Topic: Our solar system may be unique... (Read 8716 times)

oldmanken · « **on:** August 06, 2004, 11:16:15 am »

From CNN...
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/08/05/space.planets.reut/index.html

Quote

Solar system may be one of a kind
Thursday, August 5, 2004 Posted: 1553 GMT (2353 HKT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Our solar system may be unique after all, despite the discovery of at least 120 other systems with planets, astronomers said on Wednesday.

All the other solar systems that have been found have big, gassy planets circling too close to their stars to allow them to be anything like Earth or its fellow planets, the British and U.S.-based researchers said.

If that is the case, Earth-like planets will be very rare, the astronomers write in the latest issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

"Maybe these other extrasolar systems ... contain only the giant planets," said Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.

Livio and colleagues took a close look at what is known about the other planetary systems that have been discovered.

"In (our) solar system the orbits are very circular. Most of the giant planets observed in extrasolar systems have very elliptical orbits," Livio said in a telephone interview.

This could mean that astronomers have been wrong in assuming that all planets formed in basically the same way.

Livio said most experts thought that planets formed out of dust. "This dust coagulates and forms small rocks and the rocks combine and form small bodies and then those bodies form things like Earths," he said.

"The Earths collect and accrete gas and then they form giant planets like Jupiter. That is one model."

But so far no one has found a planet outside our solar system that looks like it formed that way.

"Then there is a second model that has been suggested specifically for the formation of giant planets like Jupiter. You start with a gas disk and this disk becomes unstable and it breaks up into large clumps and those clumps are the things that form giant planets," Livio said.

"In that model it is not obvious at all how planets like Earth may have formed."

It could be our solar system formed in the first way and most of the others formed in the second way, Livio said.

But he said it is hard to tell as planets outside this solar system can only be detected through indirect observation and these methods are not able to detect smaller planets like Earth.

Either way, it is time to start thinking about the possibility that our system is unique or at least unusual, Livio said.

What has been seen up to now does not bode well for the main purpose of seeking other planets -- finding life outside our solar system.

"If the orbit is very elliptical then the planet may come very close to its sun at some point and that doesn't appear to be very healthy for life," Livio said.

Quite interesting. Obviously they are making assumptions based on limited data, but very interesting none the less.

Core · « **Reply #1 on:** August 06, 2004, 01:32:52 pm »

IMHO these pepole need to take a deep breath of fresh air and think on how to improve detection methods and not jump to conclusions after 130 systems the last time i checked their were a tad bit more then that number out their besides there may be beater planets then then earth planets out their hell how many times they jumped to conclusions before and it turn out to be very wrong besides until we our selfs wont get out their we will never find out how many habitable or otherwise planets are out their OK fine may be then the Terran system is special in its configuration but the universe is any thing if not full of surprises so IMO we can take this little statement with a very large grain of salt

oldmanken · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2004, 01:36:55 pm »

Oh, I don't necessarily agree with them. I actually think they are a tad short sighted. That said, they are basing their opinion of a limited data set and have said as much.

Core · « **Reply #3 on:** August 06, 2004, 01:41:10 pm »

tad short sided hell their blind if they say that to the general public

J. Carney · « **Reply #4 on:** August 06, 2004, 03:52:33 pm »

Core,

THese men are paid to put out theories. If they don't say something, then they stop getting money and then you won't hear anything. Honestly, if they find out that they are wrong, they can always change thier opinions.

Go burn one and ge a shot of 90 proof and cool down... it'll be OK.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2004, 03:59:39 pm »

Astronomers have more in common with astrologers than scientists, IMHO

mathguy · « **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2004, 05:59:42 pm »

I'm not so sure that these scientists are wrong....

Although we all appreciate Sci-Fi, play with SFC, etc..., reality may actually be quite different that what we imagine it to be.

For those interested, there are some good books (written by credible scientists) which support these ideas. Off the top of my head, I don't have the authors...but you can do an Amazon search and find the books.

"Rare Earth"
"The Privileged Planet"

mathguy

Core · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2004, 06:14:31 pm »

lets just wait another decade or tow before even considering listening to them

BTW its only 120 systems lets wait until they reach 1000 systems before even thinking on something like this
come on 120 and they think we are special 120 out of how many ?

and don't make me check the latest numbers

Clark Kent · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2004, 06:23:02 pm »

The problem with science as most know it is that it's all based on layers of assumptions. I'm not saying there are scores of worlds in the systems surrounding us, but I will say that we don't know what's out there. The tech that is out there for identifying planets is precarious at best. The fact is that we still haven't done an adequate job of mapping our own solar system, let alone the ones light years away. For all we know the systems that have been identified as having planets might not even have planets at all (even if that possibility is unlikely).
The point is that what's out there is unknown. I would also add that it might be possible for planets in solar systems to be formed in different ways, and that out of say 5 planets in a system 4 were formed in different ways from each other and in ways we haven't envisioned yet. I dislike the idea of trying to work everything down to one or two explanations when there are so many unknowns involved.

Alidar Jarok · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2004, 07:37:48 pm »

Personally, I think there is so much stuff in the Universe that the odds that other life doesn't exist somewhere is extremely unlikely. Now the odds of two different forms of life meeting each other is a completely different matter...

J. Carney · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2004, 07:39:15 pm »

Quote from: Alidar Jarok on August 06, 2004, 07:37:48 pm

Personally, I think there is so much stuff in the Universe that the odds that other life doesn't exist somewhere is extremely unlikely. Now the odds of two different forms of life meeting each other is a completely different matter...

It can't be any greater than the odds of us not blowing ourselves to Kingdom Come over the last 50 years...

It'll happen, in time.

E_Look · « **Reply #11 on:** August 07, 2004, 12:43:03 am »

Gents, especially Core and CK,

It is very often correct that science is based on layers of assumptions. This is most true in biology and cosmology, for it is in these two areas that we really have the least amount of established and establishable data. Here, we as scientists are forced to make guesses and often they aren't as good as we like them to be.

Having said that, even the notion of extrasolar planets are based on layers of guesses. You can't directly see a planet outside of our system with any technique we now have. However, based on perturbations of light intensities, etc., we can make inferences.

Now I'm not saying they're not there; I'm just saying that depending on the background and bent of the interpreter, the data can say either (remember, there's "... lies, damned lies, and statistics... ", and in that order) thing, for it's interpretable.

Are we shortsighted for saying there are no earthlike extrasolar planets? Maybe, but it's still pretty optimistic to even claim there are any planets outside of here. We really don't have instruments capable of the kind of resolution that would allow us to state in black and white before a Federal judge with a hostile jury that there are beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are extrasolar planets (the same for black holes, etc.), let alone earthlike ones!

Be vewwwwy careful of what those pundits say in popular science articles; they often either don't know what they are talking about or they have a bias all their own. Ursula K. LeGuin once wrote what sounded like a very sound anthropologicial (NON-fiction!!) article in Analog (I believe it was... boy it's been a long time since they've been around). It turned out on further analysis to be a soapbox for economic and racial arguments.

Unfortunately, we who are actual and hardheaded scientists are not too understandable nor inspiring, even if what we know is much closer to the truth.

(Do your own research, and don't trust popular sources all that much, ESPECIALLY the internet.)

Stormbringer · « **Reply #12 on:** August 07, 2004, 12:51:19 am »

The article appears to be factually incorrect. There are three examples of planetary systems with the gas giants in the outer boundaries. also detection methods thus far pretty much lake the resolution to find small worlds. No wonder all they find is the big guys. New telescopes capable of finding terrestrial planets are being built now. I expect the view in the article to be obsolete very quickly.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #13 on:** August 07, 2004, 01:38:21 am »

Quote from: E_Look on August 07, 2004, 12:43:03 am

Gents, especially Core and CK,

It is very often correct that science is based on layers of assumptions....

I'm sorry if I came off the wrong way. All I can state as fact is a whole host of unknowns, and the lack of serious evidence either way in the area of astrology, er...I mean astronomy.
Personally, i feel that this galaxy let alone this universe is too big to not have life like ours else where. As to how plentiful that life may be, I have no clue. Could be just one other planet in our galaxy capable of supporting human life. Could be a thousand, could be more. Could have been one or more, or perhaps one or more are still to be developed in the far future. In the end, I just plain don't know, and don't buy that others know as fact either.

Grand Master of Shadows NCC37385 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 07, 2004, 01:50:18 am »

The is other lifeforms out there puny Earthlings. Just wait until next Thursday when our...um, their, ships.....

Oh Dammit! The Big Giant Head is gonna be mad....

Just forget that I said anything!

mathguy · « **Reply #15 on:** August 07, 2004, 02:25:30 am »

In order to obtain an understanding of the issue at hand, you must read relevant material (both sides of the story) written by SCIENTISTS. Then, you can begin to analyze, form opinions, etc....

Otherwise, rampant speculations, opinions without facts, etc...run wild!

On a side note....what really happened at Roswell!?

mathguy

Core · « **Reply #16 on:** August 07, 2004, 07:13:56 am »

i just wanted to say that 120 systems is a tad small number for a galaxy to go saying that M-class planets are rear especially without better equipment with better resolution

besides IMHO its a tad early to be jumping to any sort of conclusions thats all

J. Carney · « **Reply #17 on:** August 07, 2004, 10:13:46 am »

Quote from: Core on August 07, 2004, 07:13:56 am

i just wanted to say that 120 systems is a tad small number for a galaxy to go saying that M-class planets are rear especially without better equipment with better resolution

besides IMHO its a tad early to be jumping to any sort of conclusions thats all

M-class...?

Core, you are getting a little weird with that statement. You wouldn't happen to bewearing a Starfleet uniform wile typing that, would you?

Seriously, now, like I said- a scientest works to make RESULTS/b]. Even Stephen Hawking recended his theory on black holesafter 20 years! This doen't mean that he was right EITHER time, just that what he says is what the evidence supports at the time.

Once again, if they don't produce results, their backers don't produce money. THey have to say something to keep getting paied to look!

_SSCF_Hooch · « **Reply #18 on:** August 07, 2004, 10:23:41 am »

Sorry if this irritates some of you (I mean that)

Or, "In the beginning God..."

J. Carney · « **Reply #19 on:** August 07, 2004, 10:45:12 am »

Quote from: SSCF Hooch on August 07, 2004, 10:23:41 am

Sorry if this irritates some of you (I mean that)

Or, "In the beginning God..."

It doesn't irritate me at all, Hooch, after all it's the truth.

I am just of the opinion that God made space and all that fills it as more than just something that people were meant to look at 'out the window' and never to get to go and play in, or to find playmates in for that matter.

God spoke and the universe came into being, and something inside me just nsggs at me to believe that He didn't do all that talking just to hear the sound of His voice. He made so much out there, and it is vanity and pride on behalf of humanity to believe that it was all just window dressing for our enjoyment.

Who's to say that the 'other sheep' the Bible speaks of are not swimming in someplace like Europa's under-ice oceans or breathing methane on a planet like Titan?

We may never know, but it will be a shame if we are really alone.

_SSCF_Hooch · « **Reply #20 on:** August 07, 2004, 09:33:23 pm »

Quote from: J. Carney on August 07, 2004, 10:45:12 am

Quote from: SSCF Hooch on August 07, 2004, 10:23:41 am
Sorry if this irritates some of you (I mean that)

Or, "In the beginning God..."

It doesn't irritate me at all, Hooch, after all it's the truth.

I am just of the opinion that God made space and all that fills it as more than just something that people were meant to look at 'out the window' and never to get to go and play in, or to find playmates in for that matter.

God spoke and the universe came into being, and something inside me just nsggs at me to believe that He didn't do all that talking just to hear the sound of His voice. He made so much out there, and it is vanity and pride on behalf of humanity to believe that it was all just window dressing for our enjoyment.

Who's to say that the 'other sheep' the Bible speaks of are not swimming in someplace like Europa's under-ice oceans or breathing methane on a planet like Titan?

We may never know, but it will be a shame if we are really alone.

Agreed, or if we are alone then how much His love for us...

J. Carney · « **Reply #21 on:** August 07, 2004, 09:38:01 pm »

Quote from: SSCF Hooch on August 07, 2004, 09:33:23 pm

Agreed, or if we are alone then how much His love for us...

Indeed.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #22 on:** August 12, 2004, 06:03:57 pm »

Oh yeah?

Phhhhhhhhpttttt! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planet_formation_040812.html

E_Look · « **Reply #23 on:** August 12, 2004, 06:34:49 pm »

Ah, Storm, they said on that site,

Quote

"... These clumps must be formed by the gravity of unseen newly formed planets... "

See what I mean? How do they back that up? If I tried to evangelize people using that approach... God might fire me (and I'm not even getting paid) !

I can think of other things that can potentially cause "clumps".

Clark Kent · « **Reply #24 on:** August 12, 2004, 08:52:42 pm »

Quote from: E_Look on August 12, 2004, 06:34:49 pm

See what I mean? How do they back that up? If I tried to evangelize people using that approach... God might fire me (and I'm not even getting paid) !

I can think of other things that can potentially cause "clumps".

For instance, there are often times many "clumps" in my underwear, and I'm fairly certain that they have nothing to do with the formation of a planet...

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 12, 2004, 09:03:45 pm »

In all the universe,..... there is only one Milky way galaxy

In all the galaxy, .......there is only one solar system like ours

within the solar system, ... there is only one Earth

Over all the Earth, ..... there is only one You.

Yep. God deals in uniqueness.

J. Carney · « **Reply #26 on:** August 12, 2004, 09:07:31 pm »

Quote from: Fedman on August 12, 2004, 09:03:45 pm

In all the universe,..... there is only one Milky way galaxy

In all the galaxy, .......there is only one solar system like ours

within the solar system, ... there is only one Earth

Over all the Earth, ..... there is only one You.

Yep. God deals in uniqueness.

WHat's to say that there aren't other unique beings out there though?

Like I said, I would like to think that OGd built all those things out theer as more than just decorations.

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 12, 2004, 09:18:31 pm »

Quote from: J. Carney on August 12, 2004, 09:07:31 pm

Quote from: Fedman on August 12, 2004, 09:03:45 pm
In all the universe,..... there is only one Milky way galaxy

In all the galaxy, .......there is only one solar system like ours

within the solar system, ... there is only one Earth

Over all the Earth, ..... there is only one You.

Yep. God deals in uniqueness.

What's to say that there aren't other unique beings out there though?

Like I said, I would like to think that God built all those things out there as more than just decorations.

Well If one is a Christian, Christ the redeemer came to what world to redeem which race unto himself?
Simply a matter of faith.

If one wants or chooses to believe differently, fine by me.

J. Carney · « **Reply #28 on:** August 12, 2004, 09:29:11 pm »

Quote from: Fedman on August 12, 2004, 09:18:31 pm

Quote from: J. Carney on August 12, 2004, 09:07:31 pm
Quote from: Fedman on August 12, 2004, 09:03:45 pm
In all the universe,..... there is only one Milky way galaxy

In all the galaxy, .......there is only one solar system like ours

within the solar system, ... there is only one Earth

Over all the Earth, ..... there is only one You.

Yep. God deals in uniqueness.

What's to say that there aren't other unique beings out there though?

Like I said, I would like to think that God built all those things out there as more than just decorations.

Well If one is a Christian, Christ the redeemer came to what world to redeem which race unto himself?
Simply a matter of faith.

If one wants or chooses to believe differently, fine by me.

The Bible says that Jesus went to preach to other sheep. It's pretty vague as to where they are. I don't pretend to know where they are, but I do know that nothing else is said about it in the Bible.

That leaves me open to hope for myself that there are others besides humans that were created by God.

You may not feel the same way. One day we'll find out- in this life of after- whether or not we are alone in the universe. Till then, I will hope for some company.

E_Look · « **Reply #29 on:** August 12, 2004, 09:51:51 pm »

Quote from: Fedman on August 12, 2004, 09:03:45 pm

In all the universe,..... there is only one Milky way galaxy

In all the galaxy, .......there is only one solar system like ours

within the solar system, ... there is only one Earth

Over all the Earth, ..... there is only one You.

Yep. God deals in uniqueness.

Fedman, you forgot:

"... don't destroy the one named Kirk!"

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 12, 2004, 10:00:17 pm »

Quote from: J. Carney on August 12, 2004, 09:29:11 pm

Quote from: Fedman on August 12, 2004, 09:18:31 pm
Quote from: J. Carney on August 12, 2004, 09:07:31 pm
Quote from: Fedman on August 12, 2004, 09:03:45 pm
In all the universe,..... there is only one Milky way galaxy

In all the galaxy, .......there is only one solar system like ours

within the solar system, ... there is only one Earth

Over all the Earth, ..... there is only one You.

Yep. God deals in uniqueness.

What's to say that there aren't other unique beings out there though?

Like I said, I would like to think that God built all those things out there as more than just decorations.

Well If one is a Christian, Christ the redeemer came to what world to redeem which race unto himself?
Simply a matter of faith.

If one wants or chooses to believe differently, fine by me.

The Bible says that Jesus went to preach to other sheep. It's pretty vague as to where they are. I don't pretend to know where they are, but I do know that nothing else is said about it in the Bible.

That leaves me open to hope for myself that there are others besides humans that were created by God.

You may not feel the same way. One day we'll find out- in this life of after- whether or not we are alone in the universe. Till then, I will hope for some company.

I'd be interested to know what verse that is.

J. Carney · « **Reply #31 on:** August 12, 2004, 10:02:01 pm »

gimmie the weekend, unless someone else finds it first- I got to go to work tomorrow and have drill this weekend, so no comp for me

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 12, 2004, 10:07:07 pm »

No problem

Stormbringer · « **Reply #33 on:** August 12, 2004, 10:26:36 pm »

Quote from: E_Look on August 12, 2004, 06:34:49 pm

Ah, Storm, they said on that site,
Quote
"... These clumps must be formed by the gravity of unseen newly formed planets... "

See what I mean? How do they back that up? If I tried to evangelize people using that approach... God might fire me (and I'm not even getting paid) !

I can think of other things that can potentially cause "clumps".

Well we shall certainly see for ourselves within the next 5 years or so. At 33 LY away it will certainly be one of the first places the terrestrial planet finder mission looks.

E_Look · « **Reply #34 on:** August 12, 2004, 11:49:13 pm »

Yipes! 33 lightyears? A mission there, given today's tech... well, forget it, at least as the Brooklynites used to say, "Wait 'til next year!"

Where's Zephram Cochrane when you need him?

Stormbringer · « **Reply #35 on:** August 13, 2004, 12:00:12 am »

Quote from: E_Look on August 12, 2004, 11:49:13 pm

Yipes! 33 lightyears? A mission there, given today's tech... well, forget it, at least as the Brooklynites used to say, "Wait 'til next year!"

Where's Zephram Cochrane when you need him?

That will not stop a satellite telescope from resolving the disk of it's star nor studying the planets there almost as if they were next door. Plus we will eventually develop technological means to strip away the "distance" to that far shore.

SPQR Renegade · « **Reply #36 on:** August 13, 2004, 12:11:02 am »

Ironic isn't it?
The method most used to detect the presence of planets around other world, looking for the wobble that they would create in their parent stars path, happens to detect massive planets with short periods best, therefore, we more commonly detect massive planets with short periods. Armed with these statistics, "scientists" claim we are unique.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2004, 01:09:24 am »

Quote from: SPQR Renegade on August 13, 2004, 12:11:02 am

Ironic isn't it?
The method most used to detect the presence of planets around other world, looking for the wobble that they would create in their parent stars path, happens to detect massive planets with short periods best, therefore, we more commonly detect massive planets with short periods. Armed with these statistics, "scientists" claim we are unique.

yep. Especially since they are aware of exceptions. THis is not the forth system so reported. it is the fifth. So five out of 120 systems are like our own. so i/20th of known planetary systems resemble our own.

Reverend · « **Reply #38 on:** August 14, 2004, 11:11:16 am »

I ws researching this very subject once... one of those selfsame authors had also said, when they first had been calculating planets by observing a star's ever-so-slight wobble, caused by a planet, that they would not likely find any terrestrial planets, like Earth, Mars, and Venus, as they are usually too small to cause that wobble. The giant gas planets are the only ones that have that kind of gravitational authority, and again, its on such a small scale.
I believe the had said that for now, they could check out those systems that had the gas giant, in hopes of looking closer at them to see if they saw more abberations, whcih could entail smaller, non-visible terrestrial planets.
Dont give up hope, hell, they cant even see these gas giants hardly at all. Besides, Hawking had to renig (is this a proper word?) on his bet with what's-his-name about black holes. I think he has to buy his an encyclopedia set now, or something. I think that the bet was something about whether or not the black hole leaks only x-rays (at its poles only). I believe Hawkingfound they will reach a critical mass after a point, or something. Its damned fun reading, thats for sure.
I figure the Lord did make other flocks, maybe they are really far out there.... they are probrobly unique too. There was a lot of stars that have already burnt out, Generation 0 an Generation 1 stars are laready gone... our universe is kinda middle-aged now, I bet you someone else already evolved a long time ago and moved off or something... who knows?
Its illogical to have all this universe, and beyond, which will be provable soon enough, only for little old us. I bet He just orchestrated this just right so we dont meet up until we're a little more stable and chilled out. I just hope whoever is out there is so awesomely different than we could imagine, so we'd have that much more to share. Of course, froma third-person perspective, humans are pretty neat unto ourselves, just look at the fairer sex

.

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #39 on:** August 14, 2004, 11:22:17 am »

Well if one takes scripture literal, as I do, then when one reads the book of Revelation it tells of
this world and the known universe is to be destroyed by intense heat, and a new heaven and new Earth
created (with NO oceans) and no sun! GOD himself will be the source of light.

Talk about interesting reading?

E_Look · « **Reply #40 on:** August 15, 2004, 10:26:10 pm »

Fedman, I share your theological views.

But as a scientist, I wonder about "heat death". According to thermodynamics, the universe is going to go out not with a bang or intense heat, but not even a whimper, kind of just thinning out until ... no more! (Just like Apollo after Kirk got the girl to hurt his feelings!)

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 16, 2004, 09:48:03 am »

Quote from: E_Look on August 15, 2004, 10:26:10 pm

Fedman, I share your theological views.

But as a scientist, I wonder about "heat death". According to thermodynamics, the universe is going to go out not with a bang or intense heat, but not even a whimper, kind of just thinning out until ... no more! (Just like Apollo after Kirk got the girl to hurt his feelings!)

And the Sovereign one who is the author of thermodynamics and brought about all matter with a bang cannot end it the same way?

Clark Kent · « **Reply #42 on:** August 16, 2004, 12:15:32 pm »

My knowledge in this area is somewhat lacking, but here goes anyway:
The last article I read on the subject said that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate. So, where as here on earth what goes up slowly approaches a speed of zero then comes back down, and what we know in space will jsut go up at a constant speed unless some kind of gravitational force affects it. The universe, on the other hand, is doing neither.
Now, I have no idea why it's doing this, but this phenomena does tell me a couple things:
1) we're not sure how this phenomena began
2) we barely know what's happening now.
That said, I made the following conclusion:
To discern a pattern, you need to pinpoint a minimum of 2 points in a series (1 and 2), and even then, it's not likely to be an accurate pattern you've figured out. Since we have no clear census on 1 or 2, we have no idea what 3 is. Ergo, it's a bit early to weigh in on the universe fizzling out without even a wimper theory.

E_Look · « **Reply #43 on:** August 16, 2004, 10:32:14 pm »

CK, very valid points.

Ultimately, your statement is the most scientific, as it is philosophically most true. We don't really know what the universe is up to or what got it going so.

But there is a gravitational force in the universe: all matter exerts gravitational attraction on other matter. I wonder if there isn't a conservative, balancing thrust in a direction opposite to that of the currently observed expansion.

And I think Fedman's got the right idea; God could step in anytime and cut history off and declare Judgment Day. In that scenario, thermo's grip would be shattered.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #44 on:** August 16, 2004, 10:47:40 pm »

Thanks E_Look.
I think it's important to balance what you know with wha tyou conjecture, and scientists often seem to mistake theory with fact too often. For instance, evolution: does it seem likely that this occurs? Absolutely, even the ancient greeks were able to see changes in animal and plant life over generations (read aristotle). They had evolution all worked out millenia before Darwin existed. But here's the catch: do you actually know evolution to be a cold hard fact? Also, people seem to jump on correlation as though it were the end all be all. For example: in new york whenever there has been a brown out, 9 months later there is a jump in the birthrate. Does this mean that brown outs cause pregnancy? Not the last time I checked. There's a strong correlation, and I leave the reason to that correlation to your imagination, but no causal relationship.
There have been times where I've talked to scientifically minded people and been seriously irritated because of the flaws in science as they inderstand it. Hume once wrote an excellent argument against religion as most people understand it, and as I went through it I realized that it tore apart scientific principle as much as religion. When I asked about this, a Philosophy prof told me that that essay was amongst a long list why philosophers, scientists and theologians can't get along.
Sad, really

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #45 on:** August 16, 2004, 11:15:20 pm »

I don't know about scientists and theologians getting along, I get along with anyone
of good will.

The basic difference is theologians are people of faith.
Scientists are people of study.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Science cannot not study what cannot be seen or measured.

Good posting guys.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #46 on:** August 17, 2004, 01:42:39 pm »

I had a couple of Scince profs- biology, who argued fervently that philosophers had no place in this world and that philosophy and ethics should be left to scientists since they were the only truly informed people in this world. I wholeheartedly disagreed, but kept my mouth shut since I've been failed in classes for such discussions. I've also had several science teachers/profs that scoff at the mere mention of faith or religion.
On the flip side, I had a philosophy professor who is a devoted catholic, although he'd never admit it to any of his students since he prizes keeping his personal information from his students in order to keep them from biasing what they say to him in order appease his beliefs. In any event, he went out to visit some family and went to mass and became steadily uncomfortable as the Priest went through a very comprehensive and thorough assault on philosophers because they "only seek to destroy that which you hold dearest."
Another great example is Plato's "The Euthyphro"
For some reason, all three fields which seek to find the meaning to our existance can not get along with each other.

likkerpig · « **Reply #47 on:** August 17, 2004, 03:54:35 pm »

Quote from: Clark Kent on August 17, 2004, 01:42:39 pm

I had a couple of Scince profs- biology, who argued fervently that philosophers had no place in this world and that philosophy and ethics should be left to scientists since they were the only truly informed people in this world. I wholeheartedly disagreed, but kept my mouth shut since I've been failed in classes for such discussions. I've also had several science teachers/profs that scoff at the mere mention of faith or religion.
On the flip side, I had a philosophy professor who is a devoted catholic, although he'd never admit it to any of his students since he prizes keeping his personal information from his students in order to keep them from biasing what they say to him in order appease his beliefs. In any event, he went out to visit some family and went to mass and became steadily uncomfortable as the Priest went through a very comprehensive and thorough assault on philosophers because they "only seek to destroy that which you hold dearest."
Another great example is Plato's "The Euthyphro"
For some reason, all three fields which seek to find the meaning to our existance can not get along with each other.

Heh. Actually it isn't hard to understand why science and religion don't get along to well. Aside from the basic premise of each, religion held the upper hand until recently and suppressed any science that contradicted with the tenents of the faith. Philosophy... I have no idea.

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #48 on:** August 17, 2004, 05:06:22 pm »

Again, I think only some scientist and theologians don't get along.

Many world renown scientists are firm believers.

Quote:
I had a couple of Science profs- biology, who argued fervently that philosophers had no place in this world and that philosophy and ethics should be left to scientists since they were the only truly informed people in this world.
Unquote.

Quite a few scientists in Germany held the same views.

Scientists only concern themselves with the natural and physical.

It's the old story of the amoral scientist driven by ego that inspired so many science
fiction and horror novels. e.g. Frankenstein.

likkerpig · « **Reply #49 on:** August 17, 2004, 05:36:32 pm »

Bah!
Don't be so simplistic.
I'm talking about the grander scheme of things. Wasn't Einstien a believer in Judism?
The dark ages came about because the Catholic church (as it was at the time) supressed all knowledge that conflicted with thier theology. Galellio imprisioned until he recanted? The Inqisition hunting out heresies...
Islam is still fighting a losing battle against this, so are true fundy Christians. Science doesn't disprove your beliefs, it makes you re-evaluate them, put them into a "currently" modern perspective.
The bible has gone from the literal truth to a collection of parables and wisdom that helps people on their course through life. Ya, that is a PC answer, but who really beleives Noah built an ark that carried two of every species? That Moses litterally parted the seas? One man and one woman produced the whole human race... talk about inbreeding!
The past is rampant with those that would supress knowledge in order to stay in power. Religious organizations are no different. How long did the Catholic church outlaw the knowledge of creating gunpowder... while the Papal armies used it at every opportunity.
It is not an even tit for tat disagreement . Science has been the butt of much discrimination, now it gets its own.

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #50 on:** August 17, 2004, 07:01:01 pm »

Simplistic about what??

I'm talking today, you're talking hundreds of years ago.
And since I'm not Catholic it wouldn't be fair for me to criticize
Catholics or their faith.

You choose not to believe scripture? That's your privilege.
I won't condemn you.

But today it's believers that are mocked and maligned by secular society.
Thread hijack now ends.

(BTW, it was God who parted the Red Sea, not Moses.) Thanks

E_Look · « **Reply #51 on:** August 17, 2004, 10:26:32 pm »

Likkerpig, the Catholic Church may not have helped in some instances, as you allude to, but in others, it did help preserve learning and books (why, ask any Irishman! And I am neither Irish nor Catholic.) It might be more appropriate to blame Rome for falling leading to the rise of feudal kings and a widespread and profound poverty that inhibited the growth and exploration of ideas.

Almost everyone was religious in those days including the scientists (I count myself as one today) and they saw their endeavor as a noble and majestic investigation into the splendors and glories of God as manifested through nature.

As for scientists and theologians not getting along, as someone else said, it depends on the ones. Me-self (to quote someone on our boards

), I prefer the conservative Protestant ones.

And, it seems that most of the nonbelieving or atheistic scientists come from the biological sciences, as they philosophically have the most to lose if there really is a God. Most of the believing ones come from the more physical end of the scientific spectrum... maybe because we have the most philosophically to gain from God being real (hey- Prime Mover? Answered!)... but me-self, I was a Christian before really learning any real science. Science never ever dissuaded any of my belief; rather, it supports it, in just about everything I see... and philosophy didn't hurt it either.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #52 on:** August 17, 2004, 11:23:07 pm »

I like your attitude, E_Look. I'm not trying to say that any side currently persecutes another in this three sided exploration of the universe in which we live. Just that they don't seem to get along, at least not when it comes to the most devoted people of each of these persuits. I too have seen more biology peeps (i can use that word if i want to

) who are condemning of anything but p[ure science as they see it, and not entirely sure why that is. But I've seen my share in other scientific fields as well.
The way I see it, there has to be an all powerful etc being, whether it be the God I worship, or one another religion worships, or none of the above. Personally I believe that My God is this being, and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Now, trying to prove my belief is another topic altogether and time consuming, and I'd rather not get into it right now, and while I've found a couple realy good arguments and not been able to find any holes in them, I'm not entirely certain they are foiol proof arguments.

likkerpig · « **Reply #53 on:** August 17, 2004, 11:49:40 pm »

Sorry all, I bashed the Catholic church unilaterally, over old issues. Those issues were the ones that came readily to mind but certainly aren't unique to one faith. I apologize for any insult I made.

E_Look · « **Reply #54 on:** August 17, 2004, 11:54:56 pm »

Dude, a "+" for your strength of character.

Even on a faceless electronic BB, it's hard to own up... regardless of whether you're guilty OR NOT!

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 18, 2004, 10:55:35 am »

Quote from: Clark Kent on August 17, 2004, 11:23:07 pm

I like your attitude, E_Look. I'm not trying to say that any side currently persecutes another in this three sided exploration of the universe in which we live. Just that they don't seem to get along, at least not when it comes to the most devoted people of each of these persuits. I too have seen more biology peeps (i can use that word if i want to ) who are condemning of anything but p[ure science as they see it, and not entirely sure why that is. But I've seen my share in other scientific fields as well.
The way I see it, there has to be an all powerful etc being, whether it be the God I worship, or one another religion worships, or none of the above. Personally I believe that My God is this being, and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Now, trying to prove my belief is another topic altogether and time consuming, and I'd rather not get into it right now, and while I've found a couple realy good arguments and not been able to find any holes in them, I'm not entirely certain they are foiol proof arguments.

I've liked the comparison to the highly structured, orderly universe (I can tell you if it was high or low tide when William the conqueror crossed the channel in 1066! LOL) coming about by no one, from nothing, for no reason,
analogous to having every page of the Britannica Encyclopedia thrown into the air, and have every page land face up, and in perfect numerical order.

A plus 1 to likkerpig from me as well.

Core · « **Reply #56 on:** August 18, 2004, 11:45:09 am »

i believe that the three flanks work together and not fight IE : philosophy science religion
all of them can contribute to the overall developmet of this collective sentients as it was

and eventually accelerate it

E_Look · « **Reply #57 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:26:36 pm »

Well, Core, you're absolutely right, but I really don't see a way of making (atheistic) scientists respect theologians (theistic scientists don't have a problem with them) and either of those to see the relevance of some of the more far-out philosophical ideas (speaking as a theistic scientist).

We all have our prejudices and chosen beliefs. If one happens to get into an intellectual field, there is a tendency then to use it as a soapbox for your beliefs.

Core · « **Reply #58 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:48:04 pm »

that is why we need all three of them to progress one of the parties can be the mediator as it were betwean the tow extreams

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #59 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:56:38 pm »

Quote from: E_Look on August 18, 2004, 01:26:36 pm

Well, Core, you're absolutely right, but I really don't see a way of making (atheistic) scientists respect theologians (theistic scientists don't have a problem with them) and either of those to see the relevance of some of the more far-out philosophical ideas (speaking as a theistic scientist).

We all have our prejudices and chosen beliefs. If one happens to get into an intellectual field, there is a tendency then to use it as a soapbox for your beliefs.

Well said E.

Also, when one says they "believe", X, Y, or Z, they are stating that what they are saying can't be proved factually.
e.g. the existence of God. They are taking it on faith.

The Bar-Abbas Anomaly · « **Reply #60 on:** August 18, 2004, 04:33:16 pm »

Quote from: Fedman on August 12, 2004, 10:00:17 pm

The Bible says that Jesus went to preach to other sheep. It's pretty vague as to where they are. I don't pretend to know where they are, but I do know that nothing else is said about it in the Bible.

That leaves me open to hope for myself that there are others besides humans that were created by God.

You may not feel the same way. One day we'll find out- in this life of after- whether or not we are alone in the universe. Till then, I will hope for some company.

I'd be interested to know what verse that is.

Quote

The verse you are thinking of is John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

The Mormon's love this verse because they claim that Jesus was predicting his 'appearance' to the natives of North America. Understood in context, however, Jesus is speaking to a group of Jewish followers and is refering to the Gentiles. He's actually foretelling His New Testament Church.

I love science fiction and the idea of other worlds and alien civilizations.... but you just can't find anything in the Bible that supports such an idea. Everything in the Bible is very Earth and Mankind-centric, and you can't change the overall sentiment of 66 books by taking one verse out of context. The wonder of Creation is not 'out there in space' - It's you and I, right here on terra-firma, created in God's Image with intellect, emotion and free will.

Which doesn't mean that God didn't create other habitable worlds and civilizations (although I doubt it), it just means that the Bible doesn't support this claim.

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #61 on:** August 18, 2004, 05:52:33 pm »

Here's one for ya.

Scripture teaches there was a beginning to the universe, and that there will be an end to the universe.

My question is, how many times has God done this?

Is this universe the one and only, or have there been others. Will there be more?

In the book of Revelation there are passages that tell of the "heavens" and the Earth being destroyed,
and a new Heaven and a new Earth created.

Be kinda cool seeing a new Earth being created.

hobbesmaster · « **Reply #62 on:** August 21, 2004, 11:20:39 am »

Science seeks to explain how. Religious seeks to explain why. These goals are not mutually exclusive, in fact they have very little union if any.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #63 on:** August 21, 2004, 11:46:51 am »

Actually, religion seems more preoccupied with "What," and science the "How", philosophy the "Why"

J. Carney · « **Reply #64 on:** August 21, 2004, 01:17:13 pm »

Quote from: Barabbas on August 18, 2004, 04:33:16 pm

The verse you are thinking of is John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

Brabbas-

Thanks. My Mom took my Bible back to her house while I was gone, she just told me that Monday. I was trying to find that on the net, but to no avail.

Yes, I know that the Mormans like that verse a whole lot. I'm not a Morman, nor would I ever consider becoming one.

I just believe that God made more than just humans to inhabit the universe he created. God created all manner of angels to fill the heavens; so I personally don't think that it's that big a jump to believe that he created all manner of beings 'in his image' to inhabit the cosmos.

Fedman NCC-3758 · « **Reply #65 on:** August 21, 2004, 02:39:20 pm »

Quote from: hobbesmaster on August 21, 2004, 11:20:39 am

Science seeks to explain how. Religious seeks to explain why. These goals are not mutually exclusive, in fact they have very little union if any.

I see them as rail tracks that are parallel.

Look into the distance and they merge together.

News:

Topic: Our solar system may be unique... (Read 8716 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: Our solar system may be unique... (Read 8716 times)