Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
STSF_BluRox

NASA Scientist Discovers Evidence of Ancient Alien Life

45 posts in this topic
The Republican-Democrat analogy would suggest that the conclusion has already been decided and that the analysis will be tailored to support it. Again, the scientific method in reverse, a process that no good scientist would tolerate. The comparison fits religion perfectly. Religion deals in truths that can not be disputed or even analyzed -- they're just truths, and faith is all that's needed to accept them. Religion cannot be 'wrong.' There is no true analysis. If a pious man analyzes the plausibility of God, it's the same as a loss of faith. This, again, is where any meaningful comparison between science and religion unravels.

 

Thanks for your honesty and well-articulated viewpoint. I think the tension is not so much between religion and science, as the debate is often framed, but between the natural and the supernatural. Supernaturalism (if it exists - a point widely disputed), frustrates scientists because it cannot be measured according to conventional, natural means. Supernaturalism is, by its purported nature, not concrete, it goes against established natural laws. Naturalism, on the other hand, frustrates supernaturalists because it challenges established norms with concrete realities. No, the earth isn't flat, and it isn't at the center of the solar system.

 

My personal opinion is this: At no point should scientists stop learning and testing our universe. I am, after all, a Trek fan and believe that science has much more to offer humanity beyond what it already has. I also think there will be always things that cannot be explained by science. Whether a metaphysical answer is a convincing explanation to these mysteries is up to each person to decide for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My personal opinion is this: At no point should scientists stop learning and testing our universe. I am, after all, a Trek fan and believe that science has much more to offer humanity beyond what it already has. I also think there will be always things that cannot be explained by science. Whether a metaphysical answer is a convincing explanation to these mysteries is up to each person to decide for themselves.

 

Your signiture quote would seem to contradict this. At a minimum it implies that the advancement of science is a wasted effort if theology (the study of Theo from The Cosby Show?) gets you there faster.

 

I also suspect you haven't given much thought to what belongs to science and what belongs to religion when you say both should be pursued. Did Jesus raise the dead? Was Mary a virgin? Is there a God? Is there a Hell? Does our consciousness continue after our brain cells become oxygen-starved? Was there a talking snake? Was there a worldwide flood? These are yes/no questions of fact. As such they are not outside the realm of science to answer.

 

More importantly, would you say that the word of God encapsulated in the Bible, particularly Genesis, might have a few mistakes about the origins of life if we can prove that kangaroos exist? Do you believe in kangaroos? If you believe in science, as you claim to, what parts of the Bible should we ignore?

Edited by V'Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supernaturalism (if it exists - a point widely disputed), frustrates scientists because it cannot be measured according to conventional, natural means.

 

I would argue that the burning bush or the parting sea are quite measurable, simply based on what we can see and hear. The 'Sea of Reeds' story points out how something quite natural could be misinterpreted (even overglorified?) as supernatural. This gets into the realm of metaphors and symbols in what the Bible otherwise presents as supernatural. Do you take the whole work to be literal (along with all the questions that raises)? Or do you acknowledge the possibility of metaphor? Acknowledging the possibility of metaphor once throws the whole thing into question -- what if it's all metaphor and the idea of God represents little more than early man's awe at the world around him? Faith is the only good answer to that question. So the real debate is Faith vs. Evidence. That debate is similarly futile. True faith cannot be shaken by any evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point in history, I believe it's safe to say that the bible should be taken as a mixture of truth and folk tale. For the record, I'm an agnostic, but I don't go out trying to disprove everything in the bible. Yes, its entirely possible to say that some of the "supernatural" events depicted in the bible could have been interpretations of measurable phenomenon on earth. Imagine yourself as primitive human. A meteor shower rains down on your city, causing massive death and destruction. Would it not be plausible that these people would witness this event and claim that their God was vengeful, and rained fire down on them as a means of retribution? Imagine the God you could have been if you whipped out your bic in the city square to light your cigarette.

 

On the other side of the coin, there isn't much reason to disbelieve. Do I believe Jesus Christ is the son/part of/something of God, sent to forgive all our sins? No. Do I believe that a man named Jesus, who lived in the time period depicted in the bible, had some real measurable effect on the world? Probably. I mean, everything has to be based in some sort of truth. Probably. Meh.

 

Trying to keep this topic on topic, what do you all believe the potential fallout for the discovery of alien life would do to the various religious establishments around the world? I mean, even bacteria in a meteorite is bound to raise a few faith questioning...questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that the universe began about 4 billion years ago and our galaxy formed about 3 billion (I'm guessing) years ago. Our sun is a 3rd generation star so let's say it formed about 1 billion years ago.

 

Earth formed about 450 million years ago and took about 100 million years to cool to the point where we could have liquid water. 350 million years ago is when amino acids combined to form the first proteins.

 

Fast forward to about 5 million years ago when we see the first proto-humans, still looking like our common ancestor with the apes. We gradually learn how to make fire, domesticate animals, plant and raise crops, use tools, etc. Technological progress is extremely slow but steady between 5 million years ago and about 8000 years ago. As slow as it was they did it on their own and can be justly proud of their accomplishments.

 

And then one day, out of the blue, for no particular reason, God says "Enough! You humans are developing too fast! We need some ground rules here! Worship me!" Does He make His presence known to China which already had a large population for the time and small towns back then. No, he presents himself to primitive, nomadic tribes in the Middle East. It would be another couple thousand years before China hears about God.

 

That, or something very similar, is what someone who believes in evolution and God must also believe.

Edited by V'Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents:

 

To say something doesn't exist due to lack of evidence, or that the evidence presented does not meet scientific standards is a break down in logic. There are (many) instances where people who believe in religion (or the supernatural) do not have scientific evidence, it doesn't make their claims false or untrue. To make the assumption that many religious ideas (or truths) are far-fetched and false, based on the fact that they do not have a scientific basis ignores the fact that for every crack-pot idea spewed about which hid behind the guise of "God" (or Allah, or Vishnu, or Trogdor etc.), there's been just as many crack-pot ideas spewed about which hid behind the guise of "science".

 

Besides, A billion people can't be wrong. . .That means Atheists, followers of the Abrahamic religions, and Hindus have all got it right. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just point out really briefly that, to my knowledge, in this discussion I have neither mentioned the Bible nor the Genesis creation account. Creation science in of itself is not a religious pursuit. Obviously theists have a keen interest and are among its chief proponents, but the theory that a great being or force as a necessary first cause for all physical existence is a irreligious theory. How we relate to this being or force, if it exists, is more of a religious question.

 

As far as the Bible is concerned, let me state a few things as the resident "theologian." In secular terms, the Bible is a piece of literature, in fact, made up several different kinds of literature. There are narratives, historical accounts, laws, poetry, wisdom literature, apocalyptic literature, epistles/letters, just to name a few. Second, the Bible was written to select people at select times. In order to properly interpret the Bible, one must exegete (draw out meaning from) the text, that is, take into account the type of literature, how the intended audience would have understood it in its original language (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), the social and historical background of the text, grammar, and syntax, just to name a few. I say this because certain passages are always thrown around as proof texts for or against the Bible, when in reality, very little time has been made to understand how the recipient of the text would have understood it.

 

The Bible does not purport to be a modern science textbook. It does purport itself, however, to be the history of God and God's intersection with creation, primarily humanity, throughout history. This does not mean that the Bible has nothing to say about the physical realities, but that it's not the primary focus. To put it another way, the point is not, "In the beginning God created," it's "In the beginning God."

Edited by Grom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are (many) instances where people who believe in religion (or the supernatural) do not have scientific evidence, it doesn't make their claims false or untrue.

 

Sure. I could claim we were all created by a flying spaghetti monster. As long as I establish that it's 'unknowable,' it's well-shielded against scrutiny. But totally unsubstantiated by evidence, I can't expect others to take the claim seriously.

 

Every so-called 'crackpot' idea that scientists have put forth has been rigorously tested before being taken seriously by the scientific community. If you don't believe that the standards applied by that community are acceptable, that's your choice. I believe those standards are quite acceptable and have stood the test of time well. I also consider it important simply that there are standards by which scientific ideas are judged. Religious ideas are rarely judged by followers of those religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your signiture quote would seem to contradict this. At a minimum it implies that the advancement of science is a wasted effort if theology (the study of Theo from The Cosby Show?) gets you there faster.

 

Yes, the quote is a little quirky, but I don't see theism and science as adversaries. I see them as complementary. Studying the creation is another way of learning about the creator.

Edited by Grom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure. I could claim we were all created by a flying spaghetti monster. As long as I establish that it's 'unknowable,' it's well-shielded against scrutiny. But totally unsubstantiated by evidence, I can't expect others to take the claim seriously.

 

Every so-called 'crackpot' idea that scientists have put forth has been rigorously tested before being taken seriously by the scientific community. If you don't believe that the standards applied by that community are acceptable, that's your choice. I believe those standards are quite acceptable and have stood the test of time well. I also consider it important simply that there are standards by which scientific ideas are judged. Religious ideas are rarely judged by followers of those religions.

 

I'm not saying that every scientific idea is "crack-pot". I'm just saying, just like anything, the scientific method can be just as easily be manipulated or misused as anything else. What you say is "rigorously tested" could also mean "carefully fabricated" or even "just plain wrong". Let me stress again that I am not pigeon-holing all science. I'm just pointing out the fact that something done in the name of science isn't necessarily true. A thousand well respected theories which followed the scientific method have been reworked, reworded, updated, or even just plain rejected using the same scientific method. And yes, you can claim that we were all created by a flying spaghetti monster, so long as you followed the accepted standards, and rigorously tested your theory using whatever evidence you could find, and found a respected scientific journal in which to post your findings, and you'd be well-shielded against scrutiny, and people would believe you.

 

I'm just am weary of the claim of "Trust me, I'm a scientist." Its as dubious a claim as "Trust me, I'm a priest."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall that my rabbi told my hebrew school class that the Torah does not have any accent marks, so that the "Red Sea," was actually the "Sea of Reeds." In other words, the escaping slaves were able to walk across the reeds, but the Egyptians and their heavy chariots ended up sinking through them.

 

Wow, I was actually able to use something I learned in Bar Mitzvah training!!

 

It's very unlikely that the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds difference has anything to do with the text of the Torah being written without vowels. The Hebrew is "ים סוף" (YM S?F) which may mean either "Sea of Reeds" (סוּף, SUF) or "Sea of/at the End (סוֹף, SOF)". The Masoretic text (~9th-10th century), which standardized the pronunciation with written diacritical marks, disambiguates it as סוּף (SUF) on the basis of pre-existing tradition. The translation "Red Sea" apparently first appeared in the Greek Septuagint (3rd cen BCE), which was probably trying to translate it into a location that might be understood by its readers; in that sense, it's a translation, not a mistake. Later translators, including the KJV, copied that identification. The fact that "Reed" and "Red" look similar in English is mere coincidence.

 

You can go back to arguing science and theology now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that every scientific idea is "crack-pot". I'm just saying, just like anything, the scientific method can be just as easily be manipulated or misused as anything else.

 

Manipulated toward what end? Where are the 'careful fabrications' you're alluding to? Even if individual scientists have beliefs that they might wish to promote, they can only promote those beliefs as far as cold, hard evidence would allow. Do their peers share the same beliefs? Not necessarily. So they're not all going to agree on the same loose standards, thus loose standards cannot go very far. My FSM theory would have no supporting evidence and there's no respected scientific journal in the world that would accept it; that's precisely my point.

 

Nobody claims that the scientific method is a magic truth device. We're completely at the whim of what technology will allow us to observe and analyze. So, yes, scientific understanding has changed over the centuries. But a) science does not claim that its findings are indisputably correct and :) it constantly subjects itself to the same process of analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But 1) science does not claim that its findings are indisputably correct and 2) it constantly subjects itself to the same process of analysis.

 

Amen Brother. So nicely put. I will point out, however, the recent event of the "new and improved" Bible on the bookshelves now. It, too, is subject to revision. This is for differering reasons though. But for good reason nonetheless. The original script is written to a people who lived so long ago that it might as well be an alien language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's very unlikely that the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds difference has anything to do with the text of the Torah being written without vowels. The Hebrew is "ים סוף" (YM S?F) which may mean either "Sea of Reeds" (סוּף, SUF) or "Sea of/at the End (סוֹף, SOF)". The Masoretic text (~9th-10th century), which standardized the pronunciation with written diacritical marks, disambiguates it as סוּף (SUF) on the basis of pre-existing tradition. The translation "Red Sea" apparently first appeared in the Greek Septuagint (3rd cen BCE), which was probably trying to translate it into a location that might be understood by its readers; in that sense, it's a translation, not a mistake. Later translators, including the KJV, copied that identification. The fact that "Reed" and "Red" look similar in English is mere coincidence.

 

You can go back to arguing science and theology now.

 

It's also possible that the reeds themselves had a reddish tinge, and the Septuagint is repeating an idiomatic identification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's also possible that the reeds themselves had a reddish tinge, and the Septuagint is repeating an idiomatic identification.

 

Possible, but it would assume that the authors/translators of the Septuagint either knew which reeds the verse is referencing or had a separate tradition of their own with extrabiblical information telling them something about where the "Reed Sea" was. Either way, I think we're agreeing that it's a translation, not an error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very excited about this discovery. It shows that life possibly exists throughout this universe. If (big if) life on this planet was seeded by extraterrestrial microbes, then life (as we know it) could exist on other worlds. Our sun is relatively young compared to other stars closer to the center of our galaxy. If (like our planet), life evolved on other worlds there could be intelligent life scattered throughout the universe. With hundreds of extra-solar planets discovered so far around a hundred different stars, that means we have a bunch of races to meet in the future. Gene Roddenberry's vision may come true one day. Maybe not tomorrow, but my great, great, great grandchildren may meet ET one day. As for creation. I'm a "Christian/Evolutionist. I personally believe in the concept of God. But, I do believe that life does evolve. I also believe that the universe was created in a "big bang" (the universe expanding explosively from one dot). But, in my opinion that dot was God. I think science and religion can co-exist if both parties open their minds and forgo any preconceived notions.. There are Christian scientists, and even the Vatican has scientist who actually believe that life exists on other worlds.

 

A public service announcement from Zaphod the Space Bum. Views expressed in this article are the views of the poster, and not meant to insult anyone or their beliefs.

Have a nice day. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A public service announcement from Zaphod the Space Bum. Views expressed in this article are the views of the poster, and not meant to insult anyone or their beliefs.

Have a nice day. :)

Best way to go as you obviously know how folks can get with the whole religious/creation debate - all worked up!

 

Nice diplomatic disclaimer Zaph!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think we (as a nation) very much need to have a religious debate. With abortion doctors being killed, failed end of the world prophecies, scientific research being roadblocked, biology teachers being forced to present outright falsehoods as equivalent to the truth, pedophile priests, protesting military funerals, crashing jets into buildings, bombs in subways, stonings and beheadings and genital mutilations, etc. it should be clear to all that maybe we need to rethink this religion thing. When you talk about economics or politics or the latest movies or name any other thing you want you know, and accept, that not everyone will agree with you and an intense discussion will soon follow. It doesn't stop you from bringing it up however. Religion, however, gets a free pass every time. All someone has to do is say "This is my faith" and everyone else is expected to back off, nod our heads, and pretend we don't think you're bat-stuff crazy even though we do. It's the elephant in the living room nobody talks about. This non-confrontational, non-offending attitude is exactly what turns so-called moderates into so-called extremists because nobody has the guts to say "You're wrong, your beliefs are wrong, and here's why." Why is religion the one topic we can't ever have an honest debate about despite the obvious need for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And... We're done.

 

You're right that religion is a topic that makes some people uncomfortable (and politics is another). I suppose it has to do wth how strongly people feel about very personal beliefs. I'm sure there are places to discuss these topics (and to even discuss why people don't discuss these topics), but that place is not here.

 

I am closing this thread, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0