Science Thread (now with 100% less religion)
The old science thread seems to have gotten locked, not sure what the rules are but I thought we could try again.
Prett
Don't forget intelligent life probably has a much shorter time period due to the ability to destroy itself. The dinosaurs hung around for hundreds of millions of years, I doubt humans will last a fraction of that.
Has anyone found any signs of intelligent life on this forum yet?
It’d be terribly funny if there were actually an entire galactic community we don’t know about bc higher intelligences are currently treating us like North Sentinel Island and all agree we should remain uncontacted due to our primitive and aggressive behavior.
I read that we avoided them because they haven't built up immunities to germs we'd expose them to, and they could easily die. Don't really know that much about them though, so that may be wrong. It probably has to do with observing their behavior. Or both.
Maybe the aliens/higher intelligences (if they exist) are like those in the movie Contact, and we're just not ready to see what they have to show us.
His theory is that life is everywhere and through that there are probably many advanced civilizations but 150 years is similar to a second on the grand scale of things and the overlap of civilizations across trillions of years becomes less likely.
I think overlap becomes extremely more likely. Barring some unforeseen galactic catastrophe I expect the human race to basically continue to exist forever. Same goes with other life out there that has reached our level, if it exists . Like we'll do in the not too distant future, they'll have figured out how to live forever at the individual level. So if they're out there, there are aliens hundreds of millions or billions of years old, just like our decedents will live to be trillions of years old.
Three score years and ten, though.
1. We can talk about Evolution in this thread.
2. We cannot talk about Religion in this thread.
#1 and #2 and mutually exclusive.
I assume this is based on your observation that both Christianity and evolution can be described as "beliefs." How would you compare the empirical evidence in support of evolution to the empirical evidence in support of a Christian God?
I assume this is based on your observation that both Christianity and evolution can be described as "beliefs." How would you compare the empirical evidence in support of evolution to the empirical evidence in support of a Christian God?
I would say that the empirical evidence for either one is rather slight.
We have an good amount of historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (Much of which is from sources hostile to Jesus, such as the Talmud.)
I agree the evidence for evolution is about as good as the historical evidence for christians existing in the 4th or 5th century.
I didn't say historical evidence for evolution.
Good question!
An excerpt:
2
a
: a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes
a history of Japan
b
: a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena (as of geography, animals, or plants)
an illustrated history of North American birds
c
: an account of a patient's medical background
reviewing her medical history
d
: an established record
a prisoner with a history of violence
Evolution would seem to fit definition 2b.
Having said that, the process of evaluating historical events by mankind would be quite different from evaluating natural phenomena.
But I will concede the point that evaluating fossils (e.g.) is certainly an example of Natural History.
I know. Which is why your comparison didn't make sense to me. Why are you comparing two things that don't share the same standard of verification?
It was the only way the laughable notion that evolution and anything related to christianity could have the same degree of evidence behind it
