Outer space, UFO's and Space Travel

[DutyCat]

There is another nagging question in this topic in general, not discounting any reports (published) by any one or from any source. The question(s) is/are of all the reported abductions, to my knowledge none have involved any person of notoriety, by that I mean no world class leader (Premier, President though history indicates they may not always be a very good choice ), noted scientist such as Neil Tyson, great mathematician, Military leader of high rank (General, Admiral), if they have a similar philosophy, or thinking as we do; it would seem they would want, or should be interested in the most or more intelligent among Terrans. Yet all the abductions have been common everyday people. The total number of abductions may never be known as some people who have or may have been taken are afraid to come forward; not wanting to face ridicule or the questions put to them, by scientist or governmental agencies, or whomever would be interested. That old quote from the 50's movies "take me to your leader" would garner some consideration. It's just so curious, to me that people who would be of no value concerning info on the more advanced technical doings of this world, or have any say in any leadership role would always be the subjects abducted. It seems by the reports they are taken and examined, and that seems to indicated an interest more in the diversity of humans. Perhaps they are looking for something specific, such as what each ethnic groups characteristic tendencies are, but that wouldn't make much sense because each group has individuals that excel in athletics, intelligence, lifespan, physical ability,etc. The differences of note could be the physical make up, one group be taller, another being lighter skinned, however that would take on a racial study. which wouldn't be logical because of like I said....each group has individuals that fit into all the categories of another group. I'll probably get slammed for this, but in Africa we have Watusis', that average 7' tall, waitaminit..Yao Ming is [not] a Watusi and he's just as tall so that's out. Each group has brainiacs whose IQ reaches near to or over 200. OK folks...why is it that no individual with any kind of celebrity status has ever been abducted by an ET intelligence, maybe I'd better not say that too loud, I don't have celebrity status of any kind, and I am very very average . Maybe, just maybe [if] they are here they're looking for something planted DNA wise long before recorded history began, something along the lines of that Star Trek TNG episode where clues were left on different worlds, Terrans, Klingons, Cardasians, and Romulans all had a single piece and they all needed to be assembled into one piece for the puzzle to be complete.

To answer all of your questions....that is because it is extremely unlikely that any visitations have occurred, so no one has ever been abducted. It is probably as simple as that!

Edited November 2, 2014 by DutyCat

[DutyCat]

I am not slamming religion as much as those who would impose their belief system on everyone else. I think it's a real danger to our society that Christian Fundamentalist groups (as has happened in Texas) try to force school book publishers to print Christian myths about Creation in school texts as though Biblical stories are equivalent to science. Bill, you yourself suggested that it was only fair to do so. I disagree vehemently as you have realized by now.

It also doesn't help our society in any way when people opposed to scientific findings because of their own ideology succeed in portraying science as suspect or politically biased, leading many less informed people to reject science that doesn't conform to what they want to believe as well. One can see this in the "anti-vaccine" movements which are succeeding in bring back diseases that used to be rare, with scientific evidence that their fears of vaccines are completely wrong. Or the people advocating drinking raw milk for its supposed health benefits, forgetting (or not knowing) that when Louis Pasteur came up with the idea of what we now call Pasteurization it was because raw milk sickened and killed a lot of people back in the day. Pasteurization kills the bacteria that is responsible, but the raw milk enthusiasts believe false ideas about how it reduces the nutritional value of milk products. The science does not support their position. The CDC reported that unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness and results in 13 times more hospitalizations than illnesses involving pasteurized dairy products, yet people who choose to reject science that doesn't conform to what they want to believe put themselves and their children at risk. And when the topic gets really serious, such as the threat of human-caused climate change, we have government officials in power who openly denigrate science and put forth the false notion that the findings of the scientists who study climate are financially motivated, politically biased, and that scientists are making this stuff up for their own gain. We also have Christian Congressmen saying things like we don't need to worry about it because God will prevent us from destroying our planet (tell that to the passenger pigeon, dodo and other species man has wiped off the face of the earth). That to me is absolutely frightening.

http://www.telegraph...ate-change.html

One of my favorite authors, astronomer Phil Plait, says it this way:

"The problem here is, in my opinion, one of polarization of "belief" in science and religion in America,* primarily due to the unholy marriage of the Republican Party and religious conservatives as the "Religious Right." Despite the rock-solid fact that we are not a Christian nation, that concept has been loudly and often claimed by GOP politicians, increasingly honed over the years and sharpened to a fine point. Today, a Republican presidential candidate might as well stand up and say they eat live puppies rather than they "believe" in evolution. This science versus religion rhetoric has polarized our country so badly that a lot of people perceive all religion to be totally anti-science, and that's not true, and not fair.

Another part of this is the broad lack of scientific understanding by the American public. This is exacerbated by the same people on the far right (both in schools and on the pulpit) who misrepresent science, casting it as strictly opposed to their particular religious thinking (which, to be fair, in many cases it is, because these folks believe in stuff that's provably wrong). And while this type of belief and scare-mongering of science is not universal, it is widespread and pushed by the media.

My own views on all this, obviously, are not as black and white as many others I read. For example, I think religious people believing in theistic evolution is fine. I don't believe it myself, but if folks want to believe in God for personal reasons and still accept the science, then good on them! At the very least, they're not trying to legislate young-Earth creationism and other provably wrong concepts be taught in the classroom. And if they accept the science there, perhaps they can continue in that direction in other areas as well. I'd far rather discuss the Big Bang with Pope Francis than with Ken Ham.

*I put "belief" in quotation marks because science isn't a belief system."

As to the dangers of rejecting science and accepting contrary beliefs Dr. Plait also said it far better than I ever could:

"The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces..."

So if you are offended by my words, I am equally offended by the stance Fundamentalist Christians take toward science. The Christian Fundamentalist rejection of science and their acceptance and imposition of their dogma and myths on society as absolute truths constitutes a real threat to our society, in my opinion, and I think those of us who see that need to speak up.

Scott W.

You are dead on correct with most of your analysis, IMO. I also agree with you about the danger of any self righteously practiced religious fundamentalism. However, even though the US was not founded officially as a Christian nation, it was de facto culturally and that carried throughout most of its history. Many of our laws and customs are rooted in Anglo Saxon Christian traditions. So, even though moderate Christians can synthesize (a false synthesis, admittedly) science and religion, they are much less tolerant to the hijacking of traditional American culture by groups that have customs and religion that are large departures from what the majority of Americans have been practicing for hundreds of years.

I am not religious and all, but I recognize the value of the basic moral message of Christianity and the cultural importance of our customs. For example, I hate that at my school, we cannot have a Nativity display, or a Christmas chorus service, or call it Christmas Break (It has to be called Winter break), and can't have a Christmas Tree (Has to be called a Holiday Tree). My view on this is... don't attempt to immigrate here and then use the laws that we put in place to prevent persecution to turn around an attack American culture. One should not be offended by a Christmas Tree. If you value so much the way things were done where you came from, you should have stayed there.

[Tony Stark]

Other theories such as the origin of life and evolution can't be.

Not only can evolution be proven, it already has been and you've accepted it every year. Ever had a flu shot?

Evolution is why every year, a team of health experts designs a vaccine to protect against the three circulating flu strains they predict will be the most prevalent that season. The vaccine helps your body make antibodies to fight those selected strains. But flu viruses replicate quickly and have a high rate of genetic changes, or mutations, so the helpful antibodies you may have developed to a previous year's strains often can't attach to this year's mutated viruses. Such adaptation helps the flu virus thrive in its environment. It survives, infects and multiplies. In other words, it evolves. And the flu vaccine must evolve each year to keep up.

Many bacteria have developed resistance to the most common drugs we have on hand to treat them. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an antibiotic-resistant bacterium that causes potentially deadly skin infections. Even bacterial colonies on your hands can evolve to resist antibacterial soaps and hand gels.

In the past 60 years, antibiotics have been critical in the fight against infectious disease caused by bacteria and other microbes. Antimicrobial chemotherapy has been a leading cause for the dramatic rise of average life expectancy in the Twentieth Century. However, disease-causing microbes that have become resistant to antibiotic drug therapy are an increasing public health problem. Wound infections, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, pneumonia, septicemia and childhood ear infections are just a few of the diseases that have become hard to treat with antibiotics. One part of the problem is that bacteria and other microbes that cause infections are remarkably resilient and have developed several ways to resist antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs. Another part of the problem is due to increasing use, and misuse, of existing antibiotics in human and veterinary medicine and in agriculture.

Evolution is present in our daily lives, like when we catch or combat the flu virus. Evolution also plays a role in some of our most pressing global health problems. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), for instance, evolves faster than the immune system can keep up with it. Researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health study the effects of evolution on human health to find ways to prevent disease.

That's what evolution is; mutation. It's not linear; it has branches. This process is easier to track in simpler organisms than in more complex ones, but it's still applies. Humans and chimpanzees have 95% genetic commonality not because humans evolved from chimps, but because humans and chimp evolved from a common ancestor through a series of generational mutations. Mutation causes variation. Successful mutations are passed on to the succeeding generation and subsequently more mutations occur. Originally, all humans had brown eyes. Sometime between 6,000-10,000 years ago a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes. The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin. The “switch”, which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris – effectively “diluting” brown eyes to blue. The switch’s effect on OCA2 is very specific therefore. If the OCA2 gene had been completely destroyed or turned off, human beings would be without melanin in their hair, eyes or skin color – a condition known as albinism. Simply put, people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor.

I think most of the Creationist that I know, don't argue that the theory of evolution, for instance, shouldn't be taught. They just believe that if THAT theory is taught then others should be as well. Without the offsetting theory being taught, then it's not really leaving much open for class discussion is it?

They don’t know the meaning of the word “theory.”

Creationists think that "theory" is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Therefore their theories are based upon faith and project that definition on others. Therefore, in their opinion, it would give their faith-based theories the same validity as ones backed by evidence. They apply that definition to scientists when in fact the accepted definition is that a scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. Creationists think that scientists have just as much faith in their theories as creationists have in their dogma. This is not true. Creationists make the statement that science requires faith, it seemingly defines “faith” under the definition of faith being "Confidence or trust in a person or thing", but the implication bleeds into the definition of faith as "a belief that is not based on proof." The statement implies that just as Christian principals haven’t been proven, scientific theories haven’t been proven either.

Evolution is a theory that explains the developing complexity of life. gravitation is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Einstein). If a person doesn’t believe in either theory, then they are faced with the daunting task of refuting the mountains of data that support them. Simply saying, “well, gravity is just a theory” is a very weak argument against gravity, and reveals an incorrect usage of the word “theory.” So if someone says it requires faith to believe a theory, they're being slippery with definitions and implying something absolutely wrong.

Religions conclude first and analyze last. Science analyzes first concludes last. So with religion, the universe must fit the idea. The world is flat. The sun and the planets and the entire universe rotates around the earth. But with science, the idea must fit the universe.

Earlier this year, Fox broadcast an update of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, was complaining that the show lacks “scientific balance” because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers. Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum criticized Cosmos for not providing airtime for Creationism adherents. When asked if Cosmos will “ever give a Creationist any time,” Faulkner responded by lamenting that “Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”

Faulkner tried to invoke the FCC’s Equal Time rule (which specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it) here. There’s your first clue as to what’s really going on. “Balance” is not a scientific term, it’s a political term. Creationists have thousands, if not millions, of hours each week in the form of church sermons, TV and radio broadcasts in which they can and do promote creationism without any discussion of “alternate theories.” Yet a privately owned network broadcasts 13 hours of a science program, bankrolled by private money, and they demand equal time and cite this as a “war on christianity.”

Science Is not Democratic, nor should it be. When that happens, we start burning books, burning witches and making some very bad decisions. We’re not there yet, but we are seeing a very worrisome trend. The distrust of scientists in the U.S. has become an effective political tool since the 1980s. But it is also extremely dangerous to our democracy. No one expects the public to be experts or to recognize important scientific results. But we do expect that when important scientific results occur, they are implemented and used for the betterment of America and the world.

if you disagree with the scientists in the fields of geology, biology climate sciences, it is easy to believe it’s a conspiracy by various moneyed interests who have bought that entire scientific field and everyone in it. So you can just ignore all of them.

In recent decades, more and more fundamentalists are counter-acting the growing mountain of scientific evidence that contradicts their absolute doctrines by trying to make elements of their faith sound scientific (example: intelligent design). Creationists see evolution (and science in general) as a political matter; which is odd because you don’t see people choosing sides over E=MC². In the United States, where there is an all-time low in scientific literacy, these specious assertions are often and unfortunately effective.

The notion that science should not depend on public opinion is an American tradition, a major reason we became the most powerful nation on Earth. The Founding Fathers were students of the Enlightenment and viewed science and technology as fundamental to the emerging Nation’s survival:

“There is nothing which can better deserve your patronage, than the promotion of science and literature.”

– George Washington, 1st State of The Union Address, 1790

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry”

– Thomas Jefferson, 1779

We all understand that public attitudes on science are more influenced by political and religious beliefs than by the public’s scientific literacy. That a quarter of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth isn’t as bad as it sounds. Half of Americans believed that 100 years ago. Close to 100% thought that in 1776. But they didn’t really influence scientific policy. Now they do. Before 1980, Congress and the President generally deferred to the scientific community to interpret science. Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t argue the merits of the Bohr atom with Oppenheimer when he wrote to him 1943. Yes, the Moon landing was driven by military and Cold War aims, but no one in politics questioned how NASA went about getting us there. Science isn’t a belief system. It’s proven knowledge. It either knows the answer to a problem, or admits it doesn’t and keeps looking for it. Every time we ignore the scientific community, bad things generally happen.

There was a recognition in America that it was important we have both basic scientific and applied scientific research – one that would provide fundamental discoveries and advances while the other would take those results and determine if, and how, they could be of any use. Thus, research on the mating habits of the Tsetse fly in the 1960’s would become integral in identifying vectors in the spread of AIDS in Africa 30 years later. In fact, the real difference between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was just this idea of scientific control and integrity. In the Soviet Union, many scientists were told that their results better be acceptable to the Communist Party. This led to several major disasters in the Soviet Union, the most famous being Chernobyl. But the worst was an attempt to impose a pseudoscientific theory in place of true evolutionary theory, à la Darwinism and genetics, during the 1940s and 50s. This last one decimated their agricultural productivity and mortally wounded their economy during the critical period when America had an upper hand in the Cold War.

That disaster resulted from the Communist Party’s support of an ideology, derived from Lamarck and espoused by biologist party-loyalist Trofim Lysenko, over the scientists who understood evolution. All scientists were told to believe only in this Lamarckian theory and to denounce Darwinian evolution. The Party went so far as to require only this theory be taught in school. Dissenting scientists were driven out of science, imprisoned or killed. Since this theory was wrong, it was inevitable that applying it exclusively would destroy the agricultural industry of the Soviet Union. This even spawned the term Lysenkoism which means the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.

This dangerous warping of science by politics was feared by scientists beginning in the 17th century. In order to make sure science didn’t get too politicized, and that results didn’t start being cooked to satisfy the powers-that-be, scientists began forming scientific societies to support the scientific method itself. Each society focused on its own field since only those in that particular field understood the subject sufficiently to self-police its members. It wasn’t always perfect, and they themselves were subject to lots of internal politics, but it made it difficult for non-scientists to pretend they were experts.

Thus formed in America were societies like the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society, the American Medical Association, the American Nuclear Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Geophysical Union, to name a few of the hundreds we have in this country. Not only did these societies encourage the exchange of results and vetting of theories, they convinced the Government that science actually mattered and that there should be federal agencies that were populated by scientists trained in specific disciplines of importance to the Nation.

Overtime, many science-based government agencies were formed to address the pressing scientific and technical challenges of each time period, including the United States Geologic Survey, our system of Agricultural Research Stations, the Center for Disease Control, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and many, many others. The benefits to America were vast and obvious, and led directly to the United States becoming the greatest nation on Earth in the years following WWII.

But things began changing in the United States about 30 years ago. Basic Science began being cut in favor of Applied Science. Research budgets for agencies like the Department of Defense exploded while basic research funding for Universities and scientific societies began drying up. The Directors and Chiefs of those science-based government agencies, previously held by scientists in those fields who worked their way up that agency’s ladder, became political appointees. It was worrisome. Slowly, a scientific expert has started to become a dirty word. Political and ideological groups became adroit at pretending to include science to push their agendas, resorting to pseudoscience when necessary. Vaccines are suddenly seen as more dangerous than diseases like whooping cough. Fluoride in water is a conspiracy. Instead of asking the Geological Society of America about earthquakes and evolution, for which it was formed, it’s now OK to surf Creation Ministries. While we love TV shows featuring fancy CSI scientific mega-labs, that’s not how real law enforcement works. Watching political activists on TV discuss events like Fukushima, one wonders “where are the nuclear scientists on this show?”

These are dangerous and stupid trends, trends that have undermined our funding for science in America, have eroded our scientific and technological leadership in the world, have discouraged American students from entering the hard sciences, and have made us more dependent on science coming out of other countries. A few generations of this foolishness and we won’t ever recover.

[Tony Stark]

If you value so much the way things were done where you came from, you should have stayed there.

[Tony Stark]

Can we get back the original question? I still want opinions as to why space-faring intelligences would want to interact with us.

Because we'd been tinkering with a powerful artifact from the aftermath of the Big Bang...

...this attracted the attention of a would-be tyrant from a place we thought was myth but turns out to have been a really advanced alien civilization

So he brought an army with him to win this world in exchange for this artifact.

But then he went and made Banner angry.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Tony Stark

[DutyCat]

Not only can evolution be proven, it already has been and you've accepted it every year. Ever had a flu shot?

etc....

These are dangerous and stupid trends, trends that have undermined our funding for science in America, have eroded our scientific and technological leadership in the world, have discouraged American students from entering the hard sciences, and have made us more dependent on science coming out of other countries. A few generations of this foolishness and we won't ever recover.

VERY nicely done. Thanks for putting in the time and effort.

I don't think it will make any difference, however. Ours and similar voices similar,are facing an avalanche of dissent from the general public which is largely illiterate in the scientific method, and wants to stay that way. Religion is egocentric, offering safety and security, in this life and the next, in an increasingly complex, morally ambiguous, and threatening world. I understand its attraction for the common man. People do not want complicated science with all of its leading edge uncertainty and inability to answer the most important questions. They want to know there is a meaning, a purpose..that they matter, and that they are not little specs of life briefly existing in an uncaring universe. Religion offers meaning and substance. All you have to do is buy in with most everyone else and its all good. You no longer have to worry about the larger picture of human existence because that is sorted out for you. You can now just focus on the everyday practical needs of your family.

But it is a double edged sword. As it comforts, it also does a huge disservice in other ways.

[niart17]

Wow Tony, that's a very amusing and entertaining use of cut and paste graphics and flash art. Well done, I applaud your effort.

But I seriously doubt the debate about where man came from is going to end the U.S. quest for scientific knowledge and greatness. and you guys call us paranoid? Man. I know far too many really intelligent Christians that are scientists as well. My uncle holds 2 doctorates and is a physicists. One of the most devout Christians you'll even meet. Science doesn't hinge on this one question, or at least it better not.

Bill

[DutyCat]

I know far too many really intelligent Christians that are scientists as well. My uncle holds 2 doctorates and is a physicists. One of the most devout Christians you'll even meet.

Bill

This is a common fallacy....intelligent people believe in a supreme being, etc., so it must be legit. "So and so is more educated (implying more intelligent) than YOU and THEY believe."

Intelligence is but one component. Equally important is a person's pre-disposition, background, culture, training...a willingness to understand and accept the scientific method....its discipline and its limitations, as opposed to being prejudiced against it.

When you roll out belief in a deity or deities you are going "off the grid" of science. That is okay as long as your recognize what you are doing. If you try to defend your belief by engaging the scientific method on its own terms, it is a losing proposition. The essence of the method requires proof, or you have nothing but folklore.

Edited November 4, 2014 by DutyCat

[niart17]

This is a common fallacy....intelligent people believe in a supreme being, etc., so it must be legit. "So and so is more educated (implying more intelligent) than YOU and THEY believe."

Intelligence is but one component. Equally important is a person's pre-disposition, background, culture, training...a willingness to understand and accept the scientific method....its discipline and its limitations, as opposed to being prejudiced against it.

When you roll out belief in a deity or deities you are going "off the grid" of science. That is okay as long as your recognize what you are doing. If you try to defend your belief by engaging the scientific method on its own terms, it is a losing proposition. The essence of the method requires proof, or you have nothing but folklore.

I wasn't saying that because there are intelligent people that believe in a supreme being that it leads to its legitimacy. I was arguing against the statement that believing in such things will be the downfall of science in the U.S.. I think that statement is totally false. Meaning there are a great number of Christians, and other religions, that fully understand the scientific process and are themselves scientists. So I don't mean they are necessarily more intelligent than you. But you can't argue that they don't understand a process that they use EVERYDAY in their work because they happen to take a different position than you. That was the point I was making.

But really I think this conversation can serve little purpose. You guys have your thoughts and it is what it is. I just hope for your sake that either A. I'm wrong or B. you'll change your positions. Because if neither one of those happens, well....

Bill

Edited November 4, 2014 by niart17

[Jinxter13]

I believe in God Almighty, Jehovah, or by any other name that he is called, and nothing or no ones opinion is going to change that. I believe in any persons right to believe or not believe in a supreme being. I do have question may be someone here can answer or direct me to someone who can, and that is with all the archeological digs and scientific test on religious artifacts (shroud or Turan, spear of destiny, etc.) ; or the expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark; are these digs,tests,and expeditions being done to prove God's existence or disprove it?. There are arguments since time immemorial concerning events and statements in the Bible, even about the true appearance of Jesus (his description), however no one is arguing his existence, or the events of his crucifixion. It must be admitted that science is factual in its discoveries, however for scientists to not think outside the envelope and consider the possibility that the rules of convention do not apply in all cases would show the same dogmatic stubbornness regarding the spiritual realm; as those overly religious zealots who deny what science has proven, discovered, or is presently exploring. Science cannot explain a man on chemo whom believed he heard God telling him to stop the treatments did so, and later doctors found the cancer was clear of his body; flip that religious zealots must admit that science either directly or indirectly is responsible for many conveniences they enjoy on a daily basis. My belief and faith in God tells me he makes it possible for both to exits side by side with equal credibility ;) . I don't need tangible proof that God exists, I have my faith, and if that makes me seem out in the bleachers past left field to some, so be it, they have their opinion(s) and I have mine.

Edited November 4, 2014 by #1 Greywolf

[LDSModeller]

Hi All

A couple of links I would like to share with you, two scientists who are LDS like me and their thoughts on God and Science.

Click here

This one, Please read this for what it is, a Scientist telling how he lives with God/Faith and Science. This is not a my religion is better type thing.

Click here

Going back to the original question is ET out there?

From my first post, I certainly believe there are other planets with Humans (as we know the term) living there.

That they are sufficiently advanced in Interstellar travel, I cannot say- very possible.

Are they here to abduct us or study us from a afr again I don't know - i hope not to abduct us :woot.gif:/>

That being considered, if I were single and met a human from another planet, as in a cute lady, would romance blossom? :shoot:/>

Regards

Alan

Edited November 5, 2014 by LDSModeller

[Scott R Wilson]

Hi All

A couple of links I would like to share with you, two scientists who are LDS like me and their thoughts on God and Science.

Click here

This one, Please read this for what it is, a Scientist telling how he lives with God/Faith and Science. This is not a my religion is better type thing.

Click here

Going back to the original question is ET out there?

From my first post, I certainly believe there are other planets with Humans (as we know the term) living there.

That they are sufficiently advanced in Interstellar travel, I cannot say- very possible.

Are they here to abduct us or study us from a afr again I don't know - i hope not to abduct us :woot.gif:/>/>

That being considered, if I were single and met a human from another planet, as in a cute lady, would romance blossom? :shoot:/>/>

Regards

Alan

I'm getting close to my data limit (thank you Verizon) so I can't watch the video you linked but I read the article. I am in agreement with Dr. Plait, I think it's great you and the fellow in the article have found it possible to accept science and still keep your faith. I wish all people of all religions had that kind of wisdom. While I personally find the idea of a Supreme Being implausible, we can respectfully agree to disagree on that point.

My problem is with those who reject scientific evidence in favor of the provably wrong stories and interpretations of their Holy books and try to legislate or otherwise force their views on everyone else as though their faith and interpretations were on an equal standing with scientific processes and evidence.

I still say it will prove to be extremely detrimental to humanity if those that cast derision on science prevail, whether they're doing it because of religious, financial, or political motivations or ignorance and stupidity, or combinations of all of the above. A historical example would be the Dark Ages, in which Church dogma was a huge player in holding back scienctific progress for centuries. It saddens me to think of where we could be if the Church had not persecuted and killed so many free thinkers and scientists back then.

Scott

[fulcrum1]

A historical example would be the Dark Ages, in which Church dogma was a huge player in holding back scienctific progress for centuries. It saddens me to think of where we could be if the Church had not persecuted and killed so many free thinkers and scientists back then.

Scott

That's a horrible example based on myths and poor research from a long time ago. Even using the term "Dark Ages" isn't in sync with current historians. Both the Catholic Church and Islam set the conditions during the early middle ages which led to the Scientific Revolution. If anything modern science owes a debt to both these religions.

[modelguy2]

With the fall of the Roman Empire most of the knowledge of the classical thinkers was saved in monasteries and abbeys throughout Europe. The fall of feudalism and the rise of the merchant class led to the rise of important trade ports in the Mediterranean and Italy. One result was the introduction of the Bubonic Plague in the mid 14th century. After an uncommon Middle Ages warm period the dark ages (possibly caused by volcanic activity) resulted in lower crop yields for a larger population. Combine this with the turmoil caused by The Hundred Years War and there was not much time to think about the sciences. It was the rich merchants of Northern Italy like the Medici's that began to send people out to scour the countries in search of this stowed knowledge that finally led to the Renaissance.

[Scott R Wilson]

That's a horrible example based on myths and poor research from a long time ago. Even using the term "Dark Ages" isn't in sync with current historians. Both the Catholic Church and Islam set the conditions during the early middle ages which led to the Scientific Revolution. If anything modern science owes a debt to both these religions.

With the fall of the Roman Empire most of the knowledge of the classical thinkers was saved in monasteries and abbeys throughout Europe. The fall of feudalism and the rise of the merchant class led to the rise of important trade ports in the Mediterranean and Italy. One result was the introduction of the Bubonic Plague in the mid 14th century. After an uncommon Middle Ages warm period the dark ages (possibly caused by volcanic activity) resulted in lower crop yields for a larger population. Combine this with the turmoil caused by The Hundred Years War and there was not much time to think about the sciences. It was the rich merchants of Northern Italy like the Medici's that began to send people out to scour the countries in search of this stowed knowledge that finally led to the Renaissance.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Scott W.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Scott R Wilson

[DutyCat]

I believe in God Almighty, Jehovah, or by any other name that he is called, and nothing or no ones opinion is going to change that. I believe in any persons right to believe or not believe in a supreme being. I do have question may be someone here can answer or direct me to someone who can, and that is with all the archeological digs and scientific test on religious artifacts (shroud or Turan, spear of destiny, etc.) ; or the expeditions to Mt. Ararat in search of Noah's Ark; are these digs,tests,and expeditions being done to prove God's existence or disprove it?. There are arguments since time immemorial concerning events and statements in the Bible, even about the true appearance of Jesus (his description), however no one is arguing his existence, or the events of his crucifixion. It must be admitted that science is factual in its discoveries, however for scientists to not think outside the envelope and consider the possibility that the rules of convention do not apply in all cases would show the same dogmatic stubbornness regarding the spiritual realm; as those overly religious zealots who deny what science has proven, discovered, or is presently exploring. Science cannot explain a man on chemo whom believed he heard God telling him to stop the treatments did so, and later doctors found the cancer was clear of his body; flip that religious zealots must admit that science either directly or indirectly is responsible for many conveniences they enjoy on a daily basis. My belief and faith in God tells me he makes it possible for both to exits side by side with equal credibility . I don't need tangible proof that God exists, I have my faith, and if that makes me seem out in the bleachers past left field to some, so be it, they have their opinion(s) and I have mine.

The problem with this line of thinking is it represents a false synthesis. Theologically minded people accept the science that is overwhelming, but where it is not, or is incomplete, discount it by saying, "Well, that is just a theory." Then on the heels of that, substitute a speculative belief system that "seems" right to them, but does not come anywhere close to satisfying even the most basic standards of the scientific theory that they just discounted. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As to your underlined question--to a scientist, the answer is obvious. At the very center of the scientific method is the diamond that makes it what it is....."Question Everything. Accept as fact only those things that have been proven." It is as simple as that, really. Scientists are not trying to "disprove" religion. They are being skeptics of claims, like they are supposed to be. The only agenda here, if there is one, is to demonstrate the value of the scientific method as a way of understanding, to the degree possible, the material circumstances of existence....... vs the illogical approach of traditional dogma/folklore.

As I said before, religion is based upon an egocentric philosophy......"There must be meaning. Mankind is important. Therefor I am important. In the grand scheme of things, what I do matters." It is emotional--need based. Otherwise, deity belief systems would not exist, because belief in a deity cannot be arrived at logically and scientifically. What is claimed as evidence is primarily based on ancient scripture... anecdotal, conflicting, and suspect. Although some historical events in the Bible can be authenticated, other things--the really important things, defy the laws of science as we observe them every day. So, if the supernatural stuff is inconsistent with the most basic known science, what compelling reason is there to find it credible? In fact, it seems ridiculous to do so. And, if that is the case, it casts doubt on the validity of entire document.

Each of us is welcome to believe what we want, but if we really want the truth (as opposed to what we want to believe), there is only one way to find it......science. If, where the available scientific information ends, we start making things up (or buying in to what those before us likely made up) to arrive at a comfy worldview....well okay. We just need to realize that is what we are doing.

Edited November 7, 2014 by DutyCat

[niart17]

...egocentric philosophy.........because belief in a deity cannot be arrived at logically

With all due respect and in no way trying to insult you personally, but do you realize how incredible egotistical and smug these statement sound?

Bill

[Slartibartfast]

I like pi.

[Steve N]

Lemon meringue is my favorite.

As for the science vs. religion debate, I thought Indiana Jones summed it up quite nicely. To paraphrase: "Science is the search for Fact, not Truth. If it's Truth you're looking for, the Philosophy Department is right down the hall."

SN

[DutyCat]

With all due respect and in no way trying to insult you personally, but do you realize how incredible egotistical and smug these statement sound?

Bill

I am sorry. I do not intend for it to come across that way. I am just trying to debate the issue, not be arrogant. Also, when I say "you" what I mean is "one, or "we." I will go back and change that, because I do not mean this to be personal in any way.

To avoid confusion, I agree "facts" is a better word than "truth."

Also, to make my point about religious egocentricity, we can simply consider the biblical statement, "God created man is his self image." In that one sentence, we are not only species egocentric, but gender egocentric. God is described as a male, paternal figure, representing the social power structure of the period.

Edited November 7, 2014 by DutyCat

[DutyCat]

With all due respect and in no way trying to insult you personally, but do you realize how incredible egotistical and smug these statement sound?

Bill

Accidental dupe. Sorry.

Edited November 7, 2014 by DutyCat

[Jinxter13]

DC from previous threads and discussions I know you didn't mean anything disrespectful, just your matter of fact way of stating things. Not everybody is going to agree on all things all the time, that's what makes it life, the variety and differences of opinion, and if one can't respect anothers right of opinion; that individual is most likely self centered, with an overwhelming belief that he/she is never wrong, and probably will never admit fault or mistakes

:wacko: Don't ya hate it when you click "add reply" and it's slower than a crippled snail with arthritis, there by causing you to double post.....aaaaaarrrrrrrghhhhhh!!!!

Edited November 7, 2014 by #1 Greywolf

[Fellow Hobbyist]

If snails have no bones...can they have arthritis?

[DutyCat]

DC from previous threads and discussions I know you didn't mean anything disrespectful, just your matter of fact way of stating things. Not everybody is going to agree on all things all the time, that's what makes it life, the variety and differences of opinion, and if one can't respect anothers right of opinion; that individual is most likely self centered, with an overwhelming belief that he/she is never wrong, and probably will never admit fault or mistakes

Don't ya hate it when you click "add reply" and it's slower than a crippled snail with arthritis, there by causing you to double post.....aaaaaarrrrrrrghhhhhh!!!!

Roger. Copy. Concur.

[modelguy2]

Humanity, egocentric? Surely you jest.

Just consider global warming. The only relevance it has is the common considerations how it will effect humanity. I'm sure that if we warmed the planet to human extinction that the Earth would continue on just fine for the next 4 or so billion years.