Science How This Decade of Archaeology Changed What We Know About Human Origins

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by SlyPokerDog, Oct 29, 2019.

  1. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    7,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    I don't think he is directing to you. More likely the sentence above where I made the logical extrapolation from the Logicians work. Since we do indeed have life here, there is only one extrapolation to grasp. Like it or not.
     
  2. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    15,278
    Likes Received:
    18,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    His opinion of me isn't all that important to me, but at the same time, he responded to me, with a post that seemed to indicate I was having a hard time understanding the logic and felt the need to tell me how it all worked so, whatever lol.
     
  3. noknobs

    noknobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,548
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What’s your point? Other than pointing out the inherent flaws in your original argument? Thanks by the way.

    Randomness is randomness and it’s something that is observable to us everywhere we look in the sky. God is what some use to try to explain what’s going on in sufficient detail. So is science, however science accepts and admits that we don't yet have a clue. It attempts to continue to learn and discover as opposed to just lazily believing it's all due to some divine entity, for which there's no evidence of, that actually cares about each of us and puts us on some naughty and nice list like Santa Claus.

    It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.

    It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.

    It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.

    We don’t have to guess… Cassini sampled the plumes from Enceladus and there weren’t just hydrocarbons, there were also traces of larger organics and “complex macromolecular organics”. You don’t have to take my word for it, this information is pretty much out there for anyone who cares to read about it: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-organic-compounds-found-in-enceladus-ice-grains. Although I’ve already made this clear I fear you may need me to repeat this part as well - This is not about me trying to prove life exists on Enceladus, or Pluto, etc, it’s simply me illustrating how even in our own backyard these essential ingredients for life can be found in multiple places, under varying circumstances.

    It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.

    Okay?

    It’s actually a great analogy illustrating how your argument, and how you arrived at your conclusion, was utter nonsense.

    I’m sure you do. If you choose to believe in divine intervention I’m fine with that. I give two shits. Just don’t then pretend you’ve done some calculations and figured out a rough estimate of the probability of life in the universe. It’s fucking ridiculous.
     
    bodyman5000 and 1 likes this.
  4. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    7,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    Darned if I know why.
     
  5. andalusian

    andalusian Season - Restarted

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    9,826
    Likes Received:
    5,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Marcos, CA
    I did not mean to offend you and if I did, I apologize. Your sentence was (as I quoted originally)

    and my post was to provide the mathematical proof that makes it stronger - showing that it can not be proven using the word super-natural. So, I thought I was agreeing with you that it can not be proven, and actually providing said proof - given the use of the word super-natural.

    Again, I apologize if you took it as something it was not meant to be.
     
    TorturedBlazerFan likes this.
  6. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    15,278
    Likes Received:
    18,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    I may be an idiot, and that's perfectly fine to call me one. I have no delusions of grandeur in regards to my intelligence or pecking order on this earth if he believes me to be one so be it, plenty of stuff I don't know.
     
  7. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    15,278
    Likes Received:
    18,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    I wasn't offended and I probably should not have come off the way I did, it just read to me like, "you're so dumb!" lol. I'm perfectly good with you and I's banter on here, I'm definitely flawed in my own logic at times and probably took your post in an unintended way, and I apologize for that as well. Were good.
     
    andalusian likes this.
  8. andalusian

    andalusian Season - Restarted

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    9,826
    Likes Received:
    5,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Marcos, CA
    FWIW - What Godel did was formally prove something that is very intuitive for anyone that thinks logically - which is that you can not use X to prove X as it becomes cyclical.

    Basically, every logical system starts with an axiom - and we build proofs of things from these axiom (that's an axiomatic system) - where an axiom is defined as "a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true."

    So, Godel proves that any system that starts with an axiom can not be used to prove said axiom - which some people take as "science can not prove everything" (which is true) and some others take further as "and thus god exists" - which is not a proof (not to mention that it certainly does not prove which god is the true one - a point people that use this proof conveniently ignore).

    This kind of ties into @noknobs statement from above

    Which leads us to show how science evolves. Newtonian physics for example, tries to explain the world based on the axioms defined as "newton's 3 laws of physics". Einstein's special relativity shows that Newtonian physics are only true at low speeds - but when it uses that axiom that the speed of light is the same and capped - it shows that newton's laws are "true" at low speeds because at these speeds special relativity formulas can substitute 0 for the speed (as we are approaching zero compared to the full formulas) so they are true.

    Likewise, Quantum mechanics show that the speed of light is not the max speed available - and general relativity (Einstein's attempt to expand on special relativity) breaks at tiny distances.

    String theory tries to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics - but they have to keep adding dimensions to the formulas to do it (which probably means that the axioms are not there to correctly deal with it).

    One of the most interesting quotes about the difference between religion and science came from Ricky Gervais (of all people) when he said that if tomorrow all books / data banks and every member of the world have their memory erased - the difference between science and religion will be that in several thousand years the new science books will look a lot like the science books we have today - but the religion books are likely to be very very different.
     
    bodyman5000 and 1 and noknobs like this.
  9. yankeesince59

    yankeesince59 "Oh Captain, my Captain".

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    21,150
    Likes Received:
    6,763
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That was pretty damn good...really.
     
    andalusian likes this.
  10. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    15,278
    Likes Received:
    18,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    Gervais is assuming a lot though. If all that was wiped there’s 0 proof at all that science books would ever again exist. Or languages would be formed, or that the species wouldn't just die off completely.

    Or that if there is some God and supernatural being that prescribed where religions came from, couldnt do it again.

    So yea, I agree in some aspects, but even Gervais logic isnt all that completely solid.
     
  11. andalusian

    andalusian Season - Restarted

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    9,826
    Likes Received:
    5,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Marcos, CA
    I believe his point is that it is based on repeated observation and analysis - which in a nutshell is exactly the difference between science and religion.

    One is based on observation and repeated examination and critic and the other is based on pure interpretation with much less allowance for critic / progression.

    Which is why there are so many religions around the world and many of them are very much at odds with each other - where science basically converges.
     
    noknobs likes this.
  12. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    15,278
    Likes Received:
    18,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    If science converges then why is their so many scientific debates. I actually think both as more similar then we let on. Science is our observations of the workings of nature and the laws of nature, but as we know theres often two very educated people who see the details differently, theres always new information that changes how “science” is seen. Now Science is much better at seeing new information and adapting to it in general, but its still all what a bunch of very flawed minds are observing, which is why there’s differences there.

    Religion’s converge on a lot of subjects as well, but differ greatly on many important things. Theres a lot of critic, and examination of religious beliefs as well, and it has caused huge shifts in different religions as they've matured, they do progress, albeit slower.
     
  13. andalusian

    andalusian Season - Restarted

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    9,826
    Likes Received:
    5,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Marcos, CA
    The debates are on theories and hypothesis, not on things that can be proven over and over.

    There are no debates about Newtonian physics at low speeds and non-infinite distances.

    Religions certainly do not converge - maybe the believers converge as religions become more popular - so we get bigger, more popular / established religions - but the reason for that is probably because people invented religions and are tribal people. Since many religions are created when people break from old ones for whatever reason - there at times they share some ideas - but the basic concepts of Hinduism and Judeo Christian religions for example are not close and never will as either one of these religions. Christians as we know them will not believe in multiple gods and reincarnation - no matter what - where Einstein - which was not a fan of quantum mechanic at all when it appeared - came to appreciate that it has a lot of truth and shows that his general relativity is not conclusive. (He still maintained that it is not true for everything - which is correct, but quantum physics got a lot more right than what he was willing to give it credit for).

    "I have the greatest consideration for the goals which are pursued by the physicists of the latest generation which go under the name of quantum mechanics, and I believe that this theory represents a profound level of truth, but I also believe that the restriction to laws of a statistical nature will turn out to be transitory....Without doubt quantum mechanics has grasped an important fragment of the truth and will be a paragon for all future fundamental theories, for the fact that it must be deducible as a limiting case from such foundations, just as electrostatics is deducible from Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field or as thermodynamics is deducible from statistical mechanics."
     
  14. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    85,320
    Likes Received:
    67,836
    Trophy Points:
    115
  15. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    15,278
    Likes Received:
    18,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    I will probably revisit this conversation at some point, but I have a bunch of meetings this afternoon and family stuff tonight.

    I think Im mostly in agreement, though I know our personal beliefs are quite different.
     
  16. yankeesince59

    yankeesince59 "Oh Captain, my Captain".

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2013
    Messages:
    21,150
    Likes Received:
    6,763
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lmao...wtf ?
     
  17. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    13,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Because we are always pushing the boundaries into new territory.

    No one is seriously challenging whether the world is flat, or what the chemical makeup of benzene is, or what causes bubonic plague. There is a substantial base of scientific knowledge that has indeed converged.

    barfo
     
  18. Lanny

    Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    13,481
    Likes Received:
    8,290
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical and Computer Engineer, OSU
    Location:
    Lake Oswego, OR
    I've taken all I can take of this nonsense. I have neither the time nor the energy to show what's wrong with your statements just to have more nonsense posted. There's an never ending stream of such nonsense. Please debate someone else who might possibly believe in magic.
     
  19. noknobs

    noknobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,548
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol... I'm sorry you feel that well documented science is nonsense, but your response is quite predictable considering you have no other recourse.
     
    bodyman5000 and 1 likes this.
  20. Lanny

    Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    13,481
    Likes Received:
    8,290
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical and Computer Engineer, OSU
    Location:
    Lake Oswego, OR
    Science and math. is nearly all I have in these matters.
    Interestingly enough, it is the concept of infinity that brought me back to the church. Well, that and a feeling I have deep down inside that builds and builds and is related to my church.
     

Share This Page