We Came From Stars!

[Orias]

Thank you, s2a. Now I don't have to explain.

Well he didn't really explain it, he just said it doesn't support it.

He said evolution is the study of living organisms over time, and cosmology doesn't offer anything in the same "vein". While cosmology is the study of the physical universe, in which living organisms dwell, as well as it is the study of the history and dynamic the phenomena known as the universe.

I think there are more than enough connections and links to support the two brotherhoods, differing disciplines in science are just that, they are still sciences with similar goals but different means. I wouldn't suppose these differing classes of scientific method actually contradict what is understood in evolution of star and universe between evolution of "life", I think thats just some peoples ways of making a simple idea more complex than it is.

 

[Willamena]

I guess theres a difference between karate and Tae Kwon Do, but I guess try explaining the difference to a boxer.

I don't think the fact that we came from stars directly supports the theory of evolution, but I don't think that it doesn't support evolution as well.

An example would be, "oh we came from stars, so we must have evolved into what we are today, from the star dust left behind to fertilize the planet" type thing. Of course the two scientific disciplines are separate, but that doesn't mean they cannot support each other, or teach an apparently similar looking kick in a different way.

It's not just like a layer of starstuff on the surface of the planet that fertilized life, no... the whole planet, and everything on it, including us, is starstuff.

It's much too broad a statement to be useful to support the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Orias]

So can anyone who actually has an understanding for evolution and cosmology explain how the two are mutually exclusive?

Or how because we came from stars it does not support the theory of evolution.

Because personally, I see the two as compatible as the power source that allows me to turn on and watch my t.v.

 

[Orias]

It's much too broad a statement to be useful to support the Theory of Evolution.

How is it too broad though?

Is it too broad to assume that before our father's father, he also had a father?

 

[Willamena]

How is it too broad though?

Is it too broad to assume that before our father's father, he also had a father?

-Fact #1: the planet, including us, is made of starstuff.
-Fact #2: the Theory of Evolution explains the ancestory and diversity of life on the planet.

If we're looking at things to support Fact #2, does Fact #1 add anything to the picture that wasn't there before?

 

[Orias]

-Fact #1: the planet, including us, is made of starstuff.
-Fact #2: the Theory of Evolution explains the ancestory and diversity of life on the planet.

If we're looking at things to support Fact #2, does Fact #1 add anything to the picture that wasn't there before?

Well it depends on if fact #1 is actually known, and if it appeals to people trying to apply it to support it to fact #2.

But I guess it would be similar to the discovery of gravity, its been there the whole time.

The physics of stars and their existence are similar to ours. Because of what we know about physics, and the quantum devices we can suppose things like theoretical physics, and cosmology as well as astronomy.

 

[Orias]

I'm just curious about those who think we came from stars but we never evolved or it doesn't support evolution.

I'm having a hard time trying to picture this line of reasoning.

It would be fun to observe an astro-physicst's point of view (assuming he or she agrees that it supports evolution) and a biologists point of view (assuming he or she disagrees that it supports evolution).

 

[s2a]

So can anyone who actually has an understanding for evolution and cosmology explain how the two are mutually exclusive?

Or how because we came from stars it does not support the theory of evolution.

Because personally, I see the two as compatible as the power source that allows me to turn on and watch my t.v.

Well, let's just say that cosmological and evolution theories are similar in that both are evidence based... but not dependent upon one another to stand alone as valid

How's that?

You can link the two scientific explanations as you please (as many folks do to suit their own philosophical views), but efforts to correlate both as one and the same typically seek to resolve their own personal issues of identifying a "prime" cause of things ("gods", the force, whatever) which might then be attributed to a "purposed" outcome/result.

One may readily observe that one circumstance allows another to unfold... but the "why" (ie purposed) vs. the "how" (empirically evidenced) seems to be conflicting aspect of faith/superstition vs. conclusions provided in the absence or consideration of the "why".

Who knows? Maybe some etherial space intellect wants it that way...

 

[Orias]

Well, let's just say that cosmological and evolution theories are similar in that both are evidence based... but not dependent upon one another to stand alone as valid

How's that?

You can link the two scientific explanations as you please (as many folks do to suit their own philosophical views), but efforts to correlate both as one and the same typically seek to resolve their own personal issues of identifying a "prime" cause of things ("gods", the force, whatever) which might then be attributed to a "purposed" outcome/result.

One may readily observe that one circumstance allows another to unfold... but the "why" (ie purposed) vs. the "how" (empirically evidenced) seems to be conflicting aspect of faith/superstition vs. conclusions provided in the absence or consideration of the "why".

Who knows? Maybe some etherial space intellect wants it that way...

I agree for the most part. Though I don't think "why" is excluded majorly because our understanding of these things does not stop them from effecting us, and because of them and the process through which we understand, we exist, we understand the physics of our universe, because the rest of it exists and exists to make us understand

I dunno, when we understand the how maybe we understand the why

 

[Gui10]

I voted ''Yes we came from stars and it supports evolution.''

For those who voted ''Yes we came from stars and no it doesn't support evolution'', I have some issues that need to be adressed.

I guess, for most of you who voted ''yes from stars but no for evolution'', you must be thinking of ''God'' as the stars, as in ''we came from the ''astral'' '' or something.

Well, I don't believe that answers the question you were asked.

Honestly, I don't even know how ''came from stars but does not support evolution'' is even in that list, because it is a paradox in itself.

Unless you meant ''stars'' as in ''the astral forces'' or ''god'', in which case the word ''stars'' does not have the same meaning in the first and third poll options, which ultimately defeats the objectiveness of the poll.

To me, ''Yes we came from stars and it supports evolution'' means that there has to be some sort of star or particle somewhere that we can consider to be ''living'' and at some point, these particles made there way on earth, by the means of asteroids or when galaxies or star systems collide. The idea might seem far fetched for some creationists, and I am not saying it is right, it is just a theory, and science constantly tries to demonstrate it. This has yet to be shown or prooved, and has just as much credibility as the idea of creationism. The reason why I side on science is because:

This is the main difference between science and religion: You can ask religious people many questions that find the same answer: ''we don't know, but God knows, and he might tell us on judgement day'' (questions like why we are here, why it is required to circumsize baby boys etc...). For science, however, there are ALSO MANY question that lead to the same answer: ''we don't know, but WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO FIND OUT''.

That's why I side on science.

 

[jasonwill2]

Anything heavier then hydrogen or helium that is in our bodies was made in stars, and anything heavier then iron was made in supernovas.

Children of the stars indeed.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

it's not that we came from stars or that they came from us. We are a part of the stars and the stars are a part of us. The energy that binds everything together in the universe flows in and out of everything, changing what we are depending on how we manipulate said energy with our thoughts...

All are Equal - All are the Same​

...As if our thoughts were somehow not part of the universe. lol

 

[Willamena]

Well it depends on if fact #1 is actually known, and if it appeals to people trying to apply it to support it to fact #2.

But I guess it would be similar to the discovery of gravity, its been there the whole time.

The physics of stars and their existence are similar to ours. Because of what we know about physics, and the quantum devices we can suppose things like theoretical physics, and cosmology as well as astronomy.

Both facts are known--I just stated them! :slap:

Whether or not the fact is known doesn't change it being a fact, and its appeal is entirely secondary to its usefulness in support of Fact #2. If you can make a case that the fact that the planet and its life are made of starstuff helps explain the ancestory or diversity of life on the planet, then it supports it.

 

[Straw Dog]

It supports cosmic evolution.

 

[jasonwill2]

It supports cosmic evolution.

That's what I thought it meant so I voted the first option >.<

But hey, don't the heavier elements needed to make life was made in the stars anyway?

Wow I articulated that really weird...

 

[Straw Dog]

That's what I thought it meant so I voted the first option >.<

But hey, don't the heavier elements needed to make life was made in the stars anyway?

Wow I articulated that really weird...

I got ya.

I believe that change is constant and everything evolves.

 

[Orias]

Both facts are known--I just stated them! :slap:

Whether or not the fact is known doesn't change it being a fact, and its appeal is entirely secondary to its usefulness in support of Fact #2. If you can make a case that the fact that the planet and its life are made of starstuff helps explain the ancestory or diversity of life on the planet, then it supports it.

I know that! I was just making it clear

 

[arcanum]

I had an interesting experience that is worth sharing but it doesn't prove anything, just a subjective experience. I've had some rarely occurring lucid dreams in the past, especially in one particular period of my life. One night I had the experience of viewing/dreaming about me floating through the cosmos, I saw all these quasars and things of that nature...it just felt like it was natural. Like I came from there, I haven't had anything like that happen since but it was a profound experience which I will never forget. Does consciousness originate in the cosmos? Was I tapping into the collective unconsciousness? Who knows, I do know it was something profound.

 

[jasonwill2]

I had an interesting experience that is worth sharing but it doesn't prove anything, just a subjective experience. I've had some rarely occurring lucid dreams in the past, especially in one particular period of my life. One night I had the experience of viewing/dreaming about me floating through the cosmos, I saw all these quasars and things of that nature...it just felt like it was natural. Like I came from there, I haven't had anything like that happen since but it was a profound experience which I will never forget. Does consciousness originate in the cosmos? Was I tapping into the collective unconsciousness? Who knows, I do know it was something profound.

Sounds like a wickedly awesome dream, but it probably isn't more, though it isn't for me to decide that.

 

[Absolute Zero]

Ancient Aliennnnnnnnns