but that's an ego centric viewpoint, if a city sized meteor were to strike the earth tomorrow we'd all perish in a global cataclysm, a cataclysm in our pov, for the the earth it would be a minor skin irritation, a pin prick... yup, I find it amusing when I see people discussing colonizing other solar systems as a precaution in case pollution and climate change destroy this planet, we not leaving this planet so we best take care of the only home we'll ever have... I don't imagine alien life or societies as anything resembling ours...will they even have societies or governments, those could be unique to our planet...
And what exactly is your viewpoint? It's certainly not scientific! Our insignificance? Really? Scientific? The universe was not fine tuned for us? How do you know that? Science? Wrong. Your contentions are philosophical/theological in nature. Indeed, it would appear that you're unwittingly imposing a metaphysical naturalism on reality without qualification. You know, secular crap. Just saying. . . .
and your belief in sky pixies is scientific? nope it's mumbo jumbo hocus pocus the furthest thing from science, an absence of evidence is not evidence it's BS, science is all about evidence...if there is no evidence it just does not exist, the absence of evidence is not evidence it's not an opening for the invention of sky pixies as an explanation, that's nothing more than primitive superstition, not science...religious explanations require require a lack of knowledge of science and it's processes... my viewpoint is based on science facts, yours is fictional fantasy that requires a gullible dumbing down, a suspension of belief, and self induced scientific ignorance ... You know, religious crap. "I can't explain it so the gods must have done it" Just saying.
Your silly analogy aside given the ontological imperatives of origin, I never claimed that theological matters were scientific. Strawman. The notion that the Earth or human life is insignificant in the scheme of things is based on anything objectively self-evident or scientifically demonstrable is risible. Such a notion is clearly philosophical in nature and would necessarily be premised on a subjective worldview. When is this treatise of yours up for peer review? "The universe is big, therefore, man is insignificant," which is all you're really saying. Science? LOL! Ooh, strong predictive power there. LOL! You're just voicing the worldview of the atheist, the metaphysical naturalism of the unwitting. If your latest post—boorish insults, strawmen, intellectually dishonest and argumentative irrelevancies—is the best you can do, you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. Behold the spelling of the arrogance of the new atheism: S T U P I D.
Now, back to reality, commonsense . . . and civility: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/07/slammed-shut-doors.html
Significance is subjective. I agree with that, Rawlings. I think what Wryly wants to say is that he feels that humanity is insignificant because, for example, an unprejudiced outside observer probably wouldn't notice whether we're a part of the universe or not. After all, we inhabit such a tiny portion of the universe that it would be very hard to even find us in the first place. With that in mind, it's easy to understand where such a feeling of insignificance could come from even though I don't share it. The many aspects of the universe that science has begun to unravel amaze me. I cannot adequately describe my emotional response to those discoveries with words, but here is a video that paints the mood quite well. [video=youtube;9D05ej8u-gU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU[/video]
Interesting...not a single one of the above links would open? Regarding the Bang, are all galaxies in our Universe moving away from the Bang at the same speed? If so, why would galaxies collide? If multiple universes could collide, then they are not moving away from a singular point in time and therefore are under some other gravitational influence. And this doesn't make sense to me since each universe would be like a PacMan eventually destroying each other...what a waste. I'm guessing an influence which is far less chaotic...maybe even predictable...
It's not ego centric? Earth is significant in our Solar system having as far as we know the only intelligent life (excluding Washington DC). If what we have on Earth has developed as it has, then there's a million other places where life might be quite similar. The ONLY reason most of us believe extraterrestrials will be different is watching too many science fiction movies. Although if life can exist in more inhospitable conditions then that life might look different...like Keith Richards. But short of this, why not believe that the evolutionary process and current outcome on Earth would be similar elsewhere?
No. Because they're all moving away from each other, and the furthest ones out are moving the fastest. Recall, galaxies aren't moving through space, they're moving in an ever-expanding space-time continuum. Well, first, other universes wouldn't necessarily be governed by the same physical laws/principles as ours, and there are several different multiverse models. In any event, you're getting above my pay grade as it were. Things start getting pretty mathematically abstract.
I understand what he's thinking, but of course, the matter remains one of perspective, informed by one's personal worldview, not science. Further, it's the atheist, not the theist who mangles the implications of the universe's vastness relative to the existence of intelligent life. Hence, it's the snooty sense of superiority routinely exhibited by the ill-informed and unexamined atheism of today that's annoying. For example, from my blog: The video presents an interesting perspective, and indeed, the universe is breathtaking, and it just keeps getting more wonderfully weird and fascinating with each discovery.
I would imagine the odds of life elsewhere resembling our outcome as extremely remote that we have evolved to what we are today ...2.7 billion years of life on the planet and had it not been for an asteroid 65 million years ago we wouldn't be here in this forum ...and we appeared only in the last 170K years and a super volcano nearly wiped us out 70K years ago, our existence is a fluke, nothing more than a fortuitous series of events...evolution may be common in the universe but there is no guarantee it takes a common path that leads to anything like us and our societies...
the best explanations for the multiverse hypothesis that I've heard was here... http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/nova-universe-or-multiverse-documentary/
He peddles his mindless, mind-hating superstition in order to establish a mindset that looks for the same benevolent creative power in reality and real persons. Theists know they are detached from reality, therefore they have to create a similar comforting order on earth and deify the ruling class as a manifestation of God. This Capitaliban iman preaches that the rich create jobs and create science, just like the Creator Himself. But the only thing that Right Wing cult leaders like Prager do is create a crater in the American spirit, a black hole they should all be thrown into as landfill. Sermon of a Je$u$ Salesman Pray Then Pay That's the Way To Make My Day
What insignificance? Speak for yourself! How powerful you must feel in your contempt for the rest of mankind.
Because it was extremely improbable that life would exist even on Earth. Some theorists, in order to push still another quack theory, admit that it should have taken 2^200,000 collisions to produce life here, whereas it only took 2^200. Therefore, just like the lottery, even with a literally astronomical number of possible places for life, there was only one winner.
it comes from my annoying habit of stepping back(in this case waaaaay back) and trying to see the bigger picture...it's a fault I'm happy to have... in this instance I see man as just another life form no better or more special than the rest we share the planet with and without we could not exist, to claim we are special or significant is pure hubris... one good sized asteroid and we are gone, our eye blink moment of existence leaving no appreciable mark on our planet let alone the universe or multi-verse, it will be as if we were never here... maybe the cockroaches will be the next dominant form of life and some of their creationist scientifically ignorant members will claim god made the universe and themselves in god's image...
one self aware specie after 2.7 billion years of multiple extinction events and evolution, how tiny the odds must be for that to happen again...
If the most distant galaxies are moving faster, then what causes this acceleration over those galaxies closer to the Bang? Are distant galaxies breaking free of gravity or another property which allows them to increase speed? If there are multiverse's, then should we assume the universes are moving away from a common point as well? If so, then a galaxy is in an ever-expanding space-time continuum, and universes are in an ever-expanding space-time continuum. If so, then galaxies are moving in their own universe system as well they are moving based on what is happening at the universe level...there would be two movements. At the multiverse level, either all of them are completely static in position, or something like the Bang is allowing all of them to expand away from each other. Otherwise, there would be too much chaos which means collisions. BTW; everything on this thread is above my pay grade...
If you look back at the earliest days on Earth, which at that point in time could be similar to billions of planets in our Universe, seems like the process kind of makes sense; develop in primordial muck, eventually something finds it's way on to land, then over a couple billion years all the same external forces push human evolution in a similar direction. I'm just saying if the environment that existed on Earth 3 billion years ago might resemble environments all over the galaxy/universe, sure there will be variations just as we have from continent to continent, but essentially we look very similar. It's much easier for me to assume this than to create reasons to suggest life forms will look like the collection we see in the bar scene on a Star Trek movie. Regarding societies...we have an evolutionary path and a cultural or societal path. Both make sense from their own perspective. In society, animals and everything tend to stay in groups, share in duties, protect each other, fight, migrate, etc. Again, it's easier for me to assume on another planet that these societal tendencies are similar to what we see on Earth because they make sense in order to create some sustainability. The only difference I see regarding extraterrestrials is the amount of time they have to advance before they are destroyed or annihilate themselves. If a human was to meet an intelligent life form from another planet, and that life form had been growing knowledge and technology for 5000 years instead of our 200 years, this would be tantamount to comparing Einstein to an Aborigine or even a Neanderthal...but they would still be similar...
Thanks but I just don't have time to watch a video...I prefer something I can read at my own speed which is much faster than a video.
Did you see some humans locked in cages in your zoo? Why do you believe another planet wouldn't have all the plant and animal life we have? Do you think other planets only have intelligent life forms? The only point here is their zoos will look slightly different than our zoos...but they will have zoos...
The religion of atheism. Back to reality. . . . Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism By Michael David Rawlings March 6, 2011 Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be readily quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science. Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little. I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is merely the beginning of wisdom, not the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales. I recently posed a question on Yahoo! Answers and prefaced it with a brief summary of the results derived from the Miller-Urey experiments of 1952 in the light of current science. Of course, the underlying hypothesis on which the experiments were originally based has been falsified, but we learned plenty. While I discussed a number of the problems associated with it, I neglected to emphatically state what that hypothesis was . . . just to see what sort of fish I might catch. The following is the full version of the necessarily condensed one that appeared on Yahoo! Answers. . . . A Yahoo! Answers resident, Lord Fluffy Tail, recently offered up the following quote in answer to a question about origins: In 1951, the American Miller succeeded to form organic matter out of a mixture of ammonia (NH3), methane (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) by exposing this mixture to an electric current. During the experiments different organic mixtures were formed, among them amino acids and nucleic acids. These acids are essential for the building of proteins and chromosomes. —ORACLE ThinkQuest Miller-Urey has been falsified for years; that is to say, the experiments' parameters and conditions were shown to be incongruent and the results, negative. The reasons for this are legion and very complex, yet textbooks continue to relate these experiments with the same sort of blurb in the above as if they were still something more than an historical footnote. An avalanche of innumerable Internet sites—most of them put up by atheistic, know-nothing layman—continue to tout them as being something that still matters along with theory that is years, even decades, behind current science. For example, it doesn't appear that the author of Lord Fluffy Tail's source knows that the atmosphere of the primeval world was more oxygen-rich even earlier than he supposes and was generally more oxidizing than reducing—necessary for life, but not friendly to the formation of amino acids. In other words, the actual conditions were considerably more hostile to the prospects of abiogenesis than those of the Miller-Urey experiments. The primordial soup keeps getting driven deeper and deeper into the ocean where, once again, another battery of problematic conditions confound the imbecilic notions of chemical evolutionists. Also, the author of this source writes that the "origin of life out of lifeless matter is called biogenesis." Uh . . . no. But that's probably just a typo. Biogenesis pertains to the Pasteurian theory that omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all life is from life. The idea that life may arise from non-living matter goes by the name of spontaneous generation or, in accordance with contemporary theory, abiogenesis. But the most startling bit of information divulged by this author—which is not a typo, but a UFO—consists of the claim that the Miller-Urey experiments produced nucleic acids. What? Stop the presses! News flash! Trust me. They did not produce nucleic acids or anything else like them. The rest of the article: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/years-of-experience-have-shown-me-that_06.html
