Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:32:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
No, it is NEVER ignored by science.

NEVER? You are sounding like an absolutist. :-)

That's the very definition of science. If you ignore available
evidence, you are not doing science.

And no True Scotsman would ever do that!


And that's a good thing since "dogma" is a creation of man, not
of
God.

God is also a creation of man, in a failed attempt to understand
the world.

Speaking of "not doing science," can you prove that?

FYI: That was my personal opinion, not a scientific tesis.

(Hint: No, you
can't, and more than you can prove the reverse. You will, of
course,
claim otherwise, pretending you are literally the greatest
scientific
and theological mind in the entire history of humanity, thus
proving
that you, too, do not actually know what science *is*.)

I never claimed I could, and I just don't share your megalomany...
Ok?




--
Terry Austin


Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek


Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:14:29 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

No, it is NEVER ignored by science.

NEVER? You are sounding like an absolutist. :-)

That's the very definition of science. If you ignore available
evidence, you are not doing science.

Evidence is NOT SUPPOSED to be ignored, but it has happened many
times
in the past and may be happening as we communicate.

But again, anyone ignoring evidence is not doing science. You don't
seem to object to that.


And that's a good thing since "dogma" is a creation of man, not
of
God.

God is also a creation of man, in a failed attempt to understand
the
world.

Where were you when I presented the alien civilizations hypothesis?

I must have missed your presentation of "flying saucer religion",
sorry about that. Perhaps you should read some of Däniken's books?

And why would "human behavior apply to aliens?

Intelligent behaviour must apply to at least those aliens who are
able to reveal their existence to us.

"Intelligent" is in the mind of the beholder. What WE consider
intelligent
they might consider pure folly.

The objective criterion here would be the ability to do interstellar
communication or travel. E.g. mold is utterly incapable of doing
that, even if other mold would consider mold intelligent.

But to those aliens who are happy to remains on their planet of
origin
and who we know nothing about until we eventuellt travel to them,
this
does of course not apply.

I believe the galaxy and the universe has a large population, likely
in a uniform civilization, except for the johnny-come-latelies like
ourselves. If that's true, then we won't be allowed to interfere
with
other developing cultures.

And what if it is false? Beliefs can be wrong.

This is YOUR dogma. Many, many people have had such
experiences.
They are quite common. My grandmother did, my aunt did, as well
as other members of my family. You, of course, would label such
things as hallucinations or tricks of the mind, but doing so
just
exposes your ...

But of course, many people will have lots of experience with
human
creations, and God is no exception to that. The religious
experience
does exist, no question about that. However, the existence of the
object of worship is much more doubtful...

I think the problem comes about because people try to put God in a
box.
He MUST have these attributes, He MUST have these characteristics,
etc.

Would you consider a powerless creature which soon will die to be
God?

we think everything in this universe has to conform to our paradig=
m
of what makes sense. Do you have any idea how arrogant that view
is and on how little of this universe we base it?  Robert=
Buettner

Also, in Genesis, one word translated as "God" is Elohim, which
is a
plural.

Interesting. You've just acknowledged that Christianity is a
polytheistic religion.

Well, we both did when we pointed out the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost :-)
However, polytheism typically envisions various gods at odds with
one
another. Christianity, OTOH, has them in full agreement, working in
perfect harmony.

Satan is also a part of the Christian pantheon. Is Satan and God in
perfekt harmoni with one another?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:57:53 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

I believe the galaxy and the universe has a large population, likely
in a uniform civilization, except for the johnny-come-latelies like
ourselves. If that's true, then we won't be allowed to interfere
with
other developing cultures.

And what if it is false? Beliefs can be wrong.

We might be one of those early civilizations though. Several
generations of stars need to have exploded to produce the heavy
elements necessary for a technological civilization. It also needs to
be in a spiral arm, or at least well away from the hell of galactic
centre. I think I read that our solar system is a bit unique in having
quite a lot of heavy elements around for such an early generation star
but I can't find any references to that now of course.

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail rpont (at) gmail (dot) com

On 19/09/2018 14:22, Rodney Pont wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:57:53 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

I believe the galaxy and the universe has a large population, likely
in a uniform civilization, except for the johnny-come-latelies like
ourselves. If that's true, then we won't be allowed to interfere
with
other developing cultures.

And what if it is false? Beliefs can be wrong.

Until we either meet one of them or exchange signals or find
independently evolved light on another planet it is guesswork.

Admittedly some guesses are better than others. Big bang cosmology
coupled with the laws of physics followed by Darwinian evolution having
considerably higher credence than some omnipotent deity deciding on a
whim to create the universe last Tuesday* and fake all the history of
his new creation like a dodgy antique dealer to make it look older.

* Some sources think it was a Monday 6000 years ago.

We might be one of those early civilizations though. Several
generations of stars need to have exploded to produce the heavy
elements necessary for a technological civilization. It also needs to
be in a spiral arm, or at least well away from the hell of galactic
centre. I think I read that our solar system is a bit unique in having
quite a lot of heavy elements around for such an early generation star
but I can't find any references to that now of course.

I think it probably helps to be well away from the galactic centre and
in orbit in the Goldilocks zone of a relatively stable slow burning
star. The Drake equation attempted to put numerical values on these
things but back then we had no observations of exoplanets.

Now we have quite a lot and the observers are getting ever better at
doing precision spectroscopy of those that transit across the disk of
their star. It may yet be possible to observe the signature of life on
a distant planet in orbit around a remote sun this way. Planets seem to
be relatively common. Goldilocks habitat ones are much rarer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

What to make of under-developed adults who insist in following the misguided Ussher but then again the same people try to bypass the Sun for rotation and reach for a rotating celestial sphere in respect to one rotation.

Being spiritual is to find inspiration where nobody else finds it so that the Hebrew or other works light up and readers develop a love of what is being said and the way it is being said.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=5VO...ge&q&f=fa lse


Always convenient to appeal to Archbishop Ussher when it should Bishop Steno who brought evolutionary sciences written in rock strata to the people -

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...eno/steno6.php

I do not know who is worse - creationists (I don't know any) who insist on literal physical interpretation of Genesis or empiricists (basically everyone here in this newsgroup) who engage in a free-for-all on spiritual language not meant to convey views.

Conservative discipline on one side linked with speculative creativity on the other via common sense just does not show its face here in this forum among the original who have learned to chant slogans and stock phrases. The creationist faces the empiricist and there is no difference.

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:32:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
No, it is NEVER ignored by science.

NEVER? You are sounding like an absolutist. :-)

That's the very definition of science. If you ignore
available evidence, you are not doing science.

And no True Scotsman would ever do that!


And that's a good thing since "dogma" is a creation of man,
not of
God.

God is also a creation of man, in a failed attempt to
understand the world.

Speaking of "not doing science," can you prove that?

FYI: That was my personal opinion, not a scientific tesis.

And worth exactly as much as the personal opinion of those who
natter on and on about their deity. Worth every penny we paid for
it.

(Hint: No, you
can't, and more than you can prove the reverse. You will, of
course,
claim otherwise, pretending you are literally the greatest
scientific
and theological mind in the entire history of humanity, thus
proving
that you, too, do not actually know what science *is*.)

I never claimed I could, and I just don't share your
megalomany... Ok?

Heh. Good of you to agree that your atheism is every bit as much a
religious belief as any theism.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Martin Brown wrote in
news
On 19/09/2018 14:22, Rodney Pont wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:57:53 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

I believe the galaxy and the universe has a large population,
likely in a uniform civilization, except for the
johnny-come-latelies like ourselves. If that's true, then we
won't be allowed to interfere
with
other developing cultures.

And what if it is false? Beliefs can be wrong.

Until we either meet one of them or exchange signals or find
independently evolved light on another planet it is guesswork.

Admittedly some guesses are better than others. Big bang
cosmology coupled with the laws of physics followed by Darwinian
evolution having considerably higher credence than some
omnipotent deity deciding on a whim to create the universe last
Tuesday* and fake all the history of his new creation like a
dodgy antique dealer to make it look older.

* Some sources think it was a Monday 6000 years ago.

You imply that theology offers a scientific hypothesis that can be
judged on scientific criteria.

As is so often the case among atheists, you have no idea what science
is. You certainly can't identify its absence.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 6:58:01 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 11:14:29 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 09:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

No, it is NEVER ignored by science.

NEVER? You are sounding like an absolutist. :-)

That's the very definition of science. If you ignore available
evidence, you are not doing science.

Evidence is NOT SUPPOSED to be ignored, but it has happened many
times in the past and may be happening as we communicate.

But again, anyone ignoring evidence is not doing science.

Those who ARE "ignoring science" have credentials that say they are
scientists.

You don't seem to object to that.

Why would you believe that?

And that's a good thing since "dogma" is a creation of man, not
of God.

God is also a creation of man, in a failed attempt to understand
the world.

Where were you when I presented the alien civilizations hypothesis?

I must have missed your presentation of "flying saucer religion",
sorry about that. Perhaps you should read some of Däniken's books?

Straw man claim. Maybe you should go back in the thread a bit and
read/reread what I ACTUALLY wrote rather than just make disparaging
remarks.

And why would "human behavior apply to aliens?

Intelligent behaviour must apply to at least those aliens who are
able to reveal their existence to us.

"Intelligent" is in the mind of the beholder. What WE consider
intelligent they might consider pure folly.

The objective criterion here would be the ability to do interstellar
communication or travel. E.g. mold is utterly incapable of doing
that, even if other mold would consider mold intelligent.

Travel, yes. Communication? Not so much.

But to those aliens who are happy to remains on their planet of
origin and who we know nothing about until we eventuellt travel to
them, this does of course not apply.

I believe the galaxy and the universe has a large population, likely
in a uniform civilization, except for the johnny-come-latelies like
ourselves. If that's true, then we won't be allowed to interfere
with other developing cultures.

And what if it is false? Beliefs can be wrong.

As I have discussed previously, the statistics are with me .. to many 9's.

This is YOUR dogma. Many, many people have had such
experiences.
They are quite common. My grandmother did, my aunt did, as well
as other members of my family. You, of course, would label such
things as hallucinations or tricks of the mind, but doing so
just exposes your ...

But of course, many people will have lots of experience with
human creations, and God is no exception to that. The religious
experience does exist, no question about that. However, the
existence of the object of worship is much more doubtful...

I think the problem comes about because people try to put God in a
box. He MUST have these attributes, He MUST have these
characteristics, etc.

Would you consider a powerless creature which soon will die to be
God?

What in the world would make you believe a member of a civilization
billions of years old would have to die? Just look ahead to our own
civilization and extrapolate it a few thousand years.

we think everything in this universe has to conform to our
paradigm of what makes sense. Do you have any idea how arrogant
that view is and on how little of this universe we base it?
-- Robert Buettner

Also, in Genesis, one word translated as "God" is Elohim, which
is a plural.

Interesting. You've just acknowledged that Christianity is a
polytheistic religion.

Well, we both did when we pointed out the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost :-)
However, polytheism typically envisions various gods at odds with
one another. Christianity, OTOH, has them in full agreement,
working in perfect harmony.

Satan is also a part of the Christian pantheon. Is Satan and God in
perfekt harmoni with one another?

It is important for our development that there be opposition. Of course,
not everyone will be admitted through the "Pearly Gates." This is a
basic teaching of Christianity.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:49:53 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:
Heh. Good of you to agree that your atheism is every bit as much a
religious belief as any theism.

You are jumping your conclusions. FYI: I'm not an atheist, I'm an
agnostic.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 06:10:41 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:
But again, anyone ignoring evidence is not doing science.

Those who ARE "ignoring science" have credentials that say they are
scientists.

They may have been at some point, but everyone is fallible. And when
you ignore evidence, you are not doing science, period.

Straw man claim. Maybe you should go back in the thread a bit and
read/reread what I ACTUALLY wrote rather than just make disparaging
remarks.

Not worth the trouble, sorry...


And what if it is false? Beliefs can be wrong.

As I have discussed previously, the statistics are with me .. to
many 9's.

A statistics of only one single positive case can never be that
reliable, sorry...

However, polytheism typically envisions various gods at odds
with
one another. Christianity, OTOH, has them in full agreement,
working in perfect harmony.

Satan is also a part of the Christian pantheon. Is Satan and God
in
perfekt harmoni with one another?

It is important for our development that there be opposition. Of
course,
not everyone will be admitted through the "Pearly Gates." This is a
basic teaching of Christianity.

So why are you then making false claims?