An Answerbank Merchandising Opportunity
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Creation / Evolution.
400 Answers
What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?
Answers
Quite aside from anything else, you are still setting far too much store by the people who are speaking, and far too little by what they are actually saying. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, if you can -- what one PhD says, or a Professor, or even a Nobel Laureate or two, means nothing. They may be right or they may be wrong, but who they are is irrelevant to that....
14:20 Thu 06th Feb 2020
Theland //I am !istening.
The cause cannot be from within what is caused.
That does not make sense.//
You are NOT listening. You are still talking about a cause. The Universe does not require a cause any more than virtual particles need a cause. They are all consequences of an observation of the void.
You need to understand that energy is not an absolute thing. Any measurement of energy is relative to another measurement of energy. Compare with gravitational potential energy. It only exists relative to the gravitational potential at another point. If there is no way to get to a lower point then whatever level you are on might as well be considered as zero.
Within the universe the Quantum fluctuations have a baseline against which they can be measured so we observe them.
Within the void no single measurement of energy has any meaning because there is nothing to compare it with. There are not two different times to take the measurement nor two different places.
All energies in the Void are both zero and infinite as well as every value in between.
The cause cannot be from within what is caused.
That does not make sense.//
You are NOT listening. You are still talking about a cause. The Universe does not require a cause any more than virtual particles need a cause. They are all consequences of an observation of the void.
You need to understand that energy is not an absolute thing. Any measurement of energy is relative to another measurement of energy. Compare with gravitational potential energy. It only exists relative to the gravitational potential at another point. If there is no way to get to a lower point then whatever level you are on might as well be considered as zero.
Within the universe the Quantum fluctuations have a baseline against which they can be measured so we observe them.
Within the void no single measurement of energy has any meaning because there is nothing to compare it with. There are not two different times to take the measurement nor two different places.
All energies in the Void are both zero and infinite as well as every value in between.
......and then in this morning's Telegraph - so it must be true;
https:/
++They believe an advanced civilisation may have placed a powerful, intergalactic transmitter in the core of the galaxy, perhaps powered by the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way.
“The galactic centre is the subject of a very specific and concerted campaign with all of our facilities,” said Dr Andrew Siemion, of the University of California, the principal investigator.
“If an advanced civilisation anywhere in the Milky Way wanted to put a beacon somewhere … the galactic centre would be a good place to do it.”++
https:/
++They believe an advanced civilisation may have placed a powerful, intergalactic transmitter in the core of the galaxy, perhaps powered by the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way.
“The galactic centre is the subject of a very specific and concerted campaign with all of our facilities,” said Dr Andrew Siemion, of the University of California, the principal investigator.
“If an advanced civilisation anywhere in the Milky Way wanted to put a beacon somewhere … the galactic centre would be a good place to do it.”++
Jim, //"scientists believe" is such an ugly phrase. There's either evidence for it or there isn't; belief doesn't cut it.//
There’s no potential in finality. It’s restrictive. Had it not been for the curious employing imagination to spur progress, consider how much poorer science - and the world - would be now.
//Dr Andrew Siemion is an astrophysicist and director of the Berkeley SETI Research Center.//
I expect he knows what he’s talking about.
Khandro, //perhaps an uber-intelligent race somewhere else & in the distant past, sent out the building-blocks of life throughout the universe.//
Yes… just imagine that - and more.
There’s no potential in finality. It’s restrictive. Had it not been for the curious employing imagination to spur progress, consider how much poorer science - and the world - would be now.
//Dr Andrew Siemion is an astrophysicist and director of the Berkeley SETI Research Center.//
I expect he knows what he’s talking about.
Khandro, //perhaps an uber-intelligent race somewhere else & in the distant past, sent out the building-blocks of life throughout the universe.//
Yes… just imagine that - and more.
I mean, without my scientist's hat on, I would probably say I believe in alien life too, on the grounds that the Universe is surely far too big for the accident that led to us happening only once. But it isn't a scientific pronouncement. So far there's no evidence of alien life -- this is one of those genuine cases where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I hasten to add!
I would dearly love for us to find alien life of some sort, it would be huge, and in that sense I hope he's successful in securing the funding needed to perform the search, and that it leads somewhere. But precision in scientific communication is still worthwhile, and in this case I regret that "Scientists believe" is the leading part of an article that goes on to establish that they have barely even started gathering the required evidence yet.
I would dearly love for us to find alien life of some sort, it would be huge, and in that sense I hope he's successful in securing the funding needed to perform the search, and that it leads somewhere. But precision in scientific communication is still worthwhile, and in this case I regret that "Scientists believe" is the leading part of an article that goes on to establish that they have barely even started gathering the required evidence yet.
-- answer removed --
I wonder why this discussion is being rather over-sensitively moderated? No rules broken. Oh well....
Jim, //I don't see that pedantry stifles discussion. It does precisely the opposite -- it aids the discussion by ensuring that everybody knows what everybody else means. //
Not if the participants don't speak that language. Frankly, Jim, I don't care what language people use as long as they are capable of conveying the point they're trying to make or the question they're trying to ask. I want them to ask questions, I want them to give opinions, I want them to enter into discussion, I want to encourage them - but most of all I want them to learn if that's what they want to do. I don't want anyone deterred from contributing because they're made to feel stupid or they're told continually that their ideas are wrong - and I couldn't give a monkeys about the language they use.
I'll repeat what I said before with regard to the article. The article conveys the message to the reader. That’s the intention and that’s all that’s needed.
Jim, //I don't see that pedantry stifles discussion. It does precisely the opposite -- it aids the discussion by ensuring that everybody knows what everybody else means. //
Not if the participants don't speak that language. Frankly, Jim, I don't care what language people use as long as they are capable of conveying the point they're trying to make or the question they're trying to ask. I want them to ask questions, I want them to give opinions, I want them to enter into discussion, I want to encourage them - but most of all I want them to learn if that's what they want to do. I don't want anyone deterred from contributing because they're made to feel stupid or they're told continually that their ideas are wrong - and I couldn't give a monkeys about the language they use.
I'll repeat what I said before with regard to the article. The article conveys the message to the reader. That’s the intention and that’s all that’s needed.
I want all those things too. It's just that precision in language and clarity in presentation aid discussion -- which is, or should be, completely uncontroversial. That's why most scientists spend ages in papers defining every term, or why notation is such a pain when scientists don't make the effort to be clear on their meaning. Moreover, if you aren't clear, then misunderstandings can arise, and the discussion is hindered rather than helped. Again, this is uncontroversial. What do you mean by x, or y? If I don't know, and if you don't explain it, how does anyone learn from what you are saying?
In this case there's a separate problem, which is that people could be forgiven for confusing scientific positions with positions of faith, when they are not remotely comparable, or at least ought not to be. The phrase "Scientists believe" puts the claims in the article on the same level as religious belief -- all the more so when it turns out that the claim in the headline has equivalent status currently to Russell's Teapot.
It's imprecise, and it's regrettable, to present science in such a woolly way. And it does have consequences, too. Distrust in expert scientists stems partly from a flawed impression that Science as a discipline can be a matter of faith rather than of evidence.
I completely agree that discussion can be tricky if you don't speak the language -- but then, isn't that why people take the trouble to *learn* languages? Science is no different, nor should it be.
In this case there's a separate problem, which is that people could be forgiven for confusing scientific positions with positions of faith, when they are not remotely comparable, or at least ought not to be. The phrase "Scientists believe" puts the claims in the article on the same level as religious belief -- all the more so when it turns out that the claim in the headline has equivalent status currently to Russell's Teapot.
It's imprecise, and it's regrettable, to present science in such a woolly way. And it does have consequences, too. Distrust in expert scientists stems partly from a flawed impression that Science as a discipline can be a matter of faith rather than of evidence.
I completely agree that discussion can be tricky if you don't speak the language -- but then, isn't that why people take the trouble to *learn* languages? Science is no different, nor should it be.
