• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is religion about avoiding reality?

devildavid said:
The first step is observation. If nothing is observed, there is nothing for science to investigate. Science is not about making stuff up out of nothing. It is not a scientific position that anything is possible.
Click to expand...

With respect, that is THE scientific position unless there is evidence to disallow the possibility. Even when the evidence has been provided that disallows the possibility, research goes on.

That is why Euclid was pushed aside by Newton was pushed aside by Einstein was pushed aside by Hawking. The proven is only proven until it's not. That is science.

IF the only impetus for conducting "science" is exclusively proof that there is something already known to investigate, THEN there must be evidence of whatever it is that is being investigated.

Please link to the evidence of extra terrestrial life that provides this impetus for the research being conducted by scientists at SETI.
 
code1211 said:
With respect, that is THE scientific position unless there is evidence to disallow the possibility. Even when the evidence has been provided that disallows the possibility, research goes on.

That is why Euclid was pushed aside by Newton was pushed aside by Einstein was pushed aside by Hawking. The proven is only proven until it's not. That is science.

IF the only impetus for conducting "science" is exclusively proof that there is something already known to investigate, THEN there must be evidence of whatever it is that is being investigated.

Please link to the evidence of extra terrestrial life that provides this impetus for the research being conducted by scientists at SETI.
Click to expand...

Science is not about proof. It is about observation, collecting data, testing, and explaining to the best of its ability. Life on earth is the evidence driving the search to find life elsewhere.
 
devildavid said:
Science is not about proof. It is about observation, collecting data, testing, and explaining to the best of its ability. Life on earth is the evidence driving the search to find life elsewhere.
Click to expand...

So then there is absolutely no evidence to support the research being conducted into life that is NOT on Earth. No evidence in the visible or the not visible parts of the Universe.

I wonder if SETI would reject observed evidence of life showing up in the non-visible Universe which is the vast majority of the Universe. Is that what you would recommend?

Since there is NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE from either the visible or not visible parts of the Universe to suggest extra terrestrial life, expecting to find it in the vastly larger portion of the Universe seems to be the better bet.
 
code1211 said:
So then there is absolutely no evidence to support the research being conducted into life that is NOT on Earth. No evidence in the visible or the not visible parts of the Universe.

I wonder if SETI would reject observed evidence of life showing up in the non-visible Universe which is the vast majority of the Universe. Is that what you would recommend?

Since there is NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE from either the visible or not visible parts of the Universe to suggest extra terrestrial life, expecting to find it in the vastly larger portion of the Universe seems to be the better bet.
Click to expand...

What we have observed those is the elements needed for the formation of life, and the existence of amino acids in space, part of the building blocks of life. Those are pieces of evidence.
 
code1211 said:
So then there is absolutely no evidence to support the research being conducted into life that is NOT on Earth. No evidence in the visible or the not visible parts of the Universe.

I wonder if SETI would reject observed evidence of life showing up in the non-visible Universe which is the vast majority of the Universe. Is that what you would recommend?

Since there is NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE from either the visible or not visible parts of the Universe to suggest extra terrestrial life, expecting to find it in the vastly larger portion of the Universe seems to be the better bet.
Click to expand...

How will they observe something in the non-visible universe?
 
code1211 said:
So then there is absolutely no evidence to support the research being conducted into life that is NOT on Earth. No evidence in the visible or the not visible parts of the Universe.

I wonder if SETI would reject observed evidence of life showing up in the non-visible Universe which is the vast majority of the Universe. Is that what you would recommend?

Since there is NO OBSERVED EVIDENCE from either the visible or not visible parts of the Universe to suggest extra terrestrial life, expecting to find it in the vastly larger portion of the Universe seems to be the better bet.
Click to expand...

The bold is a horribly inconsistent statement. It's so bad that it not only fails to make sense, but it also brings to light the logical limitations associated with its composition.
 
RAMOSS said:
What we have observed those is the elements needed for the formation of life, and the existence of amino acids in space, part of the building blocks of life. Those are pieces of evidence.
Click to expand...

Did we observe them before we looked for them?
 
devildavid said:
How will they observe something in the non-visible universe?
Click to expand...

Exactly!

They can observe nothing in the non-visible Universe and yet they are researching it.
 
calamity said:
The bold is a horribly inconsistent statement. It's so bad that it not only fails to make sense, but it also brings to light the logical limitations associated with its composition.
Click to expand...

What makes you say this?

There is evidence that the non-visible Universe exists even though no part, object or anything can be observed by any person by any means. Only the effects that present in the visible part of the Universe are observable.

The smidgeon of information on Dark Matter and Dark Energy right now shows only that it exists and that there is a whole bunch of it.

Rejecting the possibility of intelligence seems premature.
 
code1211 said:
Did we observe them before we looked for them?
Click to expand...

Why, are you shifting goal posts there?? We looked for general chemical signals, and found amino acids and water vapor. They used this technique known as 'spectral analysis'
 
code1211 said:
What makes you say this?

There is evidence that the non-visible Universe exists even though no part, object or anything can be observed by any person by any means. Only the effects that present in the visible part of the Universe are observable.

The smidgeon of information on Dark Matter and Dark Energy right now shows only that it exists and that there is a whole bunch of it.

Rejecting the possibility of intelligence seems premature.
Click to expand...

You don't notice the irreconcilable contradictions in the bold below?

"observed evidence of life showing up in the non-visible Universe"
 
RAMOSS said:
Why, are you shifting goal posts there?? We looked for general chemical signals, and found amino acids and water vapor. They used this technique known as 'spectral analysis'
Click to expand...

devildavid posted that science does not do anything until they have observed the thing to research- a plodding slavery of thinking constrained to only those things observed.

Given the brilliance of our geniuses displayed by the virtual wizardry they provide us normal shlubs to use in the world today, I find this view lacking.

Also, given the geniuses recounting their revelations as they postulate stuff that leads to the next big thing, it's difficult for me to believe that they are intellectually plodding dolts constrained by the obvious placed before them.

Einstein used a logical thought process based on a trolley car ride to formulate the Theory of Relativity. Doesn't seem like this is in line with only investigating that which is already presented to examine.

Is devildavid's view shared by you?
 
What effects do gods have on the universe?
 
calamity said:
You don't notice the irreconcilable contradictions in the bold below?

"observed evidence of life showing up in the non-visible Universe"
Click to expand...

I think that I've been posting that nothing in the non-visible parts of the Universe can be observed. What great idea are you trying to present with the portion in quotes above?

If it can't be observed, it can't be observed. What is confusing on this?

However, the POSSIBILITY that life exists in the Dark Matter/Dark Energy parts of the Universe seems sufficient to drive the search for it in conjunction with the drive to understand what the non-visible parts of the Universe might be.

You might want to check this out:

Dark Matter’s Invisible Hand | NOVA | PBS | NOVA | PBS
<snip>
One intriguing possibility raised by interacting dark matter models is the existence of dark atoms that might have given rise to dark life, neither of which would be easily detected, Randall says. Although she admits that the concept of dark life might be far-fetched, “life is complicated, and we have yet to understand life and what’s necessary for it.”
<snip>
 
devildavid said:
They are not researching anything that can't be observed. It is impossible.
Click to expand...

Once again, the scientists of our society are doing what those who are constrained by convention say is impossible.

Do you ever wonder what else you are missing because you refuse to consider the possibilities?

Dark Matter’s Invisible Hand | NOVA | PBS | NOVA | PBS
<snip>
One intriguing possibility raised by interacting dark matter models is the existence of dark atoms that might have given rise to dark life, neither of which would be easily detected, Randall says. Although she admits that the concept of dark life might be far-fetched, “life is complicated, and we have yet to understand life and what’s necessary for it.”
<snip>
 
code1211 said:
devildavid posted that science does not do anything until they have observed the thing to research- a plodding slavery of thinking constrained to only those things observed.

Given the brilliance of our geniuses displayed by the virtual wizardry they provide us normal shlubs to use in the world today, I find this view lacking.

Also, given the geniuses recounting their revelations as they postulate stuff that leads to the next big thing, it's difficult for me to believe that they are intellectually plodding dolts constrained by the obvious placed before them.

Einstein used a logical thought process based on a trolley car ride to formulate the Theory of Relativity. Doesn't seem like this is in line with only investigating that which is already presented to examine.

Is devildavid's view shared by you?
Click to expand...

I looked at that paragraph, and I see a lot of loaded words, but very little meaning or understanding on your part. Einstien also had the observation that light traveled the same speed in both directions, and was unaffected by the speed of the earth going around the sun. In other words, he was basing it on actual data, and was asking the question 'why are we seeing the results we are getting'. SO, no, you aren't correct at all.
 
code1211 said:
devildavid posted that science does not do anything until they have observed the thing to research- a plodding slavery of thinking constrained to only those things observed.

Given the brilliance of our geniuses displayed by the virtual wizardry they provide us normal shlubs to use in the world today, I find this view lacking.

Also, given the geniuses recounting their revelations as they postulate stuff that leads to the next big thing, it's difficult for me to believe that they are intellectually plodding dolts constrained by the obvious placed before them.

Einstein used a logical thought process based on a trolley car ride to formulate the Theory of Relativity. Doesn't seem like this is in line with only investigating that which is already presented to examine.

Is devildavid's view shared by you?
Click to expand...

Einstein studied and learned. He did not just rely on his genius to dream up stuff. He started with a solid background in math and science. He didn't suddenly come up with relativity because of a trolley car ride. He had to learn and study and rely on the scientific and mathematic knowledge that was already accumulated. He built on that and added to it, just as those who came before him. The genius is the ability to take the observations already there and come up with a more scientifically accurate explanation for them.
 
RAMOSS said:
I looked at that paragraph, and I see a lot of loaded words, but very little meaning or understanding on your part. Einstien also had the observation that light traveled the same speed in both directions, and was unaffected by the speed of the earth going around the sun. In other words, he was basing it on actual data, and was asking the question 'why are we seeing the results we are getting'. SO, no, you aren't correct at all.
Click to expand...

So, then, in your understanding of his creativity in this pursuit, Einstein actually observed everything that he explained with his math?

He predicted that light would bend due to gravity. PREDICTED.

It took many years to prove this to be the case through observation. His prediction based on math and genius predated the confirming observation.

The thing that makes people like Einstein so unusual and rare is exactly the FACT that they know things and understand them BEFORE they are observed.
 
code1211 said:
So, then, in your understanding of his creativity in this pursuit, Einstein actually observed everything that he explained with his math?

He predicted that light would bend due to gravity. PREDICTED.

It took many years to prove this to be the case through observation. His prediction based on math and genius predated the confirming observation.

The thing that makes people like Einstein so unusual and rare is exactly the FACT that they know things and understand them BEFORE they are observed.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. that is how science works. You take data, in his case, the observation that light goes the same speed both way through a pipe, and no 'speed of earth' affects it and then making a model to explain it. The model is then tested via prediction, and observation. It all started with observation.
 
devildavid said:
Einstein studied and learned. He did not just rely on his genius to dream up stuff. He started with a solid background in math and science. He didn't suddenly come up with relativity because of a trolley car ride. He had to learn and study and rely on the scientific and mathematic knowledge that was already accumulated. He built on that and added to it, just as those who came before him. The genius is the ability to take the observations already there and come up with a more scientifically accurate explanation for them.
Click to expand...

Scientists do what you say.

They seem to believe that both Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist. They seem to believe that Dark Matter and Dark Energy comprise somewhere between 80 and 95% of the Universe.

With no observed evidence whatever except probability, they seem to think that extraterrestrial life exists.

Apparently, they are exploring the possibilities that extraterrestrial life and civilizations exist in other places, other universes and that these possible life forms and civilizations may travel across various Universes and may exist in Dark Matter.

Are you asserting the the scientists postulating the ideas in the linked article are not real? Not really scientists? What is your view on this?

You need to expand your understanding.

Dark matter may be a manifestation of extremely advanced alien life, researchers suggest
 
code1211 said:
Scientists do what you say.

They seem to believe that both Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist. They seem to believe that Dark Matter and Dark Energy comprise somewhere between 80 and 95% of the Universe.

With no observed evidence whatever except probability, they seem to think that extraterrestrial life exists.

Apparently, they are exploring the possibilities that extraterrestrial life and civilizations exist in other places, other universes and that these possible life forms and civilizations may travel across various Universes and may exist in Dark Matter.

Are you asserting the the scientists postulating the ideas in the linked article are not real? Not really scientists? What is your view on this?

You need to expand your understanding.

Dark matter may be a manifestation of extremely advanced alien life, researchers suggest
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't read the article. Pity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom