The Astronomy Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Julian the Apostate_sl said:
The only reason we know as much as we do about past species on earth is because they had skeletons and/or carapaces that fossilize well. Micro organisms and soft bodied(for lack of the correct term) species do not fossilize well and are very difficult to study, even here on earth.
Click to expand...
True, but (assuming they exist) finding soft bodies on mars would be different than here on earth.

There's no ongoing water sediment. There's no water erosion. There's no tectonic process. There is no cyclic organic decay. Many of the factors which make it so difficult to find soft bodied fossils on earth aren't applicable. Which is not to say there are no factors.

The first X inches of soil are oxidized. That probably varies depending on location and composition of the soil itself... but ok, so there is SOME erosion. Wind erosion. There is some surface wind sediment. But underneath that thin crust the soil (I assume) has just been basically sitting there for millions of years. As far as we know... just sitting there.

Maybe we'll find thin strata within that soil that followed the water down as they both receded. And maybe not. All I mean is that it's a different sort of thing than fossil hunting on earth. They wouldn't nessicarily have to be actually fossilized. Just preserved.

Edit: It might also be that if life ever did exist there, it existed within those first X inches of soil -- and we're boned from the get go if we try to find it.
 
TheBeagle

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
8,750
30,393
Sigh. Inductive reasoning is based on probabilities. Those probabilities are based on sound experimental designs and observations. Technically I guess you can say if something is only a 98% probability then its not proven. Obviously stating that all life forms on Earth are carbon based and require H2O is inductive and 'unprovable' because we don't, and never will know every life form that exists, has existed, or ever will exist on Earth. But please don't equate that or put it on equal footing with the bullshit that religion spews. I'm looking at you creationists.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
TheBeagle_sl said:
Sigh. Inductive reasoning is based on probabilities. Those probabilities are based on sound experimental designs and observations. Technically I guess you can say if something is only a 98% probability then its not proven. Obviously stating that all life forms on Earth are carbon based and require H2O is inductive and 'unprovable' because we don't, and never will know every life form that exists, has existed, or ever will exist on Earth. But please don't equate that or put it on equal footing with the bullshit that religion spews. I'm looking at you creationists.
Click to expand...
And those probabilities themselves are based on "self-evident" axioms. All persons in a quest for any knowledge must start at some unprovable axiom, and actually create an entire network of unprovable axioms, upon which we then make observations on top of and extrapolate.

My original assertion: a religious view (not ANY religious view, but A religious view) and a view that there is life on other planets, or the big bang theory, or evolution, or any scientific observation by their very definitions are not mutually exclusive. That's it.
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,594
11,937
Tuco_sl said:
All you can hope for is provably wrong declarations made by religion to be factually incorrect. A good example is the made-in-6-days-6000-years-ago bullshit.
Click to expand...
A guy who works for me believes the 6000 year old shit. Was the most aggravating argument I have had in my entire life.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,449
81,066
Abefroman_sl said:
A guy who works for me believes the 6000 year old shit. Was the most aggravating argument I have had in my entire life.
Click to expand...
I blame you for being part of it. I know a LOT of people who believe in that shit and have had zero arguments about it haha. I'm more likely to argue fucking... fucking YuGiOh monster power than validity of creationism.
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,629
1,375
Weaponsfree_sl said:
You "believe" that for all numbers there exists another number, n+1. That is belief. There are no proofs for it that do not rely on wholly axiomatic claims--you believe something arbitrarily.
Click to expand...
An axiom is not a belief. An axiom is a creation of the mind, a seed, the root of a mental construction. ? is not real. Some of these mental constructions prove to be efficient models. Being able to count apples does not mean I believe there can be an infinite number of apples.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
An axiom should not be a belief--I stated what an axiom was.

"they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit "If we assume that...""

The n+1 is a conjecture based on those unprovable assumptions. So it's doubly dubious. If we assume that [axiom] then even though we can't prove it we [assume this other thing within the system of {x}]. Again Godel's Proofs are of great help here. Simply stated then, for all numbers n there exists a number n+1, is a belief. Or if you don't want to use n+1, that all evens can be expressed as the sum of two primes. Those are not provable, based on axioms, and beliefs.

A problem arises is when people TREAT the axioms as unassailable truth and they become dogmatic, as people who are militantly religious, or militantly anti-religion do.
 
Julian The Apostate

Julian The Apostate

Vyemm Raider
2,336
2,439
axiom
Use Axiom in a sentence
ax?i?om [ak-see-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2.
a universally accepted principle or rule.
3.
Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you think a belief in a God as an axiom that should be treated on the same level as the belief in gravity as an axiom. Gravity is an axiom that can be tested and the mathematics of it can be used to correctly predict an enormous amount of things that happen in our universe.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
I'm going to make this really clear because apparently my previous attempts have yielded either deliberate obtuseness or befuddlement.

1. A belief in God and extraterrestrial findings would not be logically inconsistent with any number of beliefs in God
2. Science isn't this inviolate, proven thing, logically or otherwise--not even mathematics (see Godel's Proof).
2a. There are "beliefs" present in all disciplines, from mathematics to geology. This is a form of dogma.

Calm down and let's talk about cool stuff in space.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,923
28,674
Weaponsfree_sl said:
I'm going to make this really clear because apparently my previous attempts have yielded either deliberate obtuseness or befuddlement.

1. A belief in God and extraterrestrial findings would not be logically inconsistent with any number of beliefs in God
2. Science isn't this inviolate, proven thing, logically or otherwise--not even mathematics (see Godel's Proof).
2a. There are "beliefs" present in all disciplines, from mathematics to geology. This is a form of dogma.

Calm down and let's talk about cool stuff in space.
Click to expand...
I get where you're coming from.

You fail to understand that science and math are based on observables. Godels proof only shows weakness and tells us where to look for potentially bunk theories. Plenty of math and science falls out of that proof entirely though. And even stuff that falls under it is based on evidence. Even if there are beliefs in these disciplines, they are typically bound by tangible reasoning and evidence.

God is based on books. There is no science reasoning logic or any sort of justification for it at all. You're an idiot if you think there's a similarity between the two.
 
Mudcrush Durtfeet

Mudcrush Durtfeet

Hungry Ogre
2,428
-757
Any insertion of religion into scientific questions is only valid if such religious axioms can be used to correctly predict observable phenomena. Else throw it away, just like any other thing that doesn't fit observed results..
 
F

fucker_sl

shitlord
677
9
Furry_sl said:
I get where you're coming from.

You fail to understand that science and math are based on observables. Godels proof only shows weakness and tells us where to look for potentially bunk theories. Plenty of math and science falls out of that proof entirely though. And even stuff that falls under it is based on evidence. Even if there are beliefs in these disciplines, they are typically bound by tangible reasoning and evidence.

God is based on books. There is no science reasoning logic or any sort of justification for it at all. You're an idiot if you think there's a similarity between the two.
Click to expand...
as i said in my previous reply he:

(1) have no fucking clue of what you are talking about (inductivitity of science)
(2) are not scientist. Or better said, you have no scientific mentality (you think we cant understand something)
Click to expand...
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
Furry_sl said:
I get where you're coming from.

You fail to understand that science and math are based on observables. Godels proof only shows weakness and tells us where to look for potentially bunk theories. Plenty of math and science falls out of that proof entirely though. And even stuff that falls under it is based on evidence. Even if there are beliefs in these disciplines, they are typically bound by tangible reasoning and evidence.

God is based on books. There is no science reasoning logic or any sort of justification for it at all. You're an idiot if you think there's a similarity between the two.
Click to expand...
I believe in God because I observe that the universe has order and that it must have a starter, organizer, or creator--extraordinary claim, but observable in the fucking existence of people and the universe
I believe that things exist "just because they exist"--extraordinary claim as well.

People continue to make the totally false assumption that I am making a case for prophecy, or for religion, or for something else. The idea of God isn't based on "books," dumbass. The idea of a creator, organizer, or starter is something every philosopher has wrestled with.

You can believe in God and "believe" because yes, there are beliefs, in science. You can have both. People do it all the fucking time. That a person would believe that "life and matter are just cause they are" is just as valid as "I feel as if there must be a God that started this."

And there's no logic for God? Have you done any fucking research at all? You're starting to sound religious. There are tons of logical arguments for God--I shouldn't even need to highlight any since it's been the mostasked question in all of human existence.

BUT I SAID THERE'S NO LOGIC FOR GOD CAUSE I DON'T AGREE

Okay well a whole host of people, many of them brilliant with logical fucking proofs, disagree with you. And a whole other host of people disagree with them--and that's okay. What's not okay is to say BUT I SAY THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR GOD. That's a belief.

And the other 2 objections? That science is not inductive? Go ahead and go to google. Type in "Is science inductive?" See what pops up. Oh that's right--it's inductive. And then I guess I can't talk about science cause I'm not a scientist. Another totally baseless objection.
 
Julian The Apostate

Julian The Apostate

Vyemm Raider
2,336
2,439
Weaponsfree_sl said:
I believe in God because I observe that the universe has order and that it must have a starter, organizer, or creator--extraordinary claim, but observable in the fucking existence of people and the universe
I believe that things exist "just because they exist"--extraordinary claim as well.

People continue to make the totally false assumption that I am making a case for prophecy, or for religion, or for something else. The idea of God isn't based on "books," dumbass. The idea of a creator, organizer, or starter is something every philosopher has wrestled with.

You can believe in God and "believe" because yes, there are beliefs, in science. You can have both. People do it all the fucking time. That a person would believe that "life and matter are just cause they are" is just as valid as "I feel as if there must be a God that started this."

And there's no logic for God? Have you done any fucking research at all? You're starting to sound religious. There are tons of logical arguments for God--I shouldn't even need to highlight any since it's been the mostasked question in all of human existence.

BUT I SAID THERE'S NO LOGIC FOR GOD CAUSE I DON'T AGREE

Okay well a whole host of people, many of them brilliant with logical fucking proofs, disagree with you. And a whole other host of people disagree with them--and that's okay. What's not okay is to say BUT I SAY THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR GOD. That's a belief.

And the other 2 objections? That science is not inductive? Go ahead and go to google. Type in "Is science inductive?" See what pops up. Oh that's right--it's inductive. And then I guess I can't talk about science cause I'm not a scientist. Another totally baseless objection.
Click to expand...
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
Not making the case for intelligent design but thanks for the video.

What created matter? What started everything? For some people that's "Nothing." For some people, that's "God."

Intelligent design pro: look at all the order in this chaos! And these specialized things. It must have a creator.
Intelligent design con: order is found in any chaotic system and the things we observe develop.

I am not making either of these arguments. I'm talking about the existence of anything.

Either
1. Matter has always existed, which is an absurdity
2. Matter was created by something, which in turn must have been created by something, ad infinitum, which is an absurdity
3. Matter was created by something that was the cause of itself, or matter is the cause of itself, also an absurdity.

I came into the thread cause someone had a hardon for the idea that discovering something extraterrestrial would finally disprove those durn religious people who STILL believe in God! I'm not religious. It would not be logical to assume any extraterrestrial discovery would disprove God. Viewed in many lights, it might reinforce a belief in God.

From wikipedia: "the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God..." There are certainly logical proofs for God, but there are no scientific proofs for God. Those are different things. But in turn, there is no scientific proof for the non-existence of God either.

Here's a neat proof from our man Godel for God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...ological_proof
 
Julian The Apostate

Julian The Apostate

Vyemm Raider
2,336
2,439
I can see you didn't actually watch the video which is a shame because I took the time to read about Godel's proof that you have been talking about(although the actual proof was admittedly beyond my understanding). The video actually does answer your response quite well.
 
W

Weaponsfree_sl

shitlord
342
1
Julian the Apostate_sl said:
I can see you didn't actually watch the video which is a shame because I took the time to read about Godel's proof that you have been talking about(although the actual proof was admittedly beyond my understanding). The video actually does answer your response quite well.
Click to expand...
No it does not. It's a good video and interesting but still does not explain the origin of matter.

The video states that it would be silly to say well I don't understand the origin of matter--God did it.

Well that's just as absurd as saying--well, matter is the cause of itself.

But okay. IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD YOU'RE A FAGGOT WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. Let us continue to dogmatically cling to that. It makes us feel smug and superior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.