Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post Reply
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 am

Schneibster wrote:That's amusing.

Personally I'm a Cargo Cultist.
I've used "Zoroastrian", "Tralmafadorian", and "Heckawee".
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Seth » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:58 am

Schneibster wrote:
Seth wrote:Oh, is it? Is it really?
Logan Pass & Milky Way 2011 014.jpg
Many Glaciers Lodge 021.jpg
The Palisade-Star Motion small.jpg
Nope, sorry, you fail. See all that light in those photos? It's not really black at all. You're suffering from anthropocentric confirmation bias. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean the light's not there. That's a fault of your primitive eye construction.
You don't know very much about how film and cameras work, do you?

The light diffracts. That's one of those new-fangled effects they only discovered in the eighteenth century.

The stars in those photographs are spots; the real stars are points. They look like dots in those pictures because of the aperture of the camera.

Because they look like dots, they make the dark parts of the sky look light. And the remainder is reciprocity failure, which you'd know about if you'd ever done real astrophotography (I have).

Sorry you're having so much trouble with reality.
Sorry you don't understand optics or the property of light or digital imaging or the number of stars in the universe. The light you see, if you magnify the image (as I can with the original, and you can't because of the size limitations on the file I could send), you'd find that there are many (uncountable in fact) billions of points of light that cannot be detected by the naked human eye in the "dark parts" of the sky, but which are easily detected by the much more sensitive digital optics of my camera, or my AN-PVS 14 night vision monocular.

And in the image taken at Many Glaciers, everything in the background, all of the mountains, excluding the grass and some trees illuminated by spill from the parking lot and hotel lights, is illuminated by reflected starlight alone, as the moon had already set.

Oh, and "reciprocity failure" is a feature of film, not digital images, which you'd know if you knew anything about digital photography.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Schneibster
Asker of inconvenient questions
Posts: 3976
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:22 pm
About me: I hate cranks.
Location: Late. I'm always late.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Schneibster » Mon Sep 05, 2011 1:10 am

Seth wrote:
Schneibster wrote:
Seth wrote:Oh, is it? Is it really?
Logan Pass & Milky Way 2011 014.jpg
Many Glaciers Lodge 021.jpg
The Palisade-Star Motion small.jpg
Nope, sorry, you fail. See all that light in those photos? It's not really black at all. You're suffering from anthropocentric confirmation bias. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean the light's not there. That's a fault of your primitive eye construction.
You don't know very much about how film and cameras work, do you?

The light diffracts. That's one of those new-fangled effects they only discovered in the eighteenth century.

The stars in those photographs are spots; the real stars are points. They look like dots in those pictures because of the aperture of the camera.

Because they look like dots, they make the dark parts of the sky look light. And the remainder is reciprocity failure, which you'd know about if you'd ever done real astrophotography (I have).

Sorry you're having so much trouble with reality.
Sorry you don't understand optics or the property of light or digital imaging or the number of stars in the universe.
I understand Olbers' Paradox, which you clearly do not.

As I said, sorry you're having trouble with reality.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Image

User avatar
apophenia
IN DAMNATIO MEMORIAE
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:41 am
About me: A bird without a feather, a gull without a sea, a flock without a shore.
Location: Farther. Always farther.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by apophenia » Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:47 am

Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:
Schneibster wrote: Science works. Radio. X-ray diagnosis of bad teeth and broken bones. Airplanes. Refrigerators. Cell phones.

Just that simple. It's not hard, it's not a philosophical position, it's not bullshit. It's as plain as the nose on your face, you can't get around it. It plain flat works. You can test what it says.
Actually, it is so a philosophical position -- science rests on philosophy --- not a lean, not a foot-on-the-floor bedroom scene from the days of olde, but a full body laying upon. I suspect you've been smoking too much scientism.
Please link to an article on the philosophy of X-rays.

ETA: Meanwhile, let me direct your attention to the Sokal affair.
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:2. The scientific proof that inductive inference can be closed by a sufficient number of observations (also known as answering Humean skepticism of inductive inference).
What's that got to do with science? It's one of those conundrums that only people who are staring at their navels care about in the first place.
You think inductive inference has nothing to do with science? Ballsy, but it has everything to do with science. And the fact that in attempting to duck the question, you imply that it indeed belongs to the navel gazing philosophers was exactly my point. In most of your answers you seem to be trying to bury the question as quickly as possible, forgetting that answering the question is not the question, but rather the question is whether the answer comes from scientific methods critically applied -- beakers and test tubes -- or from philosophy critically applied -- omphaloskeptic philosophy professors. Or do you really believe that if philosophy discovered a critical flaw in inductive inference as practiced by scientists, science would ignore it? Oh well. Typical science worshipper, when faced with a philosophical problem related to science, you do anything but answer the question.
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:3. If falsifiability can only tell us what theories are false, how do we know what theories are true?
We don't. Everything is provisional. Get over it.
Yes, but how do we know it's provisional? What scientific experiment proved that it's "provisional" ? Or is that another ballistic trajectory from the Vienna circle (philosophers) and their attempts to grapple with the meaning of scientific confirmation?

Again, this is beside the point as noted, as the question is, is this question the province of philosophical methods, or empirical, scientific ones?
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:4. The standard logical form modus ponens is frequently appealed to in the form "if hypothesis H, then observations X, Y, Z" -- upon making observations X, Y, and Z, the scientist concludes that hypothesis H is true. Yet this is a logical fallacy, known as affirming the consequent: if A then B, finding that B does not imply anything about A -- as there are a multi-fold number of possibles that are consistent with B. So if this inference from observables is not valid via modus ponens, what logical tautology does the link between observation and theory depend upon?
You got it exactly backwards; a scientist attempts not to prove, but to disprove, a hypothesis; failure is (provisional) success. But feel free to keep mischaracterizing it so that everyone will know you don't understand science very well.
I'm not the one mischaracterizing science. If the aim of science was to disprove theories, then scientists would spend all their time studying astrology, phrenology and over-unity devices, as there is plenty of opportunity to successfully disprove theory there and in other areas of pseudo-science. No, science attempts to describe reality -- if it didn't, it would be useless. But by all means, feel free to duck the hard questions if they make you feel uncomfortable. And again, the question is not "what do scientist do" but rather are the reasons they do them in a certain way philosophical reasons? Your answer, besides being a fancy two step, is straight out of Popper's philosophy of science. Or are you suggesting Popper and other philosophers discovered falsifiability as a criterion through experiment? If so, I demand a citation. And, if so, what observation, if made, would make falsification as a criteria for successful theories itself a false theory?
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:5. How do we determine deductively that for any pair of phenomena A and B, A causes B -- or if it cannot be deductively demonstrated, how do we determine with absolute certainty that A causes B (and how certain is absolutely certain -- or, if we can't be absolutely certain, how do we arrive at a sufficiently probable conclusion -- there's that probability again -- to conclude that the hypothesis that A causes B is "likely" true). (Feel free to define "likely" for us.)
No, that's OK, I'd have to use, you know, scary math and stuff.
Ducking the question again, I see. It's true, my mathematical skills are rather deficient, but the question was, is this a philosophical question, to be settled philosophically, or an empirical one to be answered empirically? It doesn't take a mathematical wunderkind to realize that until you have a theory of causality and its inference, no scientific experiment at all can work -- and most critically, the experiments necessary to demonstrate that certain observations imply causality are themselves a necessary pre-condition to doing those same experiments -- you have a loop, or an infinite regress. Care to actually answer the question this time, or should I simply put this one in my win column by default?
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:6. Explain how scientists transcend Epistemological holism to arrive at definite conclusions about specific theoretical statements, to separate theory from observation so the one doesn't taint the other, and how they can claim truth in an infinite chess game in which an infinite number of moves can preserve a false theory?
More navel-staring.
More ducking the question. I'll put this one in my win column since you obviously can't even get started on whether epistemological holism, otherwise known as the underdetermination of theory, is philosophical or scientific. Simply declaring something as being irrelevant to science only works when something is actually irrelevant to science -- which epistemological holism is not; doing so otherwise is simply a dodge.
Schneibster wrote: Proof's in the pudding; apparently you didn't understand why I was asking for the philosophy of X-rays, as evidenced by your lack of reply. Good luck with that.
Yes, the proof is in the pudding. Well that's very scientific and all, but it is one aspect of your scientism that I did overlook. The idea that tangible, instrumental benefits are proof of something, and that they are a measure of something's scientific nature. So then, if I pray to Ahura Mazda every year on some matter, and the results of my religious experience prove prophetically correct, does that make praying to Ahura Mazda a scientific practice? Does that make Ahura Mazda real? Why do instrumental benefits correlate with truth, "rightness" or whatever code word you prefer? And more importantly, what scientific experiments demonstrate that the proof is in the pudding, and what observation or observations would show that the proof isn't in the pudding? (Remember -- no math, logic or philosophy here, because none of these fields are scientific or empirical (in the relevant aspects). Only citations of experiment from the (peer reviewed) scientific literature.)

And as to the second part, My contention was that science depends critically upon philosophy, not that there is a specific philosophical theory about every specific physical phenomena. EVEN IF there were a specific philosophy of X-rays, it would not answer the question of whether science depends on philosophy or not. I didn't answer your question because your question was irrelevant bollocks. Now, shall we get back to the original question, or would you like to do some more dancing, ducking the question, and deriding people who attempt to answer questions that you obviously can't?

(Oh, and thank you for wishing me luck, but it turned out to be unnecessary; I was able to clearly ascertain that your question was irrelevant bollocks through the sound application of science logic, a branch of philosophy.)
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:Oh, and did I forget to mention -- you can't use math or logic in science, because those aren't science, and, are essentially the province of philosophy. (Do I hear Godel rolling over in his grave? I think I do.) Good luck figuring out your eigenstates without them.
Logic is not separate from math; it's represented by boolean algebra. Sorry you're having trouble with all the scary math and have to try to take it out of science so you can pretend you understand it, whatever that means when referring to a person who thinks nothing is real.
Well, in truth, I do find the math a little scary, but you've missed the point once again. Mathematical truths -- and logical truths -- were not discovered scientifically, and as such, are on loan to science. Your attempt to claim that math is a part of science is, again, ballsy, but a total fail. Mathematicians do not postulate theories and conduct experiments and observations to validate their theories. Math is not science. Period. And while I won't pretend to understand the current set theoretic foundations of math, I know all too well that any attempt to pry math, logic and philosophy apart will end in failure. But by all means, feel free to make the attempt. Or you can continue to duck the hard questions, pretending they don't matter, have nothing to do with science, and continue making ad hominem arguments that anybody who says otherwise is not worth the spittle on your boots. (I'm hardly much of a philosopher either, but even I can spot your repetitive use of patently fallacious arguments. Did you fall asleep during your classes on logic?)

Do you actually believe that logic is founded upon the current set theoretic underpinnings of mathematics? That's a scarier thought than even the scariest mathematics that you can come up with. You are one sick puppy. And exactly how is logic derived from mathematics -- without using any logic, which would make the proof circular and essentially vacuous? (Actually, I'm not particularly knowledgeable in the matter, but from my samplings of the works of Frege, Godel, Russell, Tarski, Quine and others, it's clear that logic does not sit on top of mathematics, if anything, it's the other way around. At bare minimum, it is not a part of science and doesn't employ the scientific method.)

Quoting again from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on The Philosophy of Mathematics:
SEP wrote: If mathematics is regarded as a science, then the philosophy of mathematics can be regarded as a branch of the philosophy of science, next to disciplines such as the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology. However, because of its subject matter, the philosophy of mathematics occupies a special place in the philosophy of science. Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space and time, it is not at all obvious that this is also the case with respect to the objects that are studied in mathematics. In addition to that, the methods of investigation of mathematics differ markedly from the methods of investigation in the natural sciences. Whereas the latter [science] acquire general knowledge using inductive methods, mathematical knowledge appears to be acquired in a different way, namely, by deduction from basic principles. [ed: the same method used in philosophy] The status of mathematical knowledge also appears to differ from the status of knowledge in the natural sciences. The theories of the natural sciences appear to be less certain and more open to revision than mathematical theories. For these reasons mathematics poses problems of a quite distinctive kind for philosophy. Therefore philosophers have accorded special attention to ontological and epistemological questions concerning mathematics.
(My remark [ed:...] is in bold. That part in red is highlighted to draw attention to the fact that yes, as noted, the nature of induction is an important issue for science, the resolution of which won't be found in any science book or journal; but I forgot, you're steadfastly holding to the line that it has nothing to do with science. That stance appears to be serving you well.)
Schneibster wrote: ...whatever that means when referring to a person who thinks nothing is real....
I'm afraid I don't know fuckall what you are referring to here. If this "person" you refer to is Godel, I'll point out that Godel was a platonic realist who not only believed in the real world, but also believed that the objects of mathematical scrutiny were in some sense real. So if you mean him, you're way off base. And if by "person" you mean yours truly, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I have some inclinations towards platonic realism, but as to whether I "think" the real world exists or not, I will fall back on the old legal maxim that "I don't give a damn about what I believe, all I care about is what I can prove." I can't prove reality is real, and if you think that you can, I'd be delighted to see your demonstration (in another thread please -- this derail is bad enough). If you simply "believe" that things are real, without any real proof, then I would have to conclude your beliefs are every bit as much nonsensical fairy-tale grounded in faith instead of evidence than the beliefs of one such as wittywoman. For what it's worth, I hold to a strict position of agnosticism as to whether my experiences are a product of the "real" or not. I frankly don't see the need to answer the question.


Now, to tidy up a bit.

Yes, I did skip question number one. I don't know enough about the physics to debate you on that point, so I'll concede the point that perhaps the mystery of how to properly interpret the nature of probability has a physical interpretation. Good to know. But out of six questions, I notice that you managed to stay on point and substantively answer only one of them. Hardly what I would call "stellar" performance. (Tee hee. See, I made a little (very little) science joke. Aren't you proud of me -- no scary maths involved!)


Image

User avatar
Schneibster
Asker of inconvenient questions
Posts: 3976
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:22 pm
About me: I hate cranks.
Location: Late. I'm always late.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Schneibster » Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:13 am

apophenia wrote:You think inductive inference has nothing to do with science?
Nope.
apophenia wrote:
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:3. If falsifiability can only tell us what theories are false, how do we know what theories are true?
We don't. Everything is provisional. Get over it.
Yes, but how do we know it's provisional? What scientific experiment proved that it's "provisional" ? Or is that another ballistic trajectory from the Vienna circle (philosophers) and their attempts to grapple with the meaning of scientific confirmation?
"True" is a category error. When you stop making it you'll be worth talking to.
apophenia wrote:
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:4. The standard logical form modus ponens is frequently appealed to in the form "if hypothesis H, then observations X, Y, Z" -- upon making observations X, Y, and Z, the scientist concludes that hypothesis H is true. Yet this is a logical fallacy, known as affirming the consequent: if A then B, finding that B does not imply anything about A -- as there are a multi-fold number of possibles that are consistent with B. So if this inference from observables is not valid via modus ponens, what logical tautology does the link between observation and theory depend upon?
You got it exactly backwards; a scientist attempts not to prove, but to disprove, a hypothesis; failure is (provisional) success. But feel free to keep mischaracterizing it so that everyone will know you don't understand science very well.
I'm not the one mischaracterizing science.
Yes, you are, and I just showed how. When you're ready to admit that you'll be worth talking to.
apophenia wrote:
Schneibster wrote:
apophenia wrote:5. How do we determine deductively that for any pair of phenomena A and B, A causes B -- or if it cannot be deductively demonstrated, how do we determine with absolute certainty that A causes B (and how certain is absolutely certain -- or, if we can't be absolutely certain, how do we arrive at a sufficiently probable conclusion -- there's that probability again -- to conclude that the hypothesis that A causes B is "likely" true). (Feel free to define "likely" for us.)
No, that's OK, I'd have to use, you know, scary math and stuff.
Ducking the question again, I see.
Nope.

I can do this all day, but why?

You're putting words in my mouth. When you stop we can talk.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Image

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by mistermack » Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:30 pm

Seth and Schneib, you are both missing a fundamental point.

HUMAN life requires a gravitational pull very close to 1g. Anything else is going to prohibit long-term human occupation.
If it's cold, we can heat it. It there's no air, we can make it. If there's no water, we can bring it, and re-cycle it.
But without 1g gravity, we are fucked long-term.

Once we can master the construction of huge rotating space stations, giving artificial gravity, we will have the potential to occupy and colonise empty space, so long as it's near a star, and living on a planet like Mars will be not be particularly attractive.

So with the right technology, the potential for human colonisation is virtually limitless.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by MrJonno » Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:50 pm

Radiation is the big killer in space, there is currently no method to protect people long term from radiation out there. You can get away with a few months in space (in a total life time) and there aren't any big solar flares but long term inhabitation is impossible until thats resolved
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:12 pm

MrJonno wrote:Radiation is the big killer in space, there is currently no method to protect people long term from radiation out there. You can get away with a few months in space (in a total life time) and there aren't any big solar flares but long term inhabitation is impossible until thats resolved
Lots of water in space. If you built a hollow sphere with 15'-20' of ice around it you'd get near Earth-average radiation levels.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by mistermack » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:14 pm

MrJonno wrote:Radiation is the big killer in space, there is currently no method to protect people long term from radiation out there. You can get away with a few months in space (in a total life time) and there aren't any big solar flares but long term inhabitation is impossible until thats resolved
At the moment, shielding is prohibitively expensive, because it's heavy, so the cost of bringing it from Earth is gigantic.
But once you can mine materials on the moon, it could become practical to shield people properly.
Take-off from the moon takes little energy. Asteroids and Comets could also be mined.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Seth » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:25 pm

mistermack wrote:Seth and Schneib, you are both missing a fundamental point.

HUMAN life requires a gravitational pull very close to 1g. Anything else is going to prohibit long-term human occupation.
If it's cold, we can heat it. It there's no air, we can make it. If there's no water, we can bring it, and re-cycle it.
But without 1g gravity, we are fucked long-term.

Once we can master the construction of huge rotating space stations, giving artificial gravity, we will have the potential to occupy and colonise empty space, so long as it's near a star, and living on a planet like Mars will be not be particularly attractive.

So with the right technology, the potential for human colonisation is virtually limitless.
Well, yes, of course, but what does that have to do with whether life exists elsewhere in a different form?

I never said that HUMAN life is ubiquitous in the universe.

And several novels have been written about the evolution of humans in low-gee environments. There's no reason to believe that such adaptations are not possible.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by mistermack » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:54 pm

Seth wrote: Well, yes, of course, but what does that have to do with whether life exists elsewhere in a different form?

I never said that HUMAN life is ubiquitous in the universe.

And several novels have been written about the evolution of humans in low-gee environments. There's no reason to believe that such adaptations are not possible.
Well, you started off about whether god made the cosmos for the purpose of life.
The god theory is that the Universe was made for man.

Of course other forms of life are highly likely. And sea creatures would be independent of gravity, pretty much.
They could colonise where we couldn't. If there is liquid water, they they are ok, no matter what the force of gravity.

If something evolved in a low g environment, it wouldn't be human.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Seth » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:44 pm

mistermack wrote:
Seth wrote: Well, yes, of course, but what does that have to do with whether life exists elsewhere in a different form?

I never said that HUMAN life is ubiquitous in the universe.

And several novels have been written about the evolution of humans in low-gee environments. There's no reason to believe that such adaptations are not possible.
Well, you started off about whether god made the cosmos for the purpose of life.
Did I? I don't think so. I believe I was pointing out that Christians who warn atheists about the danger that they believe the atheists face to their immortal soul are not themselves suggesting or advocating punishment for sinning, but are simply good-heartedly warning the atheists of what God has planned for them. I'm not quite sure how the derail into a discussion of cosmology and the potential for extraterrestrial life got started.
The god theory is that the Universe was made for man.
Right, but that's not something I ever mentioned.
Of course other forms of life are highly likely. And sea creatures would be independent of gravity, pretty much.
They could colonise where we couldn't. If there is liquid water, they they are ok, no matter what the force of gravity.

If something evolved in a low g environment, it wouldn't be human.
So? Are you saying that God cannot create non-human life? That's a pretty silly thing to say, since if God exists, and God created human life, God also created all other life, both here and everywhere else. Nothing would constrain God from creating other forms of life in other environments and sending a Jesus-equivalent to redeem those creatures, now would there.

What that has to do with the current discussion, however, is a puzzlement.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by mistermack » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:43 pm

You wrote this very weird stuff :
Seth wrote: And several novels have been written about the evolution of humans in low-gee environments. There's no reason to believe that such adaptations are not possible.
And I responded that it wouldn't be human.
You have SUCH a short memory.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Schneibster
Asker of inconvenient questions
Posts: 3976
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:22 pm
About me: I hate cranks.
Location: Late. I'm always late.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Schneibster » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:57 pm

mistermack wrote:Seth and Schneib, you are both missing a fundamental point.

HUMAN life requires a gravitational pull very close to 1g. Anything else is going to prohibit long-term human occupation.
If it's cold, we can heat it. It there's no air, we can make it. If there's no water, we can bring it, and re-cycle it.
But without 1g gravity, we are fucked long-term.

Once we can master the construction of huge rotating space stations, giving artificial gravity, we will have the potential to occupy and colonise empty space, so long as it's near a star, and living on a planet like Mars will be not be particularly attractive.

So with the right technology, the potential for human colonisation is virtually limitless.
Unfortunately, this is irrelevant to whether most of the universe is hospitable to life or not. So, no, I didn't "miss" anything. Thanks for pretending I'm stupid, though.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Image

User avatar
Schneibster
Asker of inconvenient questions
Posts: 3976
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:22 pm
About me: I hate cranks.
Location: Late. I'm always late.
Contact:

Re: Tolerate the Christian right ... WHY ?

Post by Schneibster » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:59 pm

Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:
Seth wrote: Well, yes, of course, but what does that have to do with whether life exists elsewhere in a different form?

I never said that HUMAN life is ubiquitous in the universe.

And several novels have been written about the evolution of humans in low-gee environments. There's no reason to believe that such adaptations are not possible.
Well, you started off about whether god made the cosmos for the purpose of life.
Did I? I don't think so. I believe I was pointing out that Christians who warn atheists about the danger that they believe the atheists face to their immortal soul are not themselves suggesting or advocating punishment for sinning, but are simply good-heartedly warning the atheists of what God has planned for them. I'm not quite sure how the derail into a discussion of cosmology and the potential for extraterrestrial life got started.
Feck done it. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I have to say that I was warned and chose to ignore it.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests