Humans Are not made to travel into Space. Its a waste of Money.

[progressive hunter]

So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.

Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.

So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.

We call this, "Learning."

ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,

did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????


if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us

 

[rightwinger]

So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

 

[progressive hunter]

So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

https://explorable.com/definition-of-science

if you first cant observe it then you cant study it

 

[Mindful]

Maybe he was referring to the Firstborn. I'm sure to humans they would appear to be God.

I didn't read the book, so Clarke may have meant the monolith to be different. Did he bring up the Firstborn? Is the book worth reading?

However, the director and producer Stanley Kubrick did not follow the book, and I think took it in another direction. While the monolith could be an object planted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings, it could represent human's relationship with God. In this case, it follows an evolutionary God who created chimps and they learned to use tools. He had them develop, thrive and become all they could be. There was that spectacular cut where we are shown they had reached the point of conquering outer space and bring in the world of high technology. At the end, humans evolved into a more advanced version of themselves as a star child. Well, it's one interpretation.

I always thought that part of the point was that we couldnt distinguish between gods and aliens.

Q: "Is it the work of gods, or aliens?"

A: "Whats the difference?"

Who said that -- Clarke or Kubrik?

We know there is evidence for one while the ones who should have showed up by now is nowhere to be found.

Maybe they have. But we can't see them, due to the limitations of our puny brains.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

We've never seen a star form. We have never watched an alpha particle leave an atomic nucleus. We have never even seen an electron. We have never seen an underground magma pocket. We have never seen the iron cores of the Earth or the Moon.

Some quacks like to insist that, if we haven't watched an event unfold with our human eyes, then we cannot find good basis to know it happened. Of course this is utter nonsense, and we would still be trying to figure out what causes syphilis, were this the case: Demons, or god's wrath? Or witches?

Just think if murderers could use, in their defense, the idea put forward by these quacks. "You can't PROVE my DNA was not deposited at the crime scene or even at your lab by magical fairies!"

Can you imagine them as kids? "Son, I told you no more chocolate, yet there you are with chocolate on your face." "Prove a magical fairy didnt put it there! Prove it has not always been there! You didn't see me eat chocolate!" .... Haha...total nuttery....

This quackery is a stupid talking point put forth by young earth creationists and is reserved only for the science that contradicts their strident dogma. They don't seem to mind the known half lifes of isotopes when they need radiation therapy for cancer; but use that knowledge to determine a fossil is 60 million years old, and suddenly it's time to pull out the "you dont know, because you weren't THERE, man!!!" argument.

An evolutionary microbiologist determines which strain of a particular bacteria is likely infecting their loved one, and they seize on the knowledge to help their loved one. Remind them that this knowledge was determined by assessing 100s of 1000s of years of evolution of the species, and they will bring out the fairies and sky daddies again.

Use our knowledge of mitochondrial DNA to find better organ donor matches, and the quacks are eternally grateful for saving the lives of their loved ones. Use that same knowledge to determine that two populations of a species have been separated for 1,000,000 years, and here come the sky daddies and the "you weren't there!" nonsense.

And abiogenesis? Their heads explode. Apparently, god can do anything and everything...but he becomes Meatloaf, when it comes to abiogenesis. "But I won't do that!" Funny thing is, abiogenesis is what the bible describes. Life, from "not life". So apparently, god could and would "do that". But no, he wouldn't. Or wait, yes he would. Intellectual fumduckery....

 

[progressive hunter]

So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

We've never seen a star form. We have never watched an alpha particle leave an atomic nucleus. We have never even seen an electron. We have never seen an underground magma pocket. We have never seen the iron cores of the Earth or the Moon.

Some quacks like to insist that, if we haven't watched an event unfold with our human eyes, then we cannot find good basis to know it happened. Of course this is utter nonsense, and we would still be trying to figure out what causes syphilis, were this the case: Demons, or god's wrath? Or witches?

Just think if murderers could use, in their defense, the idea put forward by these quacks. "You can't PROVE my DNA was not deposited at the crime scene or even at your lab by magical fairies!"

Can you imagine them as kids? "Son, I told you no more chocolate, yet there you are with chocolate on your face." "Prove a magical fairy didnt put it there! Prove it has not always been there! You didn't see me eat chocolate!" .... Haha...total nuttery....

This quackery is a stupid talking point put forth by young earth creationists and is reserved only for the science that contradicts their strident dogma. They don't seem to mind the known half lifes of isotopes when they need radiation therapy for cancer; but use that knowledge to determine a fossil is 60 million years old, and suddenly it's time to pull out the "you dont know, because you weren't THERE, man!!!" argument.

An evolutionary microbiologist determines which strain of a particular bacteria is likely infecting their loved one, and they seize on the knowledge to help their loved one. Remind them that this knowledge was determined by assessing 100s of 1000s of years of evolution of the species, and they will bring out the fairies and sky daddies again.

Use our knowledge of mitochondrial DNA to find better organ donor matches, and the quacks are eternally grateful for saving the lives of their loved ones. Use that same knowledge to determine that two populations of a species have been separated for 1,000,000 years, and here come the sky daddies and the "you weren't there!" nonsense.

And abiogenesis? Their heads explode. Apparently, god can do anything and everything...but he becomes Meatloaf, when it comes to abiogenesis. "Can't do that!"

figured you would bail on it,,,

 

[Flopper]

So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.

Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.

So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.

We call this, "Learning."

A lot people seem think that the rest of the universe is much like our little corner of it because the composition of stars and planets seem to contain the same minerals and elements that are found here. So the development of life would most likely be similar to earth. I think that is a huge jump and not really supported by real evidence.

The only way we're going to get answers is to explore space, first with unmanned probes and as we develop new technology, manned missions, first in our solar system and then the universe.

The arguments against space travel are much the same as in the court of Queen Isabella when she commission Columbus. The money would be better used to build warships, pay off debts, or build a new city wall. We don't know if gold awaits us or monsters.

That's always the way it's been in exploring the unknown.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So the development of life would most likely be similar to earth. I think that is a huge jump and not really supported by real evidence.

Well,i guess that depends on how you mean that. There is good reason to believe it would very likely be carbon based. The proportions of elements in life on earth matches perfectly, one-to-one, with the proportions of these elements in the universe. And carbon is the most versatile element known. Scientists point out that more different molecules can be put together based on carbon than those of all other elements put together.

Why even propose, for instance, silicon-based life, when carbon is available in larger quantities, requires less "effort", and can make a much more versatile set of molecules?

But,perhaps some "carbon poor" regions exist (or once existed).

But i also agree with what you are saying, in some ways. Would we even know alien life, if we saw it?

A demonstration of this is to perform the exercise of defining "life". Good luck...it's harder than it would seem....

 

[Flopper]

So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.

Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.

So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.

We call this, "Learning."

ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,

did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????


if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us

Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.

There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.

 

[progressive hunter]

So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.

Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.

So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.

We call this, "Learning."

ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,

did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????


if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us

Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.

There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.

then they need to stop teaching it as fact,,,

 

[westwall]

Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.

Your science ends up as science fiction haha. Your aliens are still nowhere to be found. Neither are the abiogenesis life cells formed under a supervolcano. No ape has become bipedal. No chicken has grown dino feet.

I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers. A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist. Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.

For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To add to that:

There will always be a gap in our knowledge of anything. And just as surely there will always be opportunists who try to wedge their magical nonsense into that gap.

Could we ever be 100% certain that vaccines do not cause autism? No, not ever. Enter stage right: anti vaxxer quacks.

But there is a good litmus test that can be used to whittle away the quackery. To stick with the example:

Ask one of the anti-vaxxer quacks to present any evidence that shows a causal link between vaccines and autism. Ask them to explain a possible mechanism by which this causality occurs.

Then watch them retreat to their quack tactics, like the inverse fallacy, the gish gallop, the argument from ignorance, or the circular argument.

It seems that naysaying is a lot easier than actually explaining things. And, while quacks can pretend to be and know a lot of things, they can't pretend to be able to explain them. Because the explanations, as supported by evidence, stand for themselves and are independent of the desires and nuttery of the quacks.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Humans Are not made to travel into Space. Its a waste of Money.

It may be a waste of money, but NOT because humans are not made to travel into space. Human anatomy is irrelevant.

Humans are not made to fly, but is commercial aviation a waste of money?

.

 

[westwall]

So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.

Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.

So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.

We call this, "Learning."

ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,

did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????


if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us

Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.

There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.

This is a correct statement. Science is not about "truth" or "proof". It is about observation, and trying to understand the cause and the effect, of what is observed. Once morality, and "truth" enter into a discussion, science has left the building, and you are now engaged in a religious talk.

 

[westwall]

So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method. Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.

 

[progressive hunter]

So, abiogenesis happened. Can anyone make a sound argument that it only happened once and will only happen once in the history of our universe? Of course not.

Only twice? Just as impossible to argue.

So we are left to accept that it almost certainly happened and will happen many, many times in our universe, despite our egocentric religious history to the contrary.

We call this, "Learning."

ya know FWI if you could just show us what humans were before we became humans would go a long way towards changing my mind,,,

did we walk out of the ocean as humans or were we birthed by something else????


if its a proven fact then this latest thing should be easy to show us

Scientific proof is an often used term of laymen but most scientists agree that there is really no such thing. Empirical sciences can furnish us with information about the world, but proofs do not occur, if by proof you mean an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory.

There is certain a huge amount of evidence of evolution certainly more than a story of a supreme being creating the heavens and earth and all it's creatures. However, scientific proof, does not and can not exist.

This is a correct statement. Science is not about "truth" or "proof". It is about observation, and trying to understand the cause and the effect, of what is observed. Once morality, and "truth" enter into a discussion, science has left the building, and you are now engaged in a religious talk.

that would make evolution just as much a religion,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.

Your science ends up as science fiction haha. Your aliens are still nowhere to be found. Neither are the abiogenesis life cells formed under a supervolcano. No ape has become bipedal. No chicken has grown dino feet.

I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers. A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist. Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.

For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.

But but but....dinos don't suddenly grow chicken feet!

 

[progressive hunter]

So, anyhoo, we know all life here evolved on earth from a common, single celled ancestor. Some peole like to propose that the planet was seeded with life, or with DNA. But there is no good reason to believe that. That seed would have to have formed via abiogenesis or selection elsewhere in the first place. And all the necessary constituents were present here on earth. Since abiogenesis is already a foregone conclusion, insiting that it had to happen elsewhere is quite unnecessary.

and how do we know that???

the first rule of science is it has to be observed,,,and last I heard there are no people that are billions of yrs old that saw this happen


so your belief is based on magic or just make believe,,,and sure isnt science,,,

just face it,,,your belief is no different than any other religion,,,

Link

Where is the first rule of science that it has to be observed?

That is a fundamental precept of the scientific method. Obviously, things that happened in the distant past cannot be observed, but evidence of them can be.

but there is no evidence humans have ever been anything but humans,,,and so on down the food chain

where as evolution claims we are all formed from non living matter,,,which is just as magical as the sky god theory

 

[westwall]

Spare me your claims of evidence of magical sky daddies. Go pollute the religion section with that magical nonsense. This is the science section.

Your science ends up as science fiction haha. Your aliens are still nowhere to be found. Neither are the abiogenesis life cells formed under a supervolcano. No ape has become bipedal. No chicken has grown dino feet.

I guess you never heard about the life forms around black smokers. A completely alien life form that requires no sunlight to exist. Over 800 different species have been discovered over the 40 years since they were discovered.

For people who claim to be all "sciency" you sure don't know very much.

But but but....dinos don't suddenly grow chicken feet!

I suggest you read the "Dinosaur Heresies" then. Dr. Bakker (a friend BTW) was way ahead of his time.

The dinosaur heresies : new theories unlocking the mystery of the dinosaurs and their extinction / Robert T. Bakker

The dinosaur heresies : new theories unlocking the mystery of the dinosaurs and their extinction / Robert T. Bakker

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Please don't feed the troll porgressivehunter. He knows he is saying very stupid things. He is just trying to hijack.