Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[YoursTrue]

The Bible is stories compiled and written by men. Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian mythology, this is taught in advanced college Hebrew Bible courses at Yale and Harvard. Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern deity, the commandments are a small part of the Egyptian codes, Proverbs contains an Egyptian book of wisdom, and so on. It looks to be man-made, as all religious scriptures are.
Yahweh said many things that did not come to pass. He said everyone would bow to the Israelite religion. So there is no evidence that what the Bible says is a guide to future happenings.
This is no different than a Muslim saying "well the Quran says that....",




Other stars are too far away for us to ever get to other solar systems. Not for a long time at least. It's possible there is simple life on the moon Europa because it has water and volcanic vents. Life formed on Earth deep in water near vents as well. We don't know? Of course it's possible.

In the Late Antiquity and Middle Ages the Church thought is was insane to think the Earth wasn't the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. Illness was caused by God or demons, as was the motion of planets, weather, earthquakes and most things. At this point holding on to archaic concepts based on a religions idea of what humanity is is clearly wrong. Yet for some reason some people cannot let it go.



What methodology did you use to determine life exists nowhere else except Earth? All of science believes life is probably common in the universe as does most religious people as well. The old school "it's only us" exists in small pockets of fundamentalists. Were this a few hundred years ago you would be saying germs are not real, God and devils create illness and telling me to have a nice day in your smugness.

The more I think about things like something coming from nothing and "evolution" on other planets, the more it becomes bordering on the insane. And awful. But you have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

This makes any conversation about the topic with you an exercise in futility imo.

This is why I generally stay away from concepts that don't make sense to me. Realizing that not everything makes sense to everyone.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know about "many of you" and I am not "set in my beliefs".
I explained a misunderstanding you had regarding that quote. I also explained why astronomers and scientists expect there are many planets that can sustain life.
These are facts. So I'm asking what makes you believe that life isn't abundant in the universe. Your beliefs must have some basis?

Evolution is a different matter. It's just a change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over time. Even if it didn't have massive evidence and it was actually wrong it doesn't suggest we were created by a magic deity. Deities have not been demonstrated and violations of basic physical laws has not been demonstrated. So it's reasonable to believe some natural process happened. Incredible amounts of evidence also points that direction.

Yes, I realize that yes, many figure, no, sorry, imagine that life can somehow pop up on other planets, just as they think something popped in on the earth from "outer space" and voila, life (evolution began). I am not going to pursue the subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible is stories compiled and written by men. Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian mythology, this is taught in advanced college Hebrew Bible courses at Yale and Harvard. Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern deity, the commandments are a small part of the Egyptian codes, Proverbs contains an Egyptian book of wisdom, and so on. It looks to be man-made, as all religious scriptures are.
Yahweh said many things that did not come to pass. He said everyone would bow to the Israelite religion. So there is no evidence that what the Bible says is a guide to future happenings.
This is no different than a Muslim saying "well the Quran says that....",




Other stars are too far away for us to ever get to other solar systems. Not for a long time at least. It's possible there is simple life on the moon Europa because it has water and volcanic vents. Life formed on Earth deep in water near vents as well. We don't know? Of course it's possible.

In the Late Antiquity and Middle Ages the Church thought is was insane to think the Earth wasn't the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it. Illness was caused by God or demons, as was the motion of planets, weather, earthquakes and most things. At this point holding on to archaic concepts based on a religions idea of what humanity is is clearly wrong. Yet for some reason some people cannot let it go.



What methodology did you use to determine life exists nowhere else except Earth? All of science believes life is probably common in the universe as does most religious people as well. The old school "it's only us" exists in small pockets of fundamentalists. Were this a few hundred years ago you would be saying germs are not real, God and devils create illness and telling me to have a nice day in your smugness.

Whatever you believe, that's your belief. There is nothing beyond imagination to think that "life" came about and evolved to 'who-knows'what' on another planet, maybe you think the virtual possibility could be from again plants to humans?

 

[YoursTrue]

We are living in the universe so it's a pretty sure bet others are as well.

Just a matter of time.

I'm purty sure that life did not evolve out there. <smile> But if you do -- hey, go for it.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is pleading 'arguing from ignorance' based on an ancient reliigous agenda without any knowledge of science on the subject as usual.

The knowledge you talk about is basically conjecture regarding what happened at the beginning. Yet you think there was always something. Anyway, hope things go well for you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I say we revert to writing all academic papers in Latin…solve the translation problem 1,2,3!

Don’t think they ever did that in China, or the Arab world.

To argue - as some on this thread are - that scientific research takes place in a cultural vacuum, un-influenced by the values, preconceptions and prejudices of it’s practitioners, is naive. Valueless, clear sighted, and culturally unencumbered observation and interpretation might state a perfect ideal, doubt it’s ever been the reality though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm purty sure that life did not evolve out there. <smile> But if you do -- hey, go for it.

Of course it did. The earth wasn't even there after the big bang. The materials and conditions were obviously there in the formation and emergence of life here.

I'd say the earthlike planets to a greater extent out there favored just as well as the Earth did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don’t think they ever did that in China, or the Arab world.

To argue - as some on this thread are - that scientific research takes place in a cultural vacuum, un-influenced by the values, preconceptions and prejudices of it’s practitioners, is naive. Valueless, clear sighted, and culturally unencumbered observation and interpretation might state a perfect ideal, doubt it’s ever been the reality though.

No, humans are definitely biased and thus influenced by all kinds of things involving culture, background, beliefs, etc.


The thing about science though... is that the scientific method exists precisely to try and avoid those biases as much as possible.
This is why India or China don't have their own version of Einstein's relativity.

Gravity doesn't care about culture.
Neither does anything else in physics or chemistry or biology or what-have-you.

Regardless of your ethnic or cultural background... if you drop something in a vacuum, it will accelerate towards the ground at 9.81 meters per second per second.

The universe works the way it does, regardless of what you believe or where you grew up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You really are off on another pointless tangent and wanting to have an argument over the meaning of words but trying to make it more profound. Meanwhile, the international community gets on with doing science.

Sorry, it's pointless - lost interest now. As you were, back in your own little world.

Well, I like how you cope. You are the we of the human species and when challenged for that, you use emotions. You have no evidence that it is pointless. It is pointless to you as a first person subjective non-cognitive evaluation.
The point is that you have just confirm that all of the universe is not objective, because you as a part of the universe did something subjective. You have confirmed this:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

So you are subjective for your understanding and I am that too, but that is pointless in both cases, yet relevant to you as difference, because of reasons subjective in you.
I am doing human science on you, because I explain that we are both subjective. That is what makes it human science and not natural science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Academically there is no difference in science in any language. All the universities of the world translate their work in science in most if not all languages of the world without changing the science. Science remains science across cultural and linguistic boundaries.

So you say. Now show evidence for that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I say we revert to writing all academic papers in Latin…solve the translation problem 1,2,3!

I say it differently and remark that we are both subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those subjects that do not use the scientific method are not sciences. If there is no testing by observation, there is no science.

So, no, history is not a science. Neither is philosophy.

So you say. Now show evidence for that. You are confusing your subjective norms with evidence. You are stating an opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Over here, psychology likes to think of itself as a science, but it really isn't except in very rare cases.

Yes, over here. Hang on to that for dear live, because that is not objective. It is cultural and that is the point.
Read this and understand it:
"As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another."
We are not a mono culture and you have to check your own culture, before you take it for granted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science does not describe anything in terms of claims of 'Truth.'

That depends on the given culture for science. Your science is the Truth for all humans, because you say so. That is your trick.
"As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another."

Check your local culture, before you claim what you claim is universal.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes it does.

Where?

No meaningful dialogue, and you have offered nothing just static.

Evasion. You have posted nothing that supports your claims about space and time not being continuous at the "quantum scale" as current science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, humans are definitely biased and thus influenced by all kinds of things involving culture, background, beliefs, etc.


The thing about science though... is that the scientific method exists precisely to try and avoid those biases as much as possible.
This is why India or China don't have their own version of Einstein's relativity.

Gravity doesn't care about culture.
Neither does anything else in physics or chemistry or biology or what-have-you.

Regardless of your ethnic or cultural background... if you drop something in a vacuum, it will accelerate towards the ground at 9.81 meters per second per second.

The universe works the way it does, regardless of what you believe or where you grew up.

That the universe works the way it does, independently of the observer and the way she chooses to observe it, is far from being the consensus in theoretical physics (arguably the most quantifiable and therefore objectively precise of the hard sciences).

“You may be inclined to believe that when you observe something in the world, you are passively looking at it just the way it would have been were you not there. But quantum contextuality rules this out. There is no way to define a reality that is independent of the way we choose to look at it.”
- Chris Ferrie

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That the universe works the way it does, independently of the observer and the way she chooses to observe it, is far from being the consensus in theoretical physics (arguably the most quantifiable and therefore objectively precise of the hard sciences).

“You may be inclined to believe that when you observe something in the world, you are passively looking at it just the way it would have been were you not there. But quantum contextuality rules this out. There is no way to define a reality that is independent of the way we choose to look at it.”
- Chris Ferrie

The problem is that some people in fact do a folk ontology that is in effect psychology.
They take the most fundamental point of hard science "I observe something" and then treat that "I" as not in the universe. But even for hard science would seem to have a limit, because the observer is a part of the universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

Which is tending towards word salad, but before you said:-

So what has the Hawking Hartle no boundary hypothesis got to do with some "quantum matrix" beyond space-time?

This may help: How the Physics of Nothing Underlies Everything | Quanta Magazine

It doesn't.

It's about the nature of the vacuum within the universe (space-time). It then strays into string theory and possible consequences and multiverse that are hypothetical, not current science. It doesn't go any way towards answering the question I asked: "what has the Hawking Hartle no boundary hypothesis got to do with some "quantum matrix" beyond space-time?" (Hawking Hartle, BTW, is also hypothetical at this point).

 

[ratiocinator]

Science does not describe anything in terms of claims of 'Truth.'

That depends on the given culture for science.

No, it really doesn't. There are international standards and agreed definitions at work in these sort of areas. If there weren't international cooperation would not be possible.