A Challenge ...

[email468]

As I said, drakes theory only included our Galaxie, there are untold galaxies in an unknown amount of space. Therefore much unknown. So with so much unknown, you give creedence to one mans theory. What I've contended is man doesn't know squat, and theories are just someones opinion. Yeah he may be and most assuredly is more educated than me, but when it comes to opinions, mine may be as valid as his. I'm always amazed by the vanity by which man, a tiny speck in the universe, claims to have the answers to complex problems. Heck even Einsteins theory of relativity is now under scrutiny for maybe being wrong. Geeze think about that, Einstein the most brilliant man in physics in the last 200 years may have been wrong. How vane are we?

Einstein was proven wrong many times before his death. Being wrong in science is normal so I'll concede you may very well be right. I err on the side of caution and try not to let speculation get the better of me.

Think of Drake's equation like our climate change models... you get different results every time you change a variable. So as sure as we are using climate change models would be as sure as we are using Drake's equation i.e. not sure at all. But in our vanity we sometimes do think we know more about the world around us than we really do.

 

[We TaRdED]

Not to, well yeah I guess I am discounting your Drake equation. 1st, it only applies to our Galaxy and there are billions of Galaxies. 2nd, if it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, (WE really don't know), extraterrestials may come from the outer reaches of space, being as you are a star treck fan, you should know about wormholes, or other space oddities such as folding space, so distance may not be a problem. Remember, the big bang theory is just a theory. Since none of us were around 9-12 Billion years ago, who can really say. To think we are the only intelligent beings in this vast universe would be kind of vane. I'd say. Maybe the religious people can believe that but since I am a spiritualist and adhere to no religion per-se, I believe that there are billions of other beings in the universe some more advanced than us, some less, geeze, I hope I don't end up on one of the less advanced planets.
So in conclusion, I can't prove my theory and you really can't prove yours, But using common sense again or the odds, it would suggest there are more beings in the vastness of the universe which with our most advanced telescopes we can't see an end to.
Have I seen an extraterrestial, not to my knowledge. But if they look like us, who really knows.
My point in this is: Man is a primal being and really doesn't know squat. All his supposed theories are just that, a theory. So if you are trying to prove something with a "theory", you're fooling yourself.

Just to get you up to date MedMan, "the big bang theory" is actually now considered 'the big bang'-its no longer a theory. Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also agree with you in regards to ET's. If there is infinite space in our universe(how can there not be infinite space) than how is it possible that earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life? If there are a near infinite number of planets and stars than, would it not be possible for a near infinite number of life forms? In fact, not too many people realize actually how diminutive we really are. Let me link you guys a youtube vid(ohh no, not another one). YouTube - How big is the Universe? This is a great vid, and will truly put you in your place, to say the least.. Haha.





.

 

[email468]

1. And this is where the debate usually ends up. No one mentioned religion ... only faith. You have faith in Mankind descending from monkeys, right? At least you show no physical proof of what you espouse, and yet, those who present the mere possibility of Intelligent Design are labeled "NUTS." This is the very same thing that happens over and over in this forum. If a person is pro-liberty, then that person is labeled a "Bush supporter." ~lol~

2. One of the premier advocates of Evolution, an Atheist, in Stein's movie made the same assertion as you ... that life began as the result of a lightening strike. I'll ask you the same question Stein asked him ... How did the lightening strike originate?

Vi

It is unfortunate that debate on the internet usually degrades into name-calling. I wish I were guilt-free in this regard but...

The bottom line is this - if you want there to be a creator you'll always find a way to insert one. Science is only about natural causes so the only way science can rely on the divine is to prove (within reasonable error margins) that a creator exists.

But your lighting strike question is simple to answer (it started the way all lighting strikes start) but the inference is there must be a prime mover. It is akin to the "turtles all the way down" argument.

Not sure if you've heard this but during a lecture on gravity the speaker was approached by an older woman who proclaimed it is not gravity that holds us in place but we are sitting on the back of a turtle. To which the speaker replied, but madam - what is holding the turtle in place? The old woman responded - you are clever but you can't fool me - it is turtles all the way down!

 

[medicineman]

Einstein was proven wrong many times before his death. Being wrong in science is normal so I'll concede you may very well be right. I err on the side of caution and try not to let speculation get the better of me.

Think of Drake's equation like our climate change models... you get different results every time you change a variable. So as sure as we are using climate change models would be as sure as we are using Drake's equation i.e. not sure at all. But in our vanity we sometimes do think we know more about the world around us than we really do.

What? You are agreeing with me? Hail Mary, or Hail someone! Believe it or not, I also get infected with the vanity bug. I try and beat my ego back but it is a strong contender.

 

[ZenMaster]

Just to get you up to date MedMan, "the big bang theory" is actually now considered 'the big bang'-its no longer a theory. Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also agree with you in regards to ET's. If there is infinite space in our universe(how can there not be infinite space) than how is it possible that earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life? If there are a near infinite number of planets and stars than, would it not be possible for a near infinite number of life forms? In fact, not too many people realize actually how diminutive we really are. Let me link you guys a youtube vid(ohh no, not another one). YouTube - How big is the Universe? This is a great vid, and will truly put you in your place, to say the least.. Haha.

No, We, its still the Big Bang Theory.

Try not to put faith behind wikipedia, honestly.

This is when shit starts to go downhill. When people make definite assumptions. You have to keep in mind that we don't know, its all our mere speculation. As soon as you start proclaiming "this happened and couldn't have happened any other way" our mindset and progress will start to be backwards. Remember, if you hinted the Earth wasn't the center of the universe hundreds of years ago you would have been jailed or killed, has this lesson not taught anyone anything?

 

[email468]

Just to get you up to date MedMan, "the big bang theory" is actually now considered 'the big bang'-its no longer a theory. Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also agree with you in regards to ET's. If there is infinite space in our universe(how can there not be infinite space) than how is it possible that earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life? If there are a near infinite number of planets and stars than, would it not be possible for a near infinite number of life forms? In fact, not too many people realize actually how diminutive we really are. Let me link you guys a youtube vid(ohh no, not another one). YouTube - How big is the Universe? This is a great vid, and will truly put you in your place, to say the least.. Haha.





.

This is important so let me be very clear about this... the Drake equation (which is just a model after all) was used to prove to naysayers the likelihood of extraterrestrial life. What I and some others are saying is that even with the unimaginable size and age of the universe - it would be truly amazing (not impossible - just highly unlikely) that another planet evolved creatures capable of intergalactic (or even interstellar) travel.

I am not saying that vastly more intelligent, most definitely different creatures do not exist. What I am saying is the likelihood of us meeting them is very low indeed.

There is no proof that beings can travel anywhere near the speed of light. Hell - there is no proof that other life-sustaining planets besides Earth even exist! I agree it is likely but still no proof. There is no proof planets exist outside our galaxy - again highly likely but no proof. I could go on and on but the point i am making is the leap from believing extraterrestrial life is highly likely (a small jump) to believing that said extraterrestrial life is so advanced as to seemingly ignore the laws of physics by traveling great distances is a jump far greater than i am currently willing to make.

If we are voting - i vote yes! but unfortunately the evidence is very inconclusive and is currently stacked against extraterrestrials traveling great distances.

 

[ZenMaster]

It is unfortunate that debate on the internet usually degrades into name-calling. I wish I were guilt-free in this regard but...

The bottom line is this - if you want there to be a creator you'll always find a way to insert one. Science is only about natural causes so the only way science can rely on the divine is to prove (within reasonable error margins) that a creator exists.

But your lighting strike question is simple to answer (it started the way all lighting strikes start) but the inference is there must be a prime mover. It is akin to the "turtles all the way down" argument.

Not sure if you've heard this but during a lecture on gravity the speaker was approached by an older woman who proclaimed it is not gravity that holds us in place but we are sitting on the back of a turtle. To which the speaker replied, but madam - what is holding the turtle in place? The old woman responded - you are clever but you can't fool me - it is turtles all the way down!

I have a high interest in gravity. After all these years humanity still has no idea what it even is, how it works, or why it works. The theory of relativity attempts to shed light on the phenomena, however it seems a bit overwhelming. The most recent theory I have currently discovered is that since the Earth is composed of a giant magnetic field generated by the poles and core, it holds attraction to everyone residing close to it. Say the Earth has a - (negative) pole and everyone and everything has a + (positive) pole, so naturally we are pulled toward the center. This interests me because it has been proven that all matter has a very slight magnetic pull however the only problem I see is that on the moon, gravity was weakened but still present. However, the moon has a dead core with no magnetic poles, so how would it have retained gravity? Maybe the moon still has a magnetic pull? Or maybe that theory is scrapped? Or maybe, we didn't land on the moon, but I think we did.

 

[email468]

No, We, its still the Big Bang Theory.

Try not to put faith behind wikipedia, honestly.

This is when shit starts to go downhill. When people make definite assumptions. You have to keep in mind that we don't know, its all our mere speculation. As soon as you start proclaiming "this happened and couldn't have happened any other way" our mindset and progress will start to be backwards. Remember, if you hinted the Earth wasn't the center of the universe hundreds of years ago you would have been jailed or killed, has this lesson not taught anyone anything?

It is Big Bang theory just like all principals in science are theories (thermodynamics, gravity, atomic theory, etc..). But to call it speculation reveals you have never even read the wiki entry let alone astronomical/cosmological publications. We know a good deal about what happened within a few tens of thousands of years after the universe started expanding. I grant you it is a mere drop in what is unknown but is amazing all the same. Are you aware that very soon some predictions string theory has made will be testable via observations? Have you ever heard of cosmic background radiation? It exists just like big bang "theory" predicted and there is a heck of a lot more proof than that (but the CBR is the smoking gun). Science hasn't stopped since the last time you took a science class. They do find new things all the time. It is difficult to keep up but if you are going to form and voice strong opinions regarding it then you really should make your best effort to keep up.

I would also add that it was SCIENCE that broke the chains of geocentrism that RELIGION held so tightly.

 

[email468]

What? You are agreeing with me? Hail Mary, or Hail someone! Believe it or not, I also get infected with the vanity bug. I try and beat my ego back but it is a strong contender.

There is a possibility you are correct so I must concede you may be right. But I'm sorry, I don't think you are correct and I don't agree with you.

 

[email468]

I have a high interest in gravity. After all these years humanity still has no idea what it even is, how it works, or why it works. The theory of relativity attempts to shed light on the phenomena, however it seems a bit overwhelming. The most recent theory I have currently discovered is that since the Earth is composed of a giant magnetic field generated by the poles and core, it holds attraction to everyone residing close to it. Say the Earth has a - (negative) pole and everyone and everything has a + (positive) pole, so naturally we are pulled toward the center. This interests me because it has been proven that all matter has a very slight magnetic pull however the only problem I see is that on the moon, gravity was weakened but still present. However, the moon has a dead core with no magnetic poles, so how would it have retained gravity? Maybe the moon still has a magnetic pull? Or maybe that theory is scrapped? Or maybe, we didn't land on the moon, but I think we did.

You would be correct saying we do not yet know why gravity works. But to say we don't understand what it is and HOW it works is completely untrue.

But i think the missing element in your thinking is mass. Gravity is also affected by mass which Luna has quite a lot of (relatively speaking).

 

[ZenMaster]

It is Big Bang theory just like all principals in science are theories (thermodynamics, gravity, atomic theory, etc..). But to call it speculation reveals you have never even read the wiki entry let alone astronomical/cosmological publications. We know a good deal about what happened within a few tens of thousands of years after the universe started expanding. I grant you it is a mere drop in what is unknown but is amazing all the same. Are you aware that very soon some predictions string theory has made will be testable via observations? Have you ever heard of cosmic background radiation? It exists just like big bang "theory" predicted and there is a heck of a lot more proof than that (but the CBR is the smoking gun). Science hasn't stopped since the last time you took a science class. They do find new things all the time. It is difficult to keep up but if you are going to form and voice strong opinions regarding it then you really should make your best effort to keep up.

I would also add that it was SCIENCE that broke the chains of geocentrism that RELIGION held so tightly.

For all I know, it could be true. I am voicing strong opinions that IT IS STILL A THEORY. Try not to set what we really don't know into stone. It is just a mass of theories upon theories upon theories and you are trying to preach it as if it were fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[ZenMaster]

You would be correct saying we do not yet know why gravity works. But to say we don't understand what it is and HOW it works is completely untrue.

But i think the missing element in your thinking is mass. Gravity is also affected by mass which Luna has quite a lot of (relatively speaking).

See, thats still a theory. We only assume mass holds gravity because we are sitting on the Earth and a penny doesn't draw us near it. Thats the only evidence we have. What if it has nothing to do with mass? We just think it does because we use logic. It could very well be magnetic.

 

[We TaRdED]

No, We, its still the Big Bang Theory.

Try not to put faith behind wikipedia, honestly.

Ohhh ok, I guess I was wrong. ~lol~

Just a crazy thought- I guess my argument could be that nothing can be infallible because its all contingent upon a person perspective of the world. Who's to say that my color green is the same as your color green. How can we define anything in this world besides scientific observations and 'popular thinking'? It all depends on the 'viewer' to dictate what is 'real', everyone is living in their own world. This is the reason why there are so many POV's(point of views), I believe in evolution and you believe in divine creation. How can you possible prove someone wrong when they are so adamant(guys you know what I'm talking about if you have had a long term relationship with a girl)? Who's to say that the movie 'The Matrix' was not a movie of 'reality' and we are all just living in our little pods while robots suck energy from us? There is actually no way to prove any of this wrong because hypothetically say you are a fish living in the ocean how could you prove the sun is a burning ball of hydrogen that is supplying all of earths energy? You might be able to see the sun because it brings daylight but how could you prove it to be anything besides a bright glowing object? My point being is that some everything is debatable if you are creative enough. Just because something is popular belief doesn't make it right and just because something is not the consensus does not make it false. I guess it depends on the person to decide things for their self. (edit- I'm really baked right now, sorry about the rant! ~lol~)

Do you have a link telling me why its still a theory?

I thought they had 'irrefutable' evidence of how the universe is expanding. You have to imagine if the universe is expanding than last year is was closer together. If you go back long enough you will come to a point were it all started expanding from. When i say universe here I am referring to the matter and not the void of space.

 

[medicineman]

Theories are basically someones opinion, They may be learned people that put forth these theories, but they are still learned peoples opinions. To put them in the fact category is a stretch untill they have been proven.: Theory, water is wet. Proof; feel it, it feels wet therefore water is wet. Well maybe not, but it is as close to proof as you can get.

 

[ZenMaster]

Its still a theory because it cannot be proven. In fact, some of the laws of physics had to be moved back to theories because of conflicting data. We don't know anything, and to claim we do is a ignorant insult in vanity.

 

[email468]

Someone - anyone get back to me with the scientific definition of theory... bonus points if you can relate it to principals.

To get you started theory does not mean guess, opinion or idea.

 

[email468]

And let me get this straight - because science has changed over the years (and why wouldn't it? it isn't a religion) you think you guys have better theories and ideas than scientists?

I'm not sure how to respond to that.

 

[medicineman]

The number one listed in Mirriam Webster was: 1.abstract thought. 2.The general principles of a subject. 3.A plausable or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts. 4. Hypothesis; conjecture.
The only reference to facts was in trying to explain them, or express an opinion about them. Thus they are learned opinions about certain facts and may not be factual at all.

 

[email468]

number 3 is the scientific common usage.

Here is a more complete definition:
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

And you were arguing that water isn't wet in your theory argument above?

 

[email468]

I submit that science is DIVINE! that's right! or at least capable of miracles.

I mean what else could be the cause of medicineman and ZenMaster arguing on the same side of an issue?!?!