based presuppositions. EVERYONE, no matter what worldview they hold, presupposes things based on faith. So if you think that religion is rendered moot because it is honest that it requires faith, then you have rendered all worldviews as moot.
Logic and reason are axiomatic. The basics are considered to be so obvious as to not need any proof. Religion is not axiomatic.
Many find it illogical that you, as an atheist, posit that everything we have came from nothing. Your worldview has absolutely no means of explaining creation. Your worldview has no means of explaining the most basic of metaphysical questions. You are, therefore, forced to deny the metaphysical even exists. If you are consistent with your worldview, you are a hedonist. You cannot define morality or justice. You have no means of defending your worldview as a way to live.
That is a huge oversimplification of an atheistic worldview. We don't believe that everything came from nothing, we aren't "forced" to deny anything, we deny it because there is no logical evidence of it. We certainly can define morality and justice and we're not hedonistic, I don't know who's ass you even pulled that last one out of.
Like others have said, science cannot prove or disprove something it has no capability of addressing.
Absolutely nothing can disprove religion, that is exactly the problem I was refering to in the original post. Belief in religion is no more or less valid then belief in faries, or invisible wood nymphs. Consider for just a second this hypothetical situation. What if religion is wrong and there is no god, and you suddenly came to that realization. How would you prove to others that you are correct and they are not? Is there anything that a staunch religious advocate would take as acceptable proof that god doesn't exist? Remember that back in the day every aspect of nature was seen as gods work. Natural laws were thought to be impossible, it was believed that nature simply did what god told it too. When those aspects of nature were explained by science, religion switched an adopted the god as a clockmaker view. Every time science explains some aspect of the world religion releases it's grip on that question and says "okay, that one is science, but all these other things we don't understand, that's god". As good as science is it can never reach the beginning, time invariably flows forward so the answers to our questions have long since departed. Religion will always have an unanswered question to cling to, but that's all it's doing, clinging on. Religion doesn't even fully explain creation, it just pushes the question back a step. You would state that god created the universe but you have no explanation for how god was created. Your answer to that question is that god was never created he just simply is. But why then not apply that logic to the universe itself? There is no reason to introduce a "god" into the problem. Why not simply admit that "I don't know" or even "I'm working on that" is an acceptable answer, there's no need to make something up.
Philosophy has very little to do with religion. Philosophy is ALL about logic and reasoning. Religion is about abandoning logic and reason in favor of faith.
Completely untrue. There have certainly been many theories about how it is both logical and possible for life to evolve from single celled organisms. And there also exist theories of how single celled organisms came into being in the first place. There are no such theories for god. God is simply stated as having allways existed. It's a transparent runaround.
Because all those musings about we know this was probable and that is likely and blah blah will remain theoretical until evidence is found in support of them. That's the natural progression of science.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the movie?? All I've seen are previews for it... nothing wierd... what am I missing?
That's not exactly an easy task. I think that in of itself is good.
The ISS in of itself qualifies as a worthwhile experiment as far as I'm concerned. We've probably learned just as much from building it as we would have if all the experiments planned had been completed. That's certainly worth something.
You make a good point. Raising taxes isn't a blanket solution and we should be careful when we raise them. But I think, at the moment, it's warrented.
Do you crawl the mile??
No shit, lol, weren't paying much attention were you :p. I have unequivocal faith that humans do exist and that life did evolve on this earth. Don't you?
I'm saying that if the theory shows that the probability of that happening is slim (when it obviously did, cause... y'know... me and you are sitting here typing and all....) then chances are there is something wrong with the theory.
Take for example the big bang theory. Mathematically is was sound, it's possible that things happened that way. But it required very specific conditions in the initial universe to arrive at the state of the current universe. Those conditions had to be so finely tuned that the theory in suggested that it was very unlikely that the universe would have unfolded as we see it today. But obviously the universe did unfold as we see it today. So the big bang theory was modified into inflationary cosmology which explained the universe just as accurately, and did not require the fine tuning thus did not imply a statistical abnormality in the current universe as we see it.
Do you see what I'm saying? It's not that it was actually very unlikely for life to evolve, it's just that we don't understand the process as it affected us and have not been able to observe it in another location. So to someone who doesn't get the idea of scientific progression it would seem like life is unlikely, but chances are much greater that we just don't understand it yet.
Besides, if you don't look you'll never know.
You'll probably have to wait for all the double digit people to die off.... are you young? Cause if you're not you don't have a chance... lol
It's much better. The easyer the question the less chance we get it wrong.
Yea, but what's the alternative theory, creationism?? I don't think so. It's definitly not perfect, but it's better then the rest, and theories aren't everlasting, people are still studying and reasearching, and trying to improve our understanding.
Ever met a jockey?? It's like running with an empty backpack I'd imagine.
Eavesdropping can't possibly destroy the information in every case. The recieving unit has to be able to recieve the information so their must be some way to decode it (would be a pretty useless system if their wasn't, lol). If there is some way to decode it then I have a hard time believing that it is unbreakable.
I don't see how that's straightforeward at all. Why doesn't anything ever cross the event horizon? So stuff that falls into a black hole just stops halfway to the center??
They've got the money from the liscenses they sold. Plus there was a story a while ago about how Microsoft was funding the whole deal.
Logic and reason are axiomatic. The basics are considered to be so obvious as to not need any proof. Religion is not axiomatic.
Many find it illogical that you, as an atheist, posit that everything we have came from nothing. Your worldview has absolutely no means of explaining creation. Your worldview has no means of explaining the most basic of metaphysical questions. You are, therefore, forced to deny the metaphysical even exists. If you are consistent with your worldview, you are a hedonist. You cannot define morality or justice. You have no means of defending your worldview as a way to live.
That is a huge oversimplification of an atheistic worldview. We don't believe that everything came from nothing, we aren't "forced" to deny anything, we deny it because there is no logical evidence of it. We certainly can define morality and justice and we're not hedonistic, I don't know who's ass you even pulled that last one out of.
Like others have said, science cannot prove or disprove something it has no capability of addressing.
Absolutely nothing can disprove religion, that is exactly the problem I was refering to in the original post. Belief in religion is no more or less valid then belief in faries, or invisible wood nymphs. Consider for just a second this hypothetical situation. What if religion is wrong and there is no god, and you suddenly came to that realization. How would you prove to others that you are correct and they are not? Is there anything that a staunch religious advocate would take as acceptable proof that god doesn't exist? Remember that back in the day every aspect of nature was seen as gods work. Natural laws were thought to be impossible, it was believed that nature simply did what god told it too. When those aspects of nature were explained by science, religion switched an adopted the god as a clockmaker view. Every time science explains some aspect of the world religion releases it's grip on that question and says "okay, that one is science, but all these other things we don't understand, that's god". As good as science is it can never reach the beginning, time invariably flows forward so the answers to our questions have long since departed. Religion will always have an unanswered question to cling to, but that's all it's doing, clinging on. Religion doesn't even fully explain creation, it just pushes the question back a step. You would state that god created the universe but you have no explanation for how god was created. Your answer to that question is that god was never created he just simply is. But why then not apply that logic to the universe itself? There is no reason to introduce a "god" into the problem. Why not simply admit that "I don't know" or even "I'm working on that" is an acceptable answer, there's no need to make something up.
Philosophy has very little to do with religion. Philosophy is ALL about logic and reasoning. Religion is about abandoning logic and reason in favor of faith.
Thank you! Those are the perfect words to sum up exactly what I was trying to say.
Completely untrue. There have certainly been many theories about how it is both logical and possible for life to evolve from single celled organisms. And there also exist theories of how single celled organisms came into being in the first place. There are no such theories for god. God is simply stated as having allways existed. It's a transparent runaround.
So you're saying that god has no measurable effects? If that is so then why persist in believing?
I think it's my understanding of both that leads me to make a statement like that.
I know nothing about geology.... what am I looking at and why does it improve the odds of like on earth??
And right there is the major problem with religion...
Go ahead... mod me OT....
What would ammonia signify??
See here
Because all those musings about we know this was probable and that is likely and blah blah will remain theoretical until evidence is found in support of them. That's the natural progression of science.