Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Wonder Of The Universe      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Cathysaint
Joined: 6/21/2011
Msg: 151
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The UniversePage 7 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
It is amazing, take The moon that is the child of The sun and Earth. It absorbs static and lower emotions.
They say to study yourself you have to study the universe and to study the universe you have to study yourself.
This is why men are Solar powered, women moon inflicted but of the earth, the earth is self contained
 Riskbreaker
Joined: 6/28/2007
Msg: 152
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/2/2011 8:05:10 AM
I find that those who think god made everything, actually shrink the size of the universe in their mind, thus making it far smaller, less beautiful, and less amazing. The universe, as is, requires no god to explain it. On another note, I somehow doubt, that if we ever get to explore other worlds, that we would continue to think earth is the greatest planet out there. There must be billions upon billions of worlds , and are all unique. Think about that. I would wager that it is very likely we are quite a average planet, in a average system, in a non-important corner of our galaxy. Of course, it could always be the other way around.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 153
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/13/2011 2:34:17 PM
kard and the rest

I don't need to read more stories and evolutionary dogma by your favourite fantasy writers.
scientific facts, would do just fine, but there obviously aren't any, or you would be rubbing them in my face, not stories and dogma.



If a population somehow becomes separated into two or more groups, any mutations occurring in one group will not spread in the other. If enough time passes and the environments the groups live in are different enough, they'll eventually become so different that individuals from one group can't reproduce with individuals from the other. This process is called speciation, as it splits a population of same-species organisms into two or more different species




yeah, and in the process the genetic information in the new guys gets to be less and less.
not a good example of your molecules to man story.

no adaptive change ever aquires new genetic information.

recombinations are all that ever happen.
 swamp_dude
Joined: 7/23/2007
Msg: 154
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/13/2011 4:51:50 PM
Actually I am sure I read somewhere that viruses can inject dna into things some times and that would change a genome's dna count.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 155
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/13/2011 8:53:40 PM

I don't need to read more stories and evolutionary dogma by your favourite fantasy writers.
scientific facts, would do just fine, but there obviously aren't any, or you would be rubbing them in my face, not stories and dogma.


Oh look! Argumentum ad absurdum! Along with a healthy dose of argumentum ad ignorantum! You don't want dogma? But you're prepared to believe in everything waved magically into existence by some magic sky man based on...what!?


yeah, and in the process the genetic information in the new guys gets to be less and less.
not a good example of your molecules to man story.


Especially since that's only a claim made by creationists. So now we have ye olde favourite creationist ploy known as the "straw man!"


no adaptive change ever aquires new genetic information.


Says who? Again, that's only an unsupported claim made by creationists. So another straw man! Congratulations! You do LOVE your fallacies, dontcha!


recombinations are all that ever happen.


And you have a citation for this?

Oh, please don't let it come from Answers in Genesis! That would be just TOO precious!
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 156
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:01:21 PM

Actually I am sure I read somewhere that viruses can inject dna into things some times and that would change a genome's dna count.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus#Human_endogenous_retroviruses

Also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187282/

Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication


Gene duplication is believed to play a major role in evolution; this stance has been held by members of the scientific community for over 100 years.[3] Susumu Ohno was one of the most famous developers of this theory in his classic book Evolution by gene duplication (1970).[4] Ohno argued that gene duplication is the most important evolutionary force since the emergence of the universal common ancestor.[5] Major genome duplication events are not uncommon. It is believed that the entire yeast genome underwent duplication about 100 million years ago.[6] Plants are the most prolific genome duplicators. For example, wheat is hexaploid (a kind of polyploid), meaning that it has six copies of its genome.
The duplication of a gene results in an additional copy that is free from selective pressure. One kind of view is that this allows the new copy of the gene to mutate without deleterious consequence to the organism. This freedom from consequences allows for the mutation of novel genes that could potentially increase the fitness of the organism or code for a new function. An example of this is the apparent mutation of a duplicated digestive gene in a family of ice fish into an antifreeze gene.


So apparently insistences that "adding" information is impossible would be WRONG!!!
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 157
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:32:06 PM
message 157

hey bozzo, know what all the "is believed" means?
it means they don't have a clue.
whatever goes along with the fantasy!

gene duplication is recombination, do you know anything??

now to read a bit about your links, guess what I expect to find?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 158
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/14/2011 1:03:50 PM

hey bozzo


Well, here's an indication of the intellectual level we're dealing with. Not only do you so readily resort to hurling insults, you didn't even spell it right.


know what all the "is believed" means?
it means they don't have a clue.


No, it means that all that is the current status of evidence. All scientific knowledge is probationary and open to revision based on new evidence. That isn't a weakness. It's science's greatest strength. Unlike reliance on magic sky man. In which case, we can rely on him to fill in all the gaps and use him to justify our own senses of moral superiority in the process!


whatever goes along with the fantasy!


Ah yes, but an unseen, unproven magic sorcerer in the sky who magically snaps his fingers and makes everything appear all at once makes SOOOOO much more sense. Sure. You go with that. Whatever helps you feel better.


gene duplication is recombination, do you know anything??


Do you? Do you understand the word "duplication?" So if I have one donut and it's duplicated, how many donuts do I have?


now to read a bit about your links, guess what I expect to find?


Exactly what your personal preference and bias expects to find. Not that it's actually what is there. Again, typical creationist dishonesty.
 Kardinal Offishall
Joined: 2/26/2010
Msg: 159
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/16/2011 4:07:03 PM
aremeself:




I don't need to read more stories and evolutionary dogma by your favourite fantasy writers.
scientific facts, would do just fine, but there obviously aren't any, or you would be rubbing them in my face, not stories and dogma.


I'm rubbing it in your face by citing whole textbooks filled with the evidence. But I don't expect you to take the time to look, because I already know that you're closed off and irrational in these matters.




yeah, and in the process the genetic information in the new guys gets to be less and less.


Negative. Also, your notion of genetic information is rather wrongheaded and quaint.




no adaptive change ever aquires new genetic information.


It's called mutation. I don't think you even read the Dawkins book.




gene duplication is recombination, do you know anything??


A hot topic in molecular and evolutionary genetics in recent times has been exactly what Stargazer has pointed out to you. In fact, according to current estimates, copy number variation (CNV for short) explains on the order of 12% of the DNA in the human genome.

There have been events such as segmental duplications, inversions, translocations, and indels (insertions/deletions). I could also talk about how such evolutionary events were very likely necessary for you to read the screen you're reading now and do the sorts of things you do everyday, but I don't think you're ready for that yet.

And we haven't even mentioned features like cis-regulatory regions of the genome, which are implicated in epigenetic processes and organismic development, and which now seem to be perhaps the most critical factor explaining the sorts of divergences that have occurred between us and our nearest relatives the chimps in the intervening 6 million years since we split from the common ancestor.

There is now mountains of this sort of evidence available, all of which is accumulating at an increasing clip through sequencing and comparative analyses, among other things.

I pity people like you and your self-imposed ignorance. Do yourself a favor and step into the light.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 160
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/16/2011 9:58:58 PM
The OP.

I really enjoyed watching the wonders of the universe series by Brian Cox, there are amazing things out there, but one thing was clear to me, that there is nothing known of out in the universe that comes even remotely close to the Earth, the Earth is by far the most amazing place known of in the universe, any thoughts on this ?

Amazing things?


The universe has some quite large objects in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sun_and_VY_Canis_Majoris.svg
Placed in our solar system, VY Canis Majoris's surface would extend beyond the orbit of Saturn, although the astrophysicists Philip Massey, Emily Levesque and Bertrand Plez disagree about the star's stated radius, suggesting it is smaller: merely 600 times the size of the Sun, extending past the orbit of Mars.


http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/pistol.htm
The Pistol Star is a celestial mammoth that releases up to 10 billion times more power than the Sun and a 100 times more massive. It unleashes as much energy in six seconds as our Sun does in one year!
The Pistol Star is 25,000 light years away from the earth. A light year is the distance light travels in a year, about 6 trillion miles.

The Pistol Star was first seen in the early 1990s with infrared equipment on Earth-based telescopes. But it wasn't until similar heat-detecting instruments aboard the Hubble Space Telescope could provide a better look that the UCLA team realized the star's significance. This Pistol Star has an estimated diameter of 186 million to 280 million miles. The Sun has a diameter of less than a million miles across and is 93 million miles from the earth. It's stellar wind is over 10 billion times stronger than the Sun's. It is so hot that gravity cannot stabilize it and hold it together.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V838_Monocerotis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:V838_Mon_HST.jpg
On January 6, 2002, an unknown star was seen to brighten up in Monoceros, the Unicorn. Being a new variable star, it was designated V838 Monocerotis, the 838th variable star of Monoceros. The initial light curve resembled that of a nova, an eruption that occurs when enough hydrogen gas has accumulated on the surface of a white dwarf from its close binary companion. Therefore it was also designated Nova Monocerotis 2002. V838 Monocerotis reached maximum visual magnitude of 6.75 on February 6, 2002, after which it started to dim rapidly, as expected. However, in early March the star started to brighten again, this time mostly in infrared wavelengths. Yet another brightening in infrared occurred in early April, after which the star returned to near its original brightness before the eruption, magnitude 15.6. The lightcurve produced by the eruption is unlike anything previously seen.

The star brightened to about a million times solar luminosity ensuring that at the time of maximum V838 Monocerotis was one of the most luminous stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star-sizes.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_stars


But luckily, the universe is pretty big.

http://www.universetoday.com/37409/how-big-is-the-universe/
Recent measurements reveal that the Universe is at least 150 billion light-years in diameter.

http://htwins.net/scale/
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/redshift.html
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/howfar/howfar.html
http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/universcale/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28length%29


Yet the universe is made of really small things.
http://isaacmmcphee.suite101.com/the-scale-of-atoms-a45630.html
Much of the difficulty scientists had in discovering, and then proving the existence of, atoms, is their size. Something so small had never before been defined.

For something to be seen by the human eye, it has simply to be larger than the wavelength of light.
The shortest wavelength of visible light is just under 400 nm (that is, nanometers, or billionths of a meter). In comparison, the widest of all atoms sits comfortably somewhere around 500 pm (picometers = trillionths of meters). In other words, it would take more than a thousand of the largest possible atoms laying side by side for them to be even possibly seen by the most powerful optical microscope in existence.

After a while, scientists began to realize that an atom, in actuality, is made up of mostly empty space. The parts that make them up (protons, neutrons and electrons) compose only a tiny fraction of the total atom. The nucleus, in fact (which is where 99.9% of all the mass is located) is roughly ten thousand times smaller than the total size of the atom.

Today, many physicists believe matter (including atoms themselves) to be made up of the tiniest things of all – little vibrating strings. If this were the case, the theory would dictate that these strings be somewhere around the Planck length, which is thought to be the smallest possible size in existence, somewhere around a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. To these things, atoms might seem as large as the entire universe is to humanity.

In other words, one must truly change their entire perception of size in order to even begin to understand modern physics. But at least it should give everyone an appreciate of the difficulties involved with the formation of atomic theory.


The universe has some quite strange objects in it too.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/features/quasarWater/
Two teams of astronomers have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in Earth’s oceans, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away.

A quasar is powered by an enormous black hole that steadily consumes a surrounding disk of gas and dust. As it eats, the quasar spews out huge amounts of energy. Both groups of astronomers studied a particular quasar called APM 08279+5255, which harbors a black hole 20 billion times more massive than the Sun and produces as much energy as a thousand trillion Suns.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110718151737.htm
NASA's Dawn Spacecraft Returns Close-Up Image of Giant Asteroid Vesta.
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2011) — NASA's Dawn spacecraft has returned the first close-up image after beginning its orbit around the giant asteroid Vesta. On Friday, July 15, Dawn became the first probe to enter orbit around an object in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Vesta is 330 miles (530 kilometers) in diameter and the second most massive object in the asteroid belt. Ground and space-based telescopes have obtained images of Vesta for about two centuries, but they have not been able to see much detail on its surface.



And the Universe is pretty old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
The age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years (or 13.75 Gigayears) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. This is however only the estimated time since the Big Bang. It is not known if something existed before the singularity that we call Big Bang, nor if time is linear, since the expansion estimated by Hubble's law assumed a linear expansion, and later work indicates there may have been variations. The estimated changes in expansion are calculated to be both positive and negative, so Hubble and later estimates broadly agree.

The uncertainty range for the age of the universe has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects. These projects included microwave background radiation measurements by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes, and more ways to measure the expansion of the universe. Background radiation measurements give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang. Expansion of the universe measurements give accurate data to calculate the age of the universe.


In light of the above, to say (as the OP did) that "the Earth is by far the most amazing place known of in the universe" is to reveal either a narrow, or lack of, perspective. There's no doubt the Earth is pretty amazing, not to mention kind of handy since we wouldn't exist without it, but it's just one amazing thing in what appears to be a near infinite list.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 161
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/20/2011 9:00:55 AM

In light of the above, to say (as the OP did) that "the Earth is by far the most amazing place known of in the universe" is to reveal either a narrow, or lack of, perspective. There's no doubt the Earth is pretty amazing, not to mention kind of handy since we wouldn't exist without it, but it's just one amazing thing in what appears to be a near infinite list.


what is being described above is physical phenomenon, which is awesome in general...however, none can compare to what you have on Earth....which is far more amazing, in that you have "life" and consciousness...the kind that allows us to be able to know (as best as we can) our own universe!.......so unless we come across beings far more advanced than ourselves, we and the planet that has spawned us...are BY FAR the most amazing thing in the known Universe!
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 162
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/21/2011 9:28:53 PM
the most amazing thing in the universe is that some think, after it is all said, that it all happen by itself, inevitable.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 163
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/21/2011 10:36:43 PM

what is being described above is physical phenomenon, which is awesome in general...however, none can compare to what you have on Earth....which is far more amazing, in that you have "life" and consciousness...the kind that allows us to be able to know (as best as we can) our own universe!.......so unless we come across beings far more advanced than ourselves, we and the planet that has spawned us...are BY FAR the most amazing thing in the known Universe!

It seems you share the OP's narrow point of view.


The mediocrity principle, as the Copernican principle, states that life on Earth depends on just a few basic molecules, the elements that make up these molecules are (to a greater or lesser extent) common to all stars, and the laws of science we know apply to the entire universe (and there is no reason to assume that they do not). Given sufficient time, it seems reasonable to expect that life would originate somewhere, and has probably originated elsewhere in the cosmos. This idea is bolstered by Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe is substantially larger than humans first thought. The Hubble Deep Field is a long exposure of thousands of galaxies, making it one of the best pictorial representations of the principle of mediocrity.

The traditional formulation of the Copernican mediocrity principle is usually played out in the following way:
Ancients of the Middle East and west once thought that the Earth was at the center of the universe, but Copernicus proposed that the Sun was at the center. In the 1930s, RJ Trumpler found that the solar system was not at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy (as Jacobus Kapteyn claimed), but 56% of the way out to the rim from the galaxy's core. In the mid-twentieth century, George Gamow (et al.) demonstrated that although it appears that our Galaxy is at the center of an expanding universe (in accordance with Hubble's law), every point in space could be experiencing the same phenomenon. And, at the end of the twentieth century, Geoff Marcy and colleagues discovered that extrasolar planets are quite common, putting to rest the idea that the Sun is unusual in having planets. In short, Copernican mediocrity is a series of astronomical findings that the Earth is a relatively ordinary planet orbiting a relatively ordinary star in a relatively ordinary galaxy which is one of countless others in a giant universe, possibly within an infinite multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle


We know enough to know that it's (highly) likely other habitable planets exist and we know enough to know that it's possible, if not likely, some form of life will occupy some, if not all, of them.
We don't know which ones though, or what form that life might take. So to claim the Earth, and the life and consciousness resident thereon, are "BY FAR the most amazing thing in the known Universe" is to state a subjective opinion, based on inadequate information, as if it were some kind of absolute. The proviso "in the known Universe" doesn't save the claim by the way, it just reveals the narrow triviality of the point of view.

It's much the same as claiming, when no one else is in proximity, that your own feet are BY FAR the most amazing feet in the entire observable Universe. Which doesn't mean they are, or that your feet are the least bit remarkable in any way.

Besides, though extant 'life' and 'consciousness' are pretty amazing and wonderous things, the definitions of 'wonder' and 'amazing' (as adjectives) have no actual requirement that life or consciousness be involved, so it's presumptive to suppose that 'life and consciousness' (especially here on earth) must automatically trump any other 'amazing' or 'wonderful' thing at all, let alone "BY FAR".

If there's an objective scale by which one can rank 'amazing' or 'wonderous' things perhaps you'd be good enough to post a link to it?
Meanwhile, as I said - though the Earth and its contents are no doubt amazing and wonderous, it appears to be just one item on, possibly, an infinite list.


the most amazing thing in the universe is that some think, after it is all said, that it all happen by itself, inevitable.

Who thinks that? And what do you mean by "it all happen by itself, inevitable."?
What is it? What does "it all happen" signify? What do you mean by "by itself"?

Apologies if English isn't your first language.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 164
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/22/2011 12:20:31 AM
the universe was created by some 'came out of nowhere phenomena'.

ends up meaning by itself, no direction, except that it is governed by a set of very fine tuned, closely related laws, that many think is pretty fluky.
 andyaa
Joined: 12/20/2006
Msg: 165
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/22/2011 12:34:20 AM
ends up meaning by itself, no direction, except that it is governed by a set of very fine tuned, closely related laws, that many think is pretty fluky.


I find this kind of proof argument a bit naïve. Why should it be a surprise to you that we take our perception of the reality we see and to make sense of it, create an order to it, then claim that there is some sort of order to it... then for some this is proof that there must be a God! I recently watched a program on maths where they were demonstrating how nature has a code… I’m not surprised when we take our number system from nature then wonder why nature has a number system. You can see this is false reasoning when you look at the micro level (quantum level) where our perception of reality does not make sense… 1+1 may not equal 2, things can be in 2 places at once etc. Because we haven’t evolved at the quantum level this is counter intuitive to our evolved state, suddenly the universe isn’t so finely tuned.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 166
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/22/2011 7:33:11 PM

We know enough to know that it's (highly) likely other habitable planets exist and we know enough to know that it's possible, if not likely, some form of life will occupy some, if not all, of them.


..if i'm not mistaken; you are saying this ^ because of the copernican principle stating that life on earth depends upon a "few basic molecules" that are commonly found in other stars/planets and thus subject to the same laws???.......and thus from this, you've made the assertion that it is "HIGHLY LIKELY" that there are other habitable planets...and that there is "some form of life that will occupy some if not all"????????....are you serious!

Man, do you realize the absurdity inherent what you just stated?....what you are saying is somewhat analogous to saying that if you mix a certain portion of atoms that make up DNA in a vat, add a pinch of protein and trace metals...then add sufficient water to dilute the elements to a 3--4% solution, then heat at 37 degrees indefinitely....and POW!!!..you'll have a humanoid life form crawl outta the vat!

I hope you realize that there needs to be a HELL of a lot more than just some atoms & molecules to conglomerate to have "life"....you talk as if life is everywhere in the Universe, and what is laffable is that you don't (and can't) have so much as a shred of evidence to sustain what you've stated, except somebody's far fetched conjecture...that tries to somehow justify the ubiquitous-ness of life on the basis that worlds far apart share common elements


it seems reasonable to expect that life would originate somewhere, and has probably originated elsewhere in the cosmos.


this is merely your own opinion, as you have no clear basis whatsoever, to make such a statement...though life elsewhere is not impossible....it is presumptuous to 'expect' it in the way you've stated...as that is based on fallacious reasoning!


This idea is bolstered by Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe is substantially larger than humans first thought.


^^ another fallacious assumption insinuating that because the Universe is bigger than we thought,...it somehow means that there surely must be an abundance of "life" within it!...............well, the sahara desert is certainly a large and wide expanse (by earthly standards), but you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of enclaves within it that can comfortably harbor human existence!...the point being is that 'Bigger' does not necessarily mean a greater likely hood of life-existing worlds!


Earth is a relatively ordinary planet orbiting a relatively ordinary star in a relatively ordinary galaxy which is one of countless others in a giant universe


just because the earth falls into somebody's version of what is considered an "ordinary" planet in an "ordinary" galaxy...does not make it that AT ALL!...nor does it in any way increase that such "ordinary"planets will be more likely to harbor life, than some others !!!....the description "ordinary" works well on a MACRO level, however, it is totally meaningless when looking at a planet (its gravity, distance from its sun, constituents that make up its unique properties) close up for comparative purposes...you can call every planet in our solar system as "ordinary" and it would not mean a damn thing!.......... What is a FACT, is that planet Earth is Super-extra ordinary simply because ALL of the near INFINITE variables that had to take place, in the order in which they did, did INDEED take place on a world(earth) that was just the 'right' distance from the Sun...so as to form an environment suitable for the development of life as we have it........which is certainly an Amazing wonder SECOND to none!!!


so it's presumptive to suppose that 'life and consciousness' (especially here on earth) must automatically trump any other 'amazing' or 'wonderful' thing at all, let alone "BY FAR".


Until such time that we encounter a life form that is more advanced (or even as advanced) as humans are then...the and only then will make room on the podium!!!....otherwise, life on earth (spear-headed by Homo sapiens) is the most Amazing wonder of this Universe....hands down!


If there's an objective scale by which one can rank 'amazing' or 'wonderous' things


yeah!...the same objective scale that you use (or have accepted) to rank which planets are 'ordinary' and which aren't!
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 167
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/22/2011 9:54:42 PM

We know enough to know that it's (highly) likely other habitable planets exist and we know enough to know that it's possible, if not likely, some form of life will occupy some, if not all, of them.

..if i'm not mistaken; you are saying this ^ because of the copernican principle stating that life on earth depends upon a "few basic molecules" that are commonly found in other stars/planets and thus subject to the same laws???.......and thus from this, you've made the assertion that it is "HIGHLY LIKELY" that there are other habitable planets...and that there is "some form of life that will occupy some if not all"????????....are you serious!

(My bold)
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Which is possibly what has led you to then go on to distort and entirely misinterpret the rest of what I said.

I quoted the 'Copernican principle' from Wikipedia to illustrate the long debunked, old-hatted nature of your assertion that Earth, and the life and consciousness thereon, are somehow 'special'.
That's why I quoted your statement, noted the narrow perspective, and then quoted the Wikipedia entry on the 'Copernican principle' right after it.


As for the statements of probability you also seem to object to, though the copernican principle does touch on such things, I wasn't basing my speculations on that at all.
Recall that I posted the copernican principle entry in response to your reiteration of the (OP's) narrow view regarding the primacy of 'Earth', which you had asserted in response to my only other post on this thread - regarding the scale of infinity and the 'wonders' it produces.

So the statements of probability you object to, and the clue is in the phrase "highly likely", are speculations related to the concept of infinity.
The second part is a statement of possibility related to studies that show basic chemicals (elements) do self organise and form compounds.

It's worth noting that I've established plausible reasoning based on known facts while the best you can do to refute anything I've said is insert multiple question marks ("????????") and ask hypothetically if I'm serious ("!").
You realise that's not debate hey? Not reasoned argument? And not the least bit persuasive?
It's just reiteration of the same narrow argument from a base of incredulity or ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


it seems reasonable to expect that life would originate somewhere, and has probably originated elsewhere in the cosmos.

this is merely your own opinion, as you have no clear basis whatsoever, to make such a statement...though life elsewhere is not impossible....it is presumptuous to 'expect' it in the way you've stated...as that is based on fallacious reasoning!

Firstly, it's a misrepresentation ascribe the quoted sentence to me and describe it as my "opinion", and claim I "have no clear basis whatsoever, to make such a statement..." since I didn't write it.
You've lifted it from the Wikipedia quote describing the 'copernican principle' - which I remind you was only posted to illustrate the narrow perspective resident in the point of view that Earth is especially unique or necessarily occupies centre stage in any informed view of what 'the universe' is.


This idea is bolstered by Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe is substantially larger than humans first thought.

^^ another fallacious assumption insinuating that because the Universe is bigger than we thought,...it somehow means that there surely must be an abundance of "life" within it!...............well, the sahara desert is certainly a large and wide expanse (by earthly standards), but you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of enclaves within it that can comfortably harbor human existence!...the point being is that 'Bigger' does not necessarily mean a greater likely hood of life-existing worlds!

Again you're not responding to anything I've written, but rather the Wikipedia quote without making it clear that's what you're doing. Be that as it may, your response only re-illustrates your tendency to misinterpret and distort meaning, regardless of the source.

The idea that "the universe is substantially larger than humans first thought" isn't a "fallacious assumption", it's a fact. And nor does it, or the paragraph proceeding it in the original quote, contain any implications that it "somehow means that there surely must be an abundance of "life" within it!"
That's merely a distortion you've inserted, a strawman, that you attempt to discredit with, once again, incredulity rather than logic or reasoned argument.
You may think your "Sahara desert" analogy is logical, reasoned argument? But all it does is demonstrate you've failed to grasp the concept of infinity.

One might eventually count the number of "enclaves within it (the Sahara desert) that can comfortably harbor human existence", and even, given enough time, every single grain of sand. One could then go on to count every single grain of sand on all the worlds beaches, then add the numbers together and double it, then multiply it by a trillion trillion yet still not be any nearer to 'infinity' than when one started.
So to suppose, using a Sahara desert analogy, that you've somehow illustrated 'big' and therefore demolished the likelihood that life might exist elsewhere in the universe is to display limited comprehension.
Speaking of which...

just because the earth falls into somebody's version of what is considered an "ordinary" planet in an "ordinary" galaxy...does not make it that AT ALL!...nor does it in any way increase that such "ordinary"planets will be more likely to harbor life, than some others !!!....the description "ordinary" works well on a MACRO level, however, it is totally meaningless when looking at a planet (its gravity, distance from its sun, constituents that make up its unique properties) close up for comparative purposes...you can call every planet in our solar system as "ordinary" and it would not mean a damn thing!.......... What is a FACT, is that planet Earth is Super-extra ordinary simply because ALL of the near INFINITE variables that had to take place, in the order in which they did, did INDEED take place on a world(earth) that was just the 'right' distance from the Sun...so as to form an environment suitable for the development of life as we have it........which is certainly an Amazing wonder SECOND to none!!!

So it isn't just the idea of infinity you struggle with then, you didn't really 'get' the concept of the Copernican principle either?

Until such time that we encounter a life form that is more advanced (or even as advanced) as humans are then...the and only then will make room on the podium!!!....otherwise, life on earth (spear-headed by Homo sapiens) is the most Amazing wonder of this Universe....hands down!

No, I guess not.


If there's an objective scale by which one can rank 'amazing' or 'wonderous' things perhaps you'd be good enough to post a link to it?

yeah!...the same objective scale that you use (or have accepted) to rank which planets are 'ordinary' and which aren't!

I wasn't, and didn't, 'rank' any planets and I haven't said, despite your implication to the contrary, that any planet is more 'ordinary' than any other.
Actually I've said more than once that Earth, not to mention the life and consciousness thereon, are indeed wonderous and amazing.
All I did was introduce a concept of equality based on known facts.

It was you that claimed, and continue to claim, that 'Earth' is inherently special. And despite me asking you to produce evidence for your ranking all you've done is used misrepresentation, distortion, logical fallacies, multiple question marks, capitalisation, and various forms of speech emphasis.
None of which amount to anything other than either dishonest or inept debating tactics.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 168
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/23/2011 11:01:33 PM
The wonder of the Universe is very clear. Its you. Its me. Its Joe over in England. Its my mother from and father from? Its the moment you awake. Then it happens. Its even the folks who fight to death over nothing. But! You can add some very salient and important facts about why we exist because its been proven that its so. Yet....who is really inept? I do not imagine even that the slight and ballet inspired grasshopper fails at being the Wonder Of The Universe.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 169
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/24/2011 3:12:56 AM

The wonder of the Universe is very clear. Its you. Its me. Its Joe over in England. Its my mother from and father from? Its the moment you awake. Then it happens. Its even the folks who fight to death over nothing. But! You can add some very salient and important facts about why we exist because its been proven that its so. Yet....who is really inept? I do not imagine even that the slight and ballet inspired grasshopper fails at being the Wonder Of The Universe.

I guess you too must think 'the universe' is either a euphemism or synonym for 'the earth', since nothing in your post refers to 'the universe' at all.
But not to worry, probably nothing of much consequence exists beyond the terrestrial horizon.

Which is, just out of interest, about 5 kms away for an observer at sea level.
 colt8301
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 170
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/24/2011 3:39:31 AM

that there is nothing known of out in the universe that comes even remotely close to the Earth, the Earth is by far the most amazing place known of in the universe, any thoughts on this ?


As far as we know.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 171
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/24/2011 8:15:23 PM

you are mistaken. Which is possibly what has led you to then go on to distort and entirely misinterpret the rest of what I said.


...hardly!


I quoted the 'Copernican principle' from Wikipedia to illustrate the long debunked, old-hatted nature of your assertion that Earth, and the life and consciousness thereon, are somehow 'special'.


i realize that this is exactly what you 'intended' to do....however, your attempt to do so, in no way 'debunks' my assertion that the earth (and the life on it) are the most wondrous things in the Universe....simply because a large part of what was asserted by ancient thinkers regarding Earth was largely shaped by religious dogma...which was slowly supplanted by scientific facts that were brought to light in the modern era

what i am a proponent of(earth & its wondrous gift of life) is not steeped in such dogma...but rather, is a fact that is not only self evident...but so stupendous that it cannot in any way be topped or trumped by any other physical phenomenon anywhere else(no matter how vast the Universe)...save for the exception of the possible (however improbable) existence of another civilization as cognitive as (or better than) ourselves!!!


it's a misrepresentation ascribe the quoted sentence to me and describe it as my "opinion", and claim I "have no clear basis whatsoever, to make such a statement..." since I didn't write it.


you didn't have to!...as i very much understand why you posted it....but lets no lose sight upon where you stand (see your statement below!)

"So to claim the Earth, and the life and consciousness resident thereon, are "BY FAR the most amazing thing in the known Universe" is to state a subjective opinion, based on inadequate information, as if it were some kind of absolute."

You are calling my observation ^ (of the life and consciousness produced on earth)...as a "subjective" opinion....when this very life & consciousness are a reality that is SELF EVIDENT!.....therefore, saying that it is a wondrous phenomenon is in NO WAY subjective, especially when we haven't found anything that remotely comes close to it........secondly, your remark about there not being adequate information is pathetically comical, when the facts are right there in your mirror.........Lastly, as it currently stands, WE ARE the "absolute"...we are the GOLD STANDARD of the evolution of matter within our Universe!.....(until we are trumped by some higher/advanced beings...who have yet to come along!...and who; much-less, may not even exist!).


Again you're not responding to anything I've written,


I don't have to, simply because you posted what you espouse by proxy of others...so i know where you stand.


The idea that "the universe is substantially larger than humans first thought" isn't a "fallacious assumption",


Read well, I didn't say it was!...but what is a fallacious assumption is the simplistic extrapolation that there must be a greater likelihood of there being other forms of life....on the basis that the Universe is bigger than we initially thought!


You may think your "Sahara desert" analogy is logical, reasoned argument?


...It sure is!...and if you took the time to understand it, you'd have seen that i was trying to make the obvious point that just because you have vast body(even if bigger than what was first thought!!) in existence doesn't necessarily portend a greater likelihood of abundant life within it!

I'm sorry it all went over your head!.....Btw, you should also take the time to really find out what constitutes a strawman argument, (since your entire premise may be founded on it!)


But all it does is demonstrate you've failed to grasp the concept of infinity.


...and what is it that makes YOU qualified to grasp the concept of infinity?......Lemme guess!...I bet its because you believe that there are an "infinite list" of wonders in the Universe...is that right?



I wasn't, and didn't, 'rank' any planets and I haven't said, despite your implication to the contrary, that any planet is more 'ordinary' than any other.


Do you agree with, or do you refute the the statement(below) from the excerpt that you put up?

"In short, Copernican mediocrity is a series of astronomical findings that the Earth is a relatively ordinary planet orbiting a relatively ordinary star in a relatively ordinary galaxy which is one of countless others"

If you agree with it then you have categorized Earth as "ordinary" based upon the commonality it has with other star systems....which (as i alluded to in my previous post) in effect, tells us NOTHING of the individual properties of Earth and the enormously arduous complex turn of events that morphed into what it is now, thus to make it TOTALLY unique in its position... in what is otherwise an 'odinary' looking planet in an 'ordinary' solar system!


All I did was introduce a concept of equality


...equality with WHAT?


....based on known facts.


what facts are these?.........you've made the bombastic claim that:

"We know enough to know that it's (highly) likely other habitable planets exist and we know enough to know that it's possible, if not likely, some form of life will occupy some, if not all,"

And you don't have a shred of evidence to back this ^ up....other than your far fetched suppositions........do you actually know what constitutes a FACT?


It was you that claimed, and continue to claim, that 'Earth' is inherently special


This ^ is NOT a claim...it is a FACT!.........and until we see high level life forms from another world, this will continue to be a fact!.......and i don't consider the so-called spectacular "light shows" from distant parts of the Universe as being on par to what there is Earth!


And despite me asking you to produce evidence for your ranking all you've done is used misrepresentation,


No, my 'friend'......the onus is on YOU to produce evidence for YOUR far fetched assumptions (that you've come to accept as "facts").
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 172
view profile
History
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/24/2011 11:39:41 PM

I quoted the 'Copernican principle' from Wikipedia to illustrate the long debunked, old-hatted nature of your assertion that Earth, and the life and consciousness thereon, are somehow 'special'.

i realize that this is exactly what you 'intended' to do....however, your attempt to do so, in no way 'debunks' my assertion that the earth (and the life on it) are the most wondrous things in the Universe.... simply because a large part of what was asserted by ancient thinkers regarding Earth was largely shaped by religious dogma...which was slowly supplanted by scientific facts that were brought to light in the modern era

what i am a proponent of(earth & its wondrous gift of life) is not steeped in such dogma...but rather, is a fact that is not only self evident...but so stupendous that it cannot in any way be topped or trumped by any other physical phenomenon anywhere else(no matter how vast the Universe)...save for the exception of the possible (however improbable) existence of another civilization as cognitive as (or better than) ourselves!!!

You confuse 'objective' reality with your 'subjective' impression of it. It may well be that you still cling to your earth centred view of the universe, whether you find secular justification or religious makes no difference, it still doesn't alter the facts of astronomy.


In short, Copernican mediocrity is a series of astronomical findings that the Earth is a relatively ordinary planet orbiting a relatively ordinary star in a relatively ordinary galaxy which is one of countless others in a giant universe, possibly within an infinite multiverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

Those are the facts right there ^^^


So to claim the Earth, and the life and consciousness resident thereon, are "BY FAR the most amazing thing in the known Universe" is to state a subjective opinion, based on inadequate information, as if it were some kind of absolute."


You are calling my observation ^ (of the life and consciousness produced on earth)...as a "subjective" opinion....when this very life & consciousness are a reality that is SELF EVIDENT!.....therefore, saying that it is a wondrous phenomenon is in NO WAY subjective, /snip/

You misunderstand, I wasn't calling your observation that 'life and consciousness (exist on earth)' a subjective opinion, since that is, as you say, self evident. The subjective opinion you expressed is the part I helpfully put in quotation marks ie; that this life and consciousness is "BY FAR the most amazing thing in the known Universe".

As I said, there is no objective 'scale', as far as I know, that rates 'wonderousness' or 'amazingness', and I even asked you to provide the link on the off chance that you knew of one. You couldn't though.
So it follows that expressions of supreme amazingness that must, or probably will, trump all other possible instances of 'wonder' and 'amazingness' "BY FAR" (even those yet unknown) can only be a subjective opinion based on inadequate information.
Which is, you may recall, what I labeled your statement as being.


You may think your "Sahara desert" analogy is logical, reasoned argument?

...It sure is!...and if you took the time to understand it, you'd have seen that i was trying to make the obvious point that just because you have vast body(even if bigger than what was first thought!!) in existence doesn't necessarily portend a greater likelihood of abundant life within it!

I'm sorry it all went over your head!.....Btw, you should also take the time to really find out what constitutes a strawman argument, (since your entire premise may be founded on it!)

No, it didn't go over my head, that should have been obvious by the effort I took to illustrate the difference in scale between the Sahara Desert in relation to the Earth vs the Earth in relation to the Universe - which may be infinitely large.
That you don't understand the distinction is probably the reason you cling to the earth-centric concept you continue to espouse in spite of the overwhelming evidence it's a narrow point of view that necessarily ignores vast swathes of known facts.


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The 'straw man' was resident in your creative reinterpretation of the statement - "Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe is substantially larger than humans first thought." to be saying - "because the Universe is bigger than we thought,...it somehow means that there surely must be an abundance of "life" within it!", just so you could call it "another fallacious assumption".
That's a straw man, is it not?


...and what is it that makes YOU qualified to grasp the concept of infinity?......Lemme guess!...I bet its because you believe that there are an "infinite list" of wonders in the Universe...is that right?

Where have I said that? Are you trying to erect another straw man?
I've used such terms as 'appears to be' and 'is likely'. I've referred to 'possibilities' and 'probabilities'. I've tried to illustrate, impossible though it is, the concept and scale of infinity and the implications thereof regarding 'wonders' and 'amazing' things.
Yet you are willing to "bet" I 'believe' in some definitive, infinitely long, list of unspecified 'wonders'?
What might be on this infinitely long list you're so sure I believe in?


I wasn't, and didn't, 'rank' any planets and I haven't said, despite your implication to the contrary, that any planet is more 'ordinary' than any other.

Do you agree with, or do you refute the the statement (below) from the excerpt that you put up?

"In short, Copernican mediocrity is a series of astronomical findings that the Earth is a relatively ordinary planet orbiting a relatively ordinary star in a relatively ordinary galaxy which is one of countless others"

If you agree with it then you have categorized Earth as "ordinary" based upon the commonality it has with other star systems....which (as i alluded to in my previous post) in effect, tells us NOTHING of the individual properties of Earth and the enormously arduous complex turn of events that morphed into what it is now, thus to make it TOTALLY unique in its position... in what is otherwise an 'odinary' looking planet in an 'ordinary' solar system!

Umm... the Copernican statement doesn't rank any planet as any more, or less, 'ordinary' than any other, so I don't know why you'd think that me agreeing with it contradicts the (my) statement about not ranking anything.

You could just as easily re-write the Copernican statement to say that Earth is a wonderously amazing planet orbiting a wonderously amazing star in a wonderously amazing galaxy which is one of countless wonderously amazing others. It would still be true, would still not contain the ranking system you seem to discern in it, and would still contain the concept of equality you apparently find so difficult to grasp.


...equality with WHAT?

It's a bit late in the day to admit you haven't noticed the rest of the universe don't you think?


We know enough to know that it's (highly) likely other habitable planets exist and we know enough to know that it's possible, if not likely, some form of life will occupy some, if not all,"

And you don't have a shred of evidence to back this ^ up....other than your far fetched suppositions........do you actually know what constitutes a FACT?

I haven't referred to any 'facts' that aren't established. I invite you to post an example of me doing otherwise.
If you think, or are sure, the statement I made is untrue, or lacks evidentiary support, I invite you to refute it with contrary evidence rather than opinionated aspersions about "far fetched suppositions" and meta-claims about the unstated definition of the word 'fact'.

Wherever I've referred to unknowns I've used equivocal qualifiers, which is where I differ from you in your claims of the primacy of Earth in relation to an unknown, possibly infinitely large, universe.
Recall that -

It was you that claimed, and continue to claim, that 'Earth' is inherently special

This ^ is NOT a claim...it is a FACT!.........and until we see high level life forms from another world, this will continue to be a fact!.......and i don't consider the so-called spectacular "light shows" from distant parts of the Universe as being on par to what there is Earth!

Do you really have all the information necessary to claim that as a "FACT"?
Provisional 'facts' aren't 'FACTS' at all, especially if they're later shown to be untrue, but either way - a claim isn't a 'FACT' until or unless either all the information is in, or the evidence is overwhelming in support of it.
A lie isn't 'the truth' up until the point, or unless, someone proves it's a lie. It was always a lie regardless.
And well... the evidence we do actually have points to the implication that the Earth is not as wonderously and amazingly remarkable as once thought.


No, my 'friend'......the onus is on YOU to produce evidence for YOUR far fetched assumptions (that you've come to accept as "facts").

I'm not your friend, and I have produced evidence to support everything I've said.
In fact, everything I've said has been mere commentary on the evidence I've produced.

All you've been able to muster in counter-argument is your personal incredulity (No! The EARTH is the best BY FAR! That's not a FACT! You can't be serious! etc etc), which amount to nothing in terms of (the debate on) the question raised in the OP.
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 173
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/25/2011 9:25:42 PM

You confuse 'objective' reality with your 'subjective' impression of it.


Not at all!.......what we have on earth is (thus far) unparalleled compared to what we've seen by way of optical (and other) instruments of our Universe, and on that FACT alone,....we can regarded ourselves & earth as the most 'wondrous' phenomenon, because of the FACT that nothing comparable to us has been found...which(so far) is something that no sane person would argue with!


whether you find secular justification or religious makes no difference,


yes it does!,...as those who do so from religious grounds have had an interest in promoting a religious agenda; whereas i do not...thus my, "earth centered view" (your words) come as a function of what is indisputably in existence (as compared to that which isn't!)!


Those are the facts right there


What is a Fact is that there are numerous stars & planets.....What IS NOT a fact, is how someone has decided to 'brand' such worlds & stars as "ordinary" based upon what would amount to no more than a basic bird's eye view through a telescope!


possibly within an infinite multiverse.


^ this is very far cry from what would be considered as Fact!


The subjective opinion you expressed is the part I helpfully put in quotation marks ie; that this life and consciousness is "BY FAR the most amazing thing in the known Universe".


^ this is NOT just a subjective opinion (which is what you've failed to grasp!), because the statement "by far the most amazing thing in the Universe".... is predicated on the FACT that (so far)there is nothing comparable (to earth & the milieu that brought forth life) anywhere in the Universe we've observed!


I haven't referred to any 'facts' that aren't established. I invite you to post an example of me doing otherwise.


Gladly!...(see below)

""We know enough to know that it's (highly) likely other habitable planets exist and we know enough to know that it's possible, if not likely, some form of life will occupy some, if not all,""

Now please tell us, in no uncertain terms....what HARD FACTS do you base this ^ pompous statement on?



Wherever I've referred to unknowns I've used equivocal qualifiers,


Not true!....there are no such qualifiers in the statement you posted:

""We know enough to know that it's (highly) likely other habitable planets exist and we know enough to know that it's possible, if not likely, some form of life will occupy some, if not all,""


You could just as easily re-write the Copernican statement to say that Earth is a wonderously amazing planet orbiting a wonderously amazing star in a wonderously amazing galaxy which is one of countless wonderously amazing others.


Which is why I would not accept it!


would still not contain the ranking system you seem to discern in it, and would still contain the concept of equality you apparently find so difficult to grasp.


again you don't understand!...its not the ranking concept per se that i am opposed to...but rather the dubious criteria used in ascribing such rank (or lack of rank)


Do you really have all the information necessary to claim that as a "FACT"?


Huh?....you are asking if i have all the information necessary to claim that the earth is inherently special....as a FACT?

the fact that we are 2 earthlings are here discussing this very question...makes us and every living thing here (that has the same potential) as inherently special!


Provisional 'facts' aren't 'FACTS' at all, especially if they're later shown to be untrue,


even if a more advanced alien civilization is discovered...there is nothing that will be brought forth so as to discredit demean our existence.


The 'straw man' was resident in your creative reinterpretation of the statement - "Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe is substantially larger than humans first thought." to be saying - "because the Universe is bigger than we thought,...it somehow means that there surely must be an abundance of "life" within it!", just so you could call it "another fallacious assumption".
That's a straw man, is it not?


No it isn't....because i did not try to refute Hubble's claim that the Universe was substantially bigger than first thought....i merely used the "sahara" analogy to illustrate the point that however vast a body (or universe) may be (whether or not we knew of its true size)....doesn't necessarily(or automatically) mean that there is a greater likelihood of life harbored within it!.......which is what i believe that you were insinuating (albeit indirectly); otherwise, why would you have even bothered posting it!


Where have I said that?


Glad you asked....its right here (below):

""There's no doubt the Earth is pretty amazing, not to mention kind of handy since we wouldn't exist without it, but it's just one amazing thing in WHAT APPEARS TO BE A NEAR INFINITE LIST"""


Are you trying to erect another straw man?


no, i'm just trying to refresh your memory...of what you wrote!...and remember that the key to a good memory is to be able to pay attention to what you are doing (or saying) at that very point in time!


I've used such terms as 'appears to be' and 'is likely'. I've referred to 'possibilities' and 'probabilities'.


...and none of which does anything to bolster your assertion that...there are a near infinite list of 'amazing' things that are on par with that of Earth!


I've tried to illustrate, impossible though it is, the concept and scale of infinity and the implications thereof regarding 'wonders' and 'amazing' things.


and this maybe the very source of your error, as you cannot ascribe a scale to 'infinity'...infinity in the true sense is undefinable...thus it is "impossible' (using your term) to do so!


What might be on this infinitely long list you're so sure I believe in?


you tell us!....notwithstanding that you just said how 'impossible' it would be to erect such a scale!


I have produced evidence to support everything I've said.


you may think you have!


I'm not your friend,


I know...and if you noticed, i put the word friend in quotations to denote it as a term of mockery... much like you have made a mockery of that which truly constitutes Facts (vs fiction).
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 174
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/26/2011 9:48:15 AM
Not at all!.......what we have on earth is (thus far) unparalleled compared to what we've seen by way of optical (and other) instruments of our Universe

Since your use of the word ``wonderous'' is a completely subjective and anthropocentric, your conclusion could hardly be any different. Could you give me a definition of ``wonderous'' that is completely objective? OK, them let's try something easier. How about a definition of ``wonderous'' that would allow just the people on eath to agree that any particular thing is more or less wonderous than any other particular thing? I think that shoots a hole in your claim to not be confusing reality with your subjective view of reality.
 Lincolnshire_Sausage
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 175
The Wonder Of The Universe
Posted: 8/26/2011 11:10:23 AM
It truly is an amazing place, just thinking of how vast it is makes me dizzy! So vast that pretty much anything is possible, here's a little tidbit I was just reading about

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/astronomers-discover-planet-made-diamond-014913051.html
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Wonder Of The Universe