Robert F. Smith Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/http://www.wired.com...n/#previousposthttp://www.wired.com...d/#previouspostThe fact that scientists use words such as "might" and "may have" does not make their conclusions any less likely than the use of dogmatic assertion makes your particular beliefs/viewpoint any more likely.False. There is a very good reason why scientists label their unproven hypotheses with "may have" or "might." There is nothing wrong with coming up with possible theoretical conclusions or even clever hunches. That is not the same thing as a successful demonstration of it. QED? Science depends not only on an actual demonstration, but also on the repeatability of such experimental proof. WIthout that, your belief in scientism is no better than a religious faith.Wrong Robert. You are displaying a complete lack of awareness of the laws of thermodynamics here. Your completely natural Gods are subject to natural laws. You have no means of running an end route around the law of entropy and the degradation of useful energy over time. What you are proposing is a perpetual motion machine problem of the tallest order.How can I be wrong when I am agreeing with you (or you are agreeing with me) that "completely natural gods are subject to natural law"? However, your version of natural law reminds me of the time at the end of the 19th century in which many scientists believed that all natural laws had now been discovered, and that there was little else to learn. Your worst enemy here is presentism, the belief that the present is normative, will not change, and that all must be based on the present age and its interpretive context. History should show you just how off base such a notion is. Particularly in view of our ignorance of the nature of most of the constituent elements of the universe (dark matter & dark energy). We humans are still in our childhood, which is a concept so clear to Newton in describing his own quandary: He said that he had been like a child at the seashore, playing in the sand, while the vast ocean of knowledge lay before him.Irony anyone? Again a God that is not subject to thermodynamic constraints for all practical purposes could be defined as *supernatural* as far as science is concerned.Next you'll be saying that a god who is not subject to Newtonian mechanics has to be "supernatural." That's like saying, a nuclear weapon is "supernatural" just because it does not obey Newtonian mechanics. E = mc2 is not Newtonian. You are too limited in your understanding of science.To try to inject religion into science makes hash of both. I have no problem with God using a process to create everything including life itself. Then try sticking to science, and we should be just fine.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 There still isn't anybody except me, the non-LDS, who thinks life on other planets is "unlikely"? Only 1 out of 59 skeptical about life on other planets? I am not saying it is impossible. I am just amazed at the unanimity of opinion. I just can't believe this is representative of mainstream America. Is there some kind of LDS revelation that I don't know about in this regard?Most astrophysicists (including atheists) accept the notion of intelligent life far more advanced than ours on other planets throughout the galaxy and universe. That is based on the probability of habitable planets, many of which are within much older systems than ours -- raising the question as to what would such advanced intelligences be like? Thousands of years older than our very young civilization.Non-scientists are not generally aware of such learned opinion, nor of what SETI might entail nor why.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 3DOPThere are limits as to how large and small adult humans come. On average we're less than about 2 meters tall.http://www.newground...tal/view/525347The late Isaac Asimov once wrote a scientific article on what we could expect by way of sentient life on other planets in the universe (he published it many years ago in Analog Science Fact & Fiction). How would they look, how configured for efficiency, etc.? His result was generally humanoid.
3DOP Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Most astrophysicists (including atheists) accept the notion of intelligent life far more advanced than ours on other planets throughout the galaxy and universe. That is based on the probability of habitable planets, many of which are within much older systems than ours -- raising the question as to what would such advanced intelligences be like? Thousands of years older than our very young civilization.Non-scientists are not generally aware of such learned opinion, nor of what SETI might entail nor why.I tend not to believe in even elementary vegetative life elsewhere. My question has to do with why only 1 out of 59 people who answered the poll think life elsewhere is unlikely. Is it because of revelation we all have in common? Is it because of astrophysics? Is it because of Latter-day revelation? I lack confidence in speculative science and don't really have any interest in the reasonings of scientists about it. I doubt that the opinions of most astrophysicists are compatible with Christianity. I bet that I am in agreement with most of the scientists about that!As believers, If there is intelligent life on other planets, then they still need to join the one true church, right? The aliens still have to accept the truths given to the earth people? It seems difficult to evangelize other forms of intelligent life with the message that God came to our planet and not theirs and became one of us and not one of them. There is only one Begotten Son. He only died on one cross. Did Jesus die for their sins on Calvary too? Or maybe are they sinless? Edited October 8, 2012 by 3DOP
3DOP Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) deleted, double post Edited October 8, 2012 by 3DOP
shalamabobbi Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 ...I am not a proponent of scientism and am an active believing LDS. This kind of discussion is of little utility as it ends up being much to do over semantics.Thermodynamics is alive and well in modern physics. Energy accounting has been used in the discovery of new particles, etc. It is foundational to physics. Free energy is as without foundation as is creation ex nihilo. They are essentially the same idea - something from nothing. Again I give it as a matter of my faith that science is limited to the study of mortality and that immortality is beyond the experimental reach of science. If you believe otherwise that is fine of course. We all have our opinions.
shalamabobbi Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 I tend not to believe in even elementary vegetative life elsewhere. My question has to do with why only 1 out of 59 people who answered the poll think life elsewhere is unlikely. Is it because of revelation we all have in common? Is it because of astrophysics? Is it because of Latter-day revelation? I lack confidence in speculative science and don't really have any interest in the reasonings of scientists about it. I doubt that the opinions of most astrophysicists are compatible with Christianity. I bet that I am in agreement with most of the scientists about that!As believers, If there is intelligent life on other planets, then they still need to join the one true church, right? The aliens still have to accept the truths given to the earth people? It seems difficult to evangelize other forms of intelligent life with the message that God came to our planet and not theirs and became one of us and not one of them. There is only one Begotten Son. He only died on one cross. Did Jesus die for their sins on Calvary too? Or maybe are they sinless?You have heard of Lorenzo Snow's couplet?
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 The late Isaac Asimov once wrote a scientific article on what we could expect by way of sentient life on other planets in the universe (he published it many years ago in Analog Science Fact & Fiction). How would they look, how configured for efficiency, etc.? His result was generally humanoid.I loved Asimov. There are advantages and disadvantages to the humanoid shape. Bipediality probably the greatest advantage. It is also its greatest disadvantage. In essence when we walk, we are constantly falling over.
EllenMaksoud Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 What do people think?As long as I can remember, I always assumed that there was life on other planets. How could there not be? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I tend not to believe in even elementary vegetative life elsewhere. My question has to do with why only 1 out of 59 people who answered the poll think life elsewhere is unlikely. Is it because of revelation we all have in common? Is it because of astrophysics? Is it because of Latter-day revelation? I lack confidence in speculative science and don't really have any interest in the reasonings of scientists about it. I doubt that the opinions of most astrophysicists are compatible with Christianity. I bet that I am in agreement with most of the scientists about that!As believers, If there is intelligent life on other planets, then they still need to join the one true church, right? The aliens still have to accept the truths given to the earth people? It seems difficult to evangelize other forms of intelligent life with the message that God came to our planet and not theirs and became one of us and not one of them. There is only one Begotten Son. He only died on one cross. Did Jesus die for their sins on Calvary too? Or maybe are they sinless?Well, it clearly depends upon which brand of "christianity" one accepts, and of course there are other religions too -- which may wish to be heard on such matters.Scientists might have a problem with assertions about ultimate reality not based on science, or in direct opposition to science. Each scientist (religious and non-religious) will have to speak for himself on that matter. However, in my view there is nothing about true Christianity which is incompatible with science. That is, natural law is not in opposition to God or His universe. To my mind, they are coeternal and fully compatible, without the need for miracle or supernatural events (which are always finally explicable as natural events beyond human ken).Each habitable planetary system throughout the universe (or multiverse) is designed with the same basic purpose in view: To provide a place for the spirit children of God to develop and learn necessary lessons and to be tested in the toughest crucible, before returning to Him in glory, each system with its own individual Savior-Son-of-God, worlds without end. Edited October 10, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I am not a proponent of scientism and am an active believing LDS. This kind of discussion is of little utility as it ends up being much to do over semantics.Thermodynamics is alive and well in modern physics. Energy accounting has been used in the discovery of new particles, etc. It is foundational to physics. Free energy is as without foundation as is creation ex nihilo. They are essentially the same idea - something from nothing. Again I give it as a matter of my faith that science is limited to the study of mortality and that immortality is beyond the experimental reach of science. If you believe otherwise that is fine of course. We all have our opinions.You are certainly entitled to your personal beliefs, even if they do not accord with LDS theology.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 As long as I can remember, I always assumed that there was life on other planets. How could there not be?Yes, and here is a look at how some of those very systems (like the one we inhabit) develop -- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121009111238.htm .
EllenMaksoud Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I am not a proponent of scientism and am an active believing LDS. This kind of discussion is of little utility as it ends up being much to do over semantics.Thermodynamics is alive and well in modern physics. Energy accounting has been used in the discovery of new particles, etc. It is foundational to physics. Free energy is as without foundation as is creation ex nihilo. They are essentially the same idea - something from nothing. Again I give it as a matter of my faith that science is limited to the study of mortality and that immortality is beyond the experimental reach of science. If you believe otherwise that is fine of course. We all have our opinions.I just look around me, it's obvious to me. If you just look at what you can see; our own galaxy is 200,000 light years in diameter. Wow. According to Astronomers, there could be upwards of 500,000,000 habitable planets in our own galaxy. There is nothing remarkable about our galaxy. It is average as galaxies go. We don't even know how many galaxies there are in the Universe, nor do we know how big the universe is.So, statisically, it seems unreasonable that there is no other life.
thesometimesaint Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I just look around me, it's obvious to me. If you just look at what you can see; our own galaxy is 200,000 light years in diameter. Wow. According to Astronomers, there could be upwards of 500,000,000 habitable planets in our own galaxy. There is nothing remarkable about our galaxy. It is average as galaxies go. We don't even know how many galaxies there are in the Universe, nor do we know how big the universe is.So, statisically, it seems unreasonable that there is no other life.About 200,000,000,000 and counting.About 14 Billion light years and growing.
EllenMaksoud Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 The late Isaac Asimov once wrote a scientific article on what we could expect by way of sentient life on other planets in the universe (he published it many years ago in Analog Science Fact & Fiction). How would they look, how configured for efficiency, etc.? His result was generally humanoid.I would never say this in Sacrement Service, but to me Asimov's, "Foundation Trillogy" always seemed most reasonable. Too many people want to put absolutes in what we know about Heavenly Father. It's a waste of time.
shalamabobbi Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I just look around me, it's obvious to me. If you just look at what you can see; our own galaxy is 200,000 light years in diameter. Wow. According to Astronomers, there could be upwards of 500,000,000 habitable planets in our own galaxy. There is nothing remarkable about our galaxy. It is average as galaxies go. We don't even know how many galaxies there are in the Universe, nor do we know how big the universe is.So, statisically, it seems unreasonable that there is no other life.Hi Ellen,I don't understand how this relates to my post. Edited October 9, 2012 by shalamabobbi
EllenMaksoud Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Hi Ellen,I don't understand how this relates to my post.Which one?
shalamabobbi Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Which one?your post #113 in reply to my post #106
EllenMaksoud Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 your post #113 in reply to my post #106Oh, I suppose it is because I disagree with you. Life is much broader than any of us can imagine.
shalamabobbi Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Oh, I suppose it is because I disagree with you. Life is much broader than any of us can imagine.Where did I state that I thought life was limited to earth? Is that what you meant?
Robert F. Smith Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 Tom Bethell, “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Search for God.” American Spectator, Nov 2011, online at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/08/extraterrestrial-intelligence , says:"There's got to be life out there, the atheistic view goes, none of it God-caused, of course."A week doesn't go by without the announcement of new planets. 'Week Brings Hail of Planets' was just the most recent report. It capped a week of 'new findings about worlds beyond our own solar system,' according to the Wall Street Journal. The latest marvel, 200 light years distant from Earth, has two suns. The reporter quoted John Knoll of Industrial Light & Magic as saying that this shows 'science is stranger than fiction'.""We do know that the spontaneous origin of life is improbable. All efforts to create it in laboratories have failed, as have all attempts to find it anywhere else. Maybe it exists only on Earth -- an unwelcome thought for those who decided long ago (on no evidence) that there is nothing exceptional about the human race." " . . . it would be reasonable to assume that if God could start life here, he could also have done so elsewhere--maybe in lots of places."
shalamabobbi Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Tom Bethell, “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Search for God.” American Spectator, Nov 2011, online at http://spectator.org...al-intelligence , says:"There's got to be life out there, the atheistic view goes, none of it God-caused, of course."A week doesn't go by without the announcement of new planets. 'Week Brings Hail of Planets' was just the most recent report. It capped a week of 'new findings about worlds beyond our own solar system,' according to the Wall Street Journal. The latest marvel, 200 light years distant from Earth, has two suns. The reporter quoted John Knoll of Industrial Light & Magic as saying that this shows 'science is stranger than fiction'.""We do know that the spontaneous origin of life is improbable. All efforts to create it in laboratories have failed, as have all attempts to find it anywhere else. Maybe it exists only on Earth -- an unwelcome thought for those who decided long ago (on no evidence) that there is nothing exceptional about the human race."" . . . it would be reasonable to assume that if God could start life here, he could also have done so elsewhere--maybe in lots of places."Ah yes "The American Spectator" , a reputable scientific journal..http://www.rationals...cts-t31518.html Edited October 10, 2012 by shalamabobbi
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Ah yes "The American Spectator" , a reputable scientific journal..http://www.rationals...cts-t31518.htmlNon-scientist Tom Bethell is commenting (just as you do) on what is in the press. As usual, you miss the point. I did not invent these notions. They are the common possession of all intellectuals.
shalamabobbi Posted October 12, 2012 Posted October 12, 2012 Non-scientist Tom Bethell is commenting (just as you do) on what is in the press. As usual, you miss the point. I did not invent these notions. They are the common possession of all intellectuals.Actually my profession.I can see why you like Bethell..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bethell
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Actually my profession.I can see why you like Bethell..http://en.wikipedia....iki/Tom_BethellThanks for the Wikipedia entry. I had no idea Bethell was English and that he was educated at Oxford.I don't "like" Bethell, and disagree with his views on a wide array of issues, including HIV, Global Warming, etc.. I cited him only because he represents a common non-Mormon view on matters at interest on this thread. Many another intellectual could be cited for the same purpose.If you are a scientist by profession, why don't we get any hint of that on this board?
Recommended Posts