- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by royaltystatementWhich one?
Aliens and imaginary friends are exactly the same. The only difference is one gets more publicity.
EDIT: sorry, getting so late it's early, and My facetious drive is going into overload, so I bid thee all goodnight (or whatever time it is in your part of this ball of rock spinning through space) and 'see' you all tomorrow.
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo but that is the point.
The point is the probability can be vastly small, but given the number of stars the probability of it having NEVER happened ANYWHERE else in the galaxy is basically zero (in other words the probability of ET is 1).
EDIT: and again if you want the full argument read the book, it is in my veiw well written.
It doesn't matter how many stars and planets there are.
Unless we know how life forms we can never say anything about probabilities - at least nothing so definitive as you suggest.
A billion planets are useless, if the formation of life is an incredibly unlikely event.
Now I'm not saying it is, but I'm not saying it isn't either.
We just don't know.
There is, as yet, no useful model for life's origins - and everything else hinges on this.
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by Sambo69Of course no other animal has discovered science. No other species on earth would possible be able to comprehend such concepts as pi. This is simply because they don't have the intellect. Although, apart from the two main issues of intelligence and opposable thumbs, humans are really the same as other animals, which is what I believe the point of this thread is. Buddhism is a great example of this thinking in religion, as it places the same importance on reptiles, canines, felines and amphibians, as what it does on human beings.
One of the things that strongly differentiates humans from other species is science.
For example, no other species has conceived the number pi, which is used to calculate the motions of planets, design motors, process signals, develop medical equipment, etc.
Religion barely differentiates humans from other species.
For example, dogs wait for someone to come back home and can fight each other as the time comes.
B.
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzTo suggest that the instinctive 'language' of honey bees is comparable to human language is palpably absurd. The waggle-dance, or so I thought, is solely to give directions to a nectar source. There is no capacity for development and certainly no capacity for conceptualisation -which is the important point about our language. Scientists have set up a nectar source for bees on a birdtable type contraption- when the scout bee located it and buggered off to get his friends they extended the pole so the nectar was a couple metres higher (although in the same spot on the ground). The bees duly arrived and buzzed confusedly around the pole but were unable to find the nectar. This is indicative of fundamental difference between an instinctive series of signs and human language. Our ability to conceptualise and theorise would have enabled us to find the nectar- not robotically follow instructions.
Nope. Many other organisms have "language". Honey bees have their waggle dance, dolphins and whales communicate complex information between each other all the time. Even many domestic animals communicate to a large degree. What else is language other than a series of standardised grunts for communicating information?
As regards dolphins and whales: agreed; their systems of communication are certainly closer to our own. However, they are still so different as to warrant comparison problematic. Do you think a whale is self-conscious? "I'm feeling fat today.. I wonder what happens when you die.. honk honk!"
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by Number 6Do YOU think a whale is self-conscious?
To suggest that the instinctive 'language' of honey bees is comparable to human language is palpably absurd. The waggle-dance, or so I thought, is solely to give directions to a nectar source. There is no capacity for development and certainly no capacity for conceptualisation -which is the important point about our language. Scientists have set up a nectar ...[text shortened]... s self-conscious? "I'm feeling fat today.. I wonder what happens when you die.. honk honk!"
How would you test such a thing?
As a matter of fact, how would I test that YOU were self-conscious?
I can say any number of things about my own mental state, but can only infer these things about other humans.
12 Aug 06
Inference is all we have. The only proofs are tautological and tell us nothing new. I admit to a certain level of faith in my apprehension of the world. The evidence points to an external world, for instance, not against one. As a human being I am rational (hmmmm) and will use my common sense to get by. You may theoretically argue against this but I wager you behave in the same manner.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by amannionactually all the evidence suggests that life is almost certain to form wherever conditions are right.
No but that is the point.
It doesn't matter how many stars and planets there are.
Unless we know how life forms we can never say anything about probabilities - at least nothing so definitive as you suggest.
A billion planets are useless, if the formation of life is an incredibly unlikely event.
Now I'm not saying it is, but I'm not saying it isn't eithe ...[text shortened]... There is, as yet, no useful model for life's origins - and everything else hinges on this.
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by royaltystatementThe guy is talking to himself and noone reacts.
What other species? where?
Originally posted by royaltystatement
You don't know, do you? That's the point here. Science can create the most complex questions and equations and answer many of them such as stem cell research, etc., but when the origin of life or, the evolution of man are concerned, essential questions are left unansw ...[text shortened]... gap between the physical world and the spirutual world can be bridged away from Christ Jesus.
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by stockenI feel like killing somebody after having read this thread. It's depressing how the non-evolutionists needs answers to everything, hands up, but can't produce any answers that are more plausable than...
I know what you mean.
Oh, never mind. My point?
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by stockenI think your point might be that searching for the answers is half the fun and only a fool would settle for something as unverifiable and simple as God ka-zaam this and God ka-zoom that (or gi-gah, gi-goh as it were).
I feel like killing somebody after having read this thread. It's depressing how the non-evolutionists needs answers to everything, hands up, but can't produce any answers that are more plausable than...
Oh, never mind. My point?
Preferring a scientific to the supernatural world view is the same as accepting it will take a loooong time before we have any answers to the really hard questions. I, personally, like that. The day we truly know the answer to everything is the day humanity has served it's purpose and should be extinct. If anyone asks me.
12 Aug 06
Originally posted by stockenI need cigarette smoke right about now. Any smokers around?
I think your point might be that searching for the answers is half the fun and only a fool would settle for something as unverifiable and simple as God ka-zaam this and God ka-zoom that (or gi-gah, gi-goh as it were).
Preferring a scientific to the supernatural world view is the same as accepting it will take a loooong time before we have any answers to t ...[text shortened]... verything is the day humanity has served it's purpose and should be extinct. If anyone asks me.