[MrWonderful]

But that is not what @MrWonderful is banging on about. He believes we are the only example of sentience in the universe. All alone. God's plaything marooned on an insignificant speck of rock in the vastness of space.

He said, "Humans alone in all the universe ask questions."
Daftness when you think about it[, given the number of habitable worlds, and] you don't need technology to do that.

Godless Leftists make inane pronouncements and then giggle at themselves.
1. SETI has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars for decades and has yet to hear a whisper.
2. Sophisticated scientists have written books on the virtual impossibility of life forming on its own. You conveniently ignore those without going "LOL."
3. Earth is hardly "insignificant" when it has seven billion thinking humans, if one counts godless Leftists.
4. One of my forty websites:

http://NASAGoldRecord.blogspot.com

Carl Sagan waxed enthusiastic about this Gold Record he so proudly helped design, but Sagan lied again and again in his many books. How unscientific and ignorant of him.
I wrote to his publisher and Sagan replied, ignoring the many errors I cited. He simply asked me to buy his newest book. I sold his letter on EBay for $125.

[ingliz]

and has yet to hear a whisper

Are you sure?



The Wow! signal

The unexplained signal appeared to come from the direction of the constellation Sagittarius and bore the expected hallmarks of extraterrestrial origin.

[Godstud]

1. SETI has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars for decades and has yet to hear a whisper.

This is not based on religion. It's not an argument.

2. Sophisticated scientists have written books on the virtual impossibility of life forming on its own. You conveniently ignore those without going "LOL."

That's objectively false. Scientists make hypothesis on how life came into creation. That is not what you are claiming, and you are making a false statement.

3. Earth is hardly "insignificant" when it has seven billion thinking humans, if one counts godless Leftists.

If you look at it objectively, it is, but I don't expect critical thinking from a zealot. How do you know there isn't another earth somewhere? The universe is immense.


Carl Sagan was a scientist who hypothesized about a great many things. He never claimed there were true, or factual. He didn't lie. You're the one LYING. You're also a poor excuse for a troll.

[Rich]

It might help if scientist could own up when they are wrong. Take stars for example. We know now that there are no stars. Stars were nothing but an ancient childish fantasy. Fixed holes in the celestial sphere. There are no stars only planets, or wanderers. All the so called stars wander, its just their movements were and in some cases perhaps still are imperceptible on human time scales. but scientists have this completely unscientific sentimental attachment to the idea that Planets are special, so rather than admit they are wrong they keep changing the definition of planet.

I'm highly suspicious that they're up to their old tricks with "The Big Bang", rather than admit that there was no big bang they will just keep changing their definition of it.

[Godstud]

@Rich Nothing you just said makes a lick of sense, or is even remotely scientific. You're making up rubbish to fit your idiotic narrative. I suppose you're going to talk about how the earth is flat next, or chemtrails, Cultural Marxism, or some other bullshit like that, next?


Scientists are often wrong, and they own up to it, as science isn't about "being right". That your own political nonsense that you are projecting.

[Potemkin]

@Rich Nothing you just said makes a lick of sense, or is even remotely scientific. You're making up rubbish to fit your idiotic narrative. I suppose you're going to talk about how the earth is flat next, or chemtrails, Cultural Marxism, or some other bullshit like that, next?


Scientists are often wrong, and they own up to it, as science isn't about "being right". That your own political nonsense that you are projecting.

Actually, @Rich is technically correct.

[Godstud]

He argues semantics and wording, and not facts.

No, @Potemkin, he is not "technically right". That Rich doesn't understand the science, is obvious. That you try to back him up, is just pathetic.

[Potemkin]

He argues semantics and wording, and not facts.

No, @Potemkin, he is not "technically right". That Rich doesn't understand the science, is obvious. That you try to back him up, is just pathetic.

His point is that modern science has inherited a terminology from the ancient world, based on 'science' which we now know to be wrong. This terminology is therefore, strictly speaking, incorrect. His point is technically correct, and is valid.

[Godstud]

Except, @Potemkin, that he's not arguing that. It's strawman bullshit.

[Potemkin]

:lol: Except, @Potemkin, that he's not arguing that. It's strawman bullshit.

@Rich is making a valid point, @Godstud. Our scientific terminology is incorrect and misleading.

[Godstud]

No, @Potemkin.

The words are fine, even if the science and perhaps the definitions, have changed. Words often change in meaning and language evolves.

Rich's point is not valid and irrelevant to the current topic.

What is right about this statement that rich made?

I'm highly suspicious that they're up to their old tricks with "The Big Bang", rather than admit that there was no big bang they will just keep changing their definition of it.

This shows a gross ignorance about science, and how it operates.

[Potemkin]

No, @Potemkin.

The words are fine, even if the science and perhaps the definitions, have changed. Words often change in meaning and language evolves.

Rich's point is not valid and irrelevant to the current topic.

What is right about this statement that rich made?

This shows a gross ignorance about science, and how it operates.

Does it? If you redefine your frame of reference to be the 4-dimensional space-time manifold, then in fact there was no 'Big Bang' - it would merely be one of the poles of that 4-dimensional manifold, which can be transformed away by a change of reference frame. @Rich really is making a valid point about modern science, @Godstud, whether you believe it or not.

[Godstud]

[wat0n]

I thought stars were redefined to just be suns?

[Potemkin]

I thought stars were redefined to just be suns? :?:

They're still called 'stars', and planets are still called 'planets', which literally means 'wanderers'. The stars, by implication, are fixed. None of this is true, as we now know. But the inaccurate terminology remains.

[Rich]

I thought stars were redefined to just be suns? :?:

Bu that just begs the question what is a sun. I don't have a problem with redefining things, I just think we the ordinary non scientists should have a say in the matter. Its probably too early to be definitive, but I would suggest that demarcating stars and planets through their mechanism of formation will probably be the way to go. Stars are formed from a gas cloud collapse where as planets are formed by accretion. So that means although at first sight Jupiter looks like a small cold sun or star, it should probably be categorised as a planet.

The modern "follow the science" liberals (I'm using liberal here with its modern changed meaning, a byword for illiberalism) remind me of the Medieval Catholic Church. The Catholic Church greatly valued the Bible and theology, but they didn't want ordinary people reading the bible and sticking their noses into theological debates. From their point of view this would just lead to no end of trouble. To be fair to the Medieval Catholic Church they're concerns weren't completely without foundation. Its indisputable that allowing ordinary people to read the Bible led to a massive increase in hate crime.

I'm a punk anarchist. But I can understand the conservative authoritarian viewpoint. They say we just never learn. First off all we invented the printing press. And then we invented the telephone and the CB radio. And then we invented the internet and cheap printers. And then we invented the Web and then Web 2.0..... From their point of view we insist on making it easier and easier for ordinary people to access and disseminate information, and then are constantly surprised when things don't turn out how we want.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Rich is making a valid point, @Godstud. Our scientific terminology is incorrect and misleading.

Yes and no.

@Rich is entirely correct about inheriting misleading paradigms from pre-science culture or from earlier and incorrect science. And this is particularly true for any taxonomic stuff.

Rich is not correct to argue that science has not fixed these errors. In fact, none of us would even be aware of these errors if scientists had not examined and tested them.

[Potemkin]

Yes and no.

@Rich is entirely correct about inheriting misleading paradigms from pre-science culture or from earlier and incorrect science. And this is particularly true for any taxonomic stuff.

Rich is not correct to argue that science has not fixed these errors. In fact, none of us would even be aware of these errors if scientists had not examined and tested them.

Nietzsche once said that God can never be entirely dead, because he lives on in our grammar. In many ways, our language itself, inherited from an era of faith, presupposes and embodies the existence of God. The same can be said of old scientific paradigms. They can never entirely die, since they live on in a ghostly half-life in our terminology. One of the reasons most people are still so resistant to cladistic analysis, for example, is because we still name and classify organisms according to Linnaean principles. In this sense, science has not "fixed" these errors; though it has identified them, it also perpetuates them.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Potemkin

Yes, agreed.

To add to the problem, these language based paradigms will continue to exist and be represented as science even after scientists no longer use these terms or paradigms. Because these phrases creep into mainstream speech and are accepted as true even when disproven. Like "limbic system" or "alpha male".

On the other hand, science is not a monolithic whole.. Those who are more educated on the latest findings will use less archaic terminology and paradigms. So science has "fixed" this problem ( to a degree) along the cutting edge.

Perhaps @Rich is correct that this is not "fixed" for the simple reason that science can never ne fully and completely repaired.

For example, we are still imbuing new language and paradigms with implicit assumptions.