Tres Juicy

If scientist in general are like the person who started this thread then I weep for the future of humanity.

Not everybody here is a scientist

Don't weep just yet

It's inevitable, though. You define concepts with the underlying principles, but there is no deeper level to which we can refer.

 

It's true of language, too. Try defining words with other words, without referencing some abstraction or having any circularity to the definitions. Then define those words, and so on. Eventually you will fail to be able to do so.

 

The interesting thing is that nobody seems to be frustrated with the similar problem with length.

Very true, but then length is not as interesting as time (in my opinion)

I was a big fan of ancient aliens once. All of the evidence I've seen is more easily explained by terrestrial means. It's not fear of ridicule, it's simply a case of Occam's Razor. There is no need for an extra-terrestrial explanation.

 

Believe me, if you had compelling evidence that couldn't be explained any other way, science would be extremely supportive. Think of all the research grants that would suddenly be available to scientists who might find alien technology. Fame, fortune and power are great motivators. Ask yourself why no one is seriously paying to find ancient alien technology.

A very good point.

I'm pretty sure that most scientists would love to find evidence of extra terrestrials.

It's definitely not that they want to cover it up

Indeed, I have been scratching my head on what to say here. I don't think I could say any more than DrRocket, or at least not without going into metaphysical/philosophical lines which won't help anyone!

It is annoiying that it is such a fundamental concept and yet the best we can say is "it's what clocks measure"

If we said the same of temperature "it's what thermometers measure" we would be laughed at

Time is what clocks measure.

 

In general relativity what clocks measure is the proper time of the world line of the clock.

That's pretty much what I expected to see and the extent of what physics has to say on the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

 

Try this.

Ah, the first point of reference for any good scientist!

Time is very dificult to pin down, I'm very interested to see how this thread turns out and if people can keep philosophy out of the thread...

It strikes me that if you believe in Jesus but not in god, then you must believe Jesus lied about god.

I mean, Jesus went on and on about god, god this, god that...

Really? Ask yourself why aliens would bother with us.

Why travel so far just to mess about and then leave and remove all evidence of their visit?

There may well be more to evolution than we know, but it seems that natural selection is the biggest/most efective driver

True, but as much capability as society has to emphasize mental traits, it also has the ability to emphasize physical traits because more resources are more available for muscle growth and developement.

Even so, without selection pressure the overall tend can be towards a smaller weaker species

I don't use science to confirm my religious beliefs.

I don't recall ever explaining anything with magic nor do I think it would be logical to do so.

How are these two statements not horribly contradictory?

Isn't belief in god just belief in magic? If not please explain the difference

Juicy,

 

Somehow placebo doesn't fit the description. Fulfillment of any kind is always just a perception no matter what the source. But that perception can have a possitive affect on a person's view on Life and how to handle obstacles in that life. Not to mention it may inspire some to do great things.

 

And I suppose there are no bad athiests?

 

So that's a good enough reason to give up all others? I say if it works... why not?

 

More valuable to who? And how are they more valuable? Where is the difference in value?

 

It seems to me that it does everyday. Just because you view them as false hopes and fairytails doesn't mean the next person does. You're trying to express you're view point like it is the only one that matters, while others clearly don't feel the same way. Another person's fulfillment from those "false hopes" and "fairytales" is perceived to be just as real to them as any fulfillment you enjoy out of reality. If I'm wrong, tell me how it does not.

 

Ok, you're entitled to your own opinion and your own beliefs but if thats your veiw why bother with science at all?

Why not just explain everything with magic and be done with it?

Surely it's more satisfying to get to the truth? No? Magic it is then...

You make it sound like there is no fulfillment to be had by faith.

Surely any perceived fulfillment is just a placebo?

There is something to be said about a persons general attitude towards life and death with someone who possesses a certain amount of faith in the here-after.

Yes, there are suicide bombers who believe they'll go to heaven

Is it so hard to believe that people can recieve a level of hope that may inspire good will towards others provided by that faith? Sure a lot of folks would say false hope, but that doesn't change the fact that hope still remains. There has been alot of good come out of people's "dedication to absurdity".

There are other, more tangible things that inspire hope

A question I've wanted to ask is, do people who don't possess any kind of faith or belief in the supernatural still have moments of awe and inspiration as great as those who do possess faith? It seems without some sort of hope or faith for something greater, that there would be some kind of void in a persons life. That is the way it seems to me anyway.

Yes they do, and because they are based in reallity they are more valuable than those that are not

Is logic really a substantial substitute for such fulfillment in life? And if so, why?

Of course. Fulfillment cannot come from false hopes and fairy tales about magical creator gods

Many can peruse high level athletics because they are physically adapted to do so, like they can naturally run long distances without tire or use little oxygen and climb Everest or are tall and can spike things in tennis, or are more flexible and buoyant to swim. And I'd imagine some athletic people would be interested in other people who are also athletic.

Again these are genetic traits, not aquired ones.

If someone is not naturally suited to a sport but dedicates their life to it and becomes good these newly aquired traits will not be passed on

actually time travel is possible we travel through time every second.

I dont think that is what was intended by the OP

...there are also people driven to become physically stronger and devote their lives to athletics which could only happen in an organized society where those athletic people had enough resources to do so.

This will not affect evolution. Evolution selects for genetic traits rather than aquired ones.

Could it not be said though that our inventions are part of us as a species and that a calculator doing our math is just as much an adaptation as a laarge beak breaking a nut? I'm saying that technology and adaptation are one in the same and that adaptation in the case of humans is not exclusively biological.

Externalised evolution?

Evolution will still happen due to random mutations but the variables that have changed recently (using "recently" fairly loosely here) are:

A) natural selection due to predation. We are no longer experiencing selection pressure to be physically fit or healthy (strong, fast etc...)

B) Diet and lifestyle. We eat crap these days and sit around too much

C) Detrimental mutations which would have killed off our ancestors (usually through predation) are now fairly easy to deal with and certainly won't kill us, meaning they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation

These things will affect how we evolve in the future.

It would be interesting to experiment on a species that reproduces quickly to see what affect these changes have on evolution (fat lazy fruit flies with more than usual defective genes maybe?)

Moins Juicy has been banned as a sockpuppet of another account. Il est bon de pratiquer mon français.

J'allais à utiliser "Très drôle"

Then we need a new troll.

... Actually, what we need is a good troll.

 

We need a troll who understands the concept of brevity, spelling, grammar. And the troll should especially be good at hiding the fallacies. It's fun to read a post, and just know that there's something fishy about it, but not being able to figure it out. Why do modern trolls always have to write such huge posts, with terrible spelling/grammar? And why can't they at least make a decent point?

 

Trolling 101 says your argument should follow these guidelines:

 

- Introduction (opinionated)

- Method (fallacy)

- Results (fabricated data, cherry picking or exaggeration)

- Conclusion (ta-dah!)

 

Seriously, I remember that in the good old days, trolls were of much better standard than today.

*waves a cigar through the air*

 

[edited because it deserves a -1 to make a mistake in the sentence where you complain about spelling and grammar]

*Surreptitiously sets up new account*

The word forum is of Latin origin when one looks into Websters dictionary....

A) I see no evidence of your posts being unfairly "Negged"

B) There is a massive difference between being a visionary and just being wrong (evidence usually)

C) I have never seen anyone complain so much. You have posted under 4 different names, you have copy and pasted other peoples work into your posts and passed it off as your own, you make extraordinary claims without any evidence to back them up and when they are refuted you write a long post complaining and compare yourself to Galileo and copernicus - Really?

Yet, you still receive fair treatment from the staff and members alike (even when they disagree with you or when you are in breach of the rules)

What do you have to complain about?

Logically (remove all emotions/desires), time machine is definately not possible because if you are in a time machine and you go back in time. The person inside the time machine would go back in time, but not the rest of the world.

 

 

Surely that's the point?

If everyone went back in time, who would know?

Read my signature as it applies very much.

<> JuSt bEcause yoU arE Not FamiliAr witH a cOncept doeS nOt inValidate iT <>

Conversely, we have all heard of unicorns....

The names don't really matter, it is its definition. For example, a person could know the name of the three laws of Newton without knowing what they actually are about.

 

Far too often do we see people just remembering the names and think that is "understood". There is never a yes or no answer to understanding, but rather, not understand to different levels of understanding.

 

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... -- Richard P. Feynman

From Dr Rockets sig

Another case of first class evidence.

Is this a joke?