Denial of Evolution VI.

Where is imagination a phenomenon being studied by scientific methods? Or did you mean that science itself was only imagination in your opinion? (Such an opinion would be wrong. Science deals with phenomena and not imagination abstracted from reality.) Or did you mean the practice of science requires some justification not inherent in its automatic increase in human knowledge?

Does "it" refer to scientific exploration which already includes the grossly materialistic steps of observing reality and confronting predictions of reality with actual real events? Or does "it" refer to imagination itself? How would scientific explorations of the imaginations of H.P. Lovecraft be "justified" by bringing his imagined apocalyptic horrors into reality?

This sentence and post seems to have no connection with the topic of this thread or my post.

That's why communication is a skill. But dreams and hallucinations are not science -- at best they are part of the mechanism of human inspiration -- a fount of creativity that must be distilled to obtain value. "Better ideas in science are communicable, useful, precise predictive descriptions of phenomena." So if you can't communicate it, then it isn't science. If you lack the ability to articulate it, it has no value to humanity other than by what it inspires you to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We've had other threads on this. Some of the asteroids are near-pure Fe/Ni, the remains of small planetoids from which have been eroded away the overlaying solidified mantle. And yes, most of the Gold would have sunk, and since it's not in the Fe/Ni meteors, its in the centers of those Fe/Ni asteroids, or if some were shattered (giving us our Fe/Ni meteorites). some of the meteorites might be pure gold (very small percentage - dibs on the first one found).

It's been proposed to go to the asteroid belt, move some of the debris around to produce a shield, and set up a colony there. easy pickins without the gravity wells of Mars, moons, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dont think it makes more sense at all, although it is closer and i seemingly easier. There will be little chance of rescuing, should things go wrong i think rescuing is unlikely, as far as i can tell anyway. You will die there.

Supposedly it snows on Mars. I would love to be looking out into the Martian sky and see snow coming down. Unfortunately you can never be out without some form of protection, although it is too far from the Sun so not really comfortable if you can breath anyway so i suppose that is somewhat of a moot point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, I agree in that case. In situ materials are going to be cheaper once we have the ability to process them.

Well, although the elements came from supernovas, the boulders didn't come from exploding stars. They came from a bunch of planetesimals that combined and collided during early formation of the Solar System. Thus you'd expect gold percentages roughly equivalent to universal distributions of elements once you take away the lighter elements that didn't "stick around." Which means that you'd see gold concentrations in parts per billion; on an asteroid that's mostly silicates, for example, gold percentage would be around .000001%.

There's a special case where a planet forms quickly during planetary formation and then cools evenly; in that case you can get "layering" of compounds based on molecular density. If that planet were then to be shattered into a lot of asteroids you might then see boulders that had high concentrations of one element. However that's not how our asteroid belt was formed.

 

it makes more sense than packing up your stuff and moving to mars, although it might be your ultimate destination.

the chances of being "rescued" from a moon orbit is a lot better than being "rescued" from a mars orbit.
you would only need to worry about such things only during the colonizing phase though.

probably, but it won't be because of lack of rescue.
these early settlers will be volunteers and fully aware of the dangers.
i'm not sure if this is correct or not but after a certain population count is reached "rescue" will not be needed, the "settlement" will be self sustaining.

 

Weren't we talking about evolution in this thread? The thread has evolved I guess - a clear case of macroevolution I'd say.

 

The idea is to go to an actual planet and NOT a moon, but it is possible that focus will shift to the moon. Personally, i think that the moon is just a big rock A planet like mars has a lot more potential for many things and it would make a better way point for probes to stop off at. The goal is probably to see if we can get the atmosphere to be more friendly to humans so at least one day humans could breath on the planet. We probably will learn things about Earth in the process too so it can have benefits right here as well.

Origin -

It started with the young planet questions and the possibility that humans were on earth for only a few thousand years.

Exhibit A:

The Chachapoya (cloud people)

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

 

a novel means of space transport.
no chemical engines, no reactors, just simple biology.
what if we could design a protein that when subjected to space radiation would rearrange itself structurally.
the reversion to the original form could allow use to extract that energy somehow.

 

Where would the energy come from? The radiation? That's limited to about 1300 watts/sq m. The protein? Biological systems are typically pretty low energy compared to (say) a bipropellant rocket.

And you still have the problem of generating thrust. In empty space you always have to 'throw something away' to get a reaction in the direction you want to go. What do you throw away?

 

It ought to be possible to pick out any solid gold, diamond, silver, copper, platinum, etc, asteroids via widescale surveys of density - might not be that difficult to find. As far as getting them home, the expense of that would depend largely on the hurry - if one can wait a very long time for a small orbital dislocation to take effect, might be relatively cheap.

One of the advantages of a moon base might be as a landing pad for these big rocks, and the manufacturing facilities to handle the material and cut the weight before earthside transfer.

 

maybe it could be photon activated, or alpha/ beta particles, maybe even microwave or cosmic ray radiation

it's renewable, and in this regard a catalyst.
the protein wouldn't be "used up" it would be an energy carrier, essentially an energy pump.
low thrust is cumulative, you get the same effect from continueous low thrust as you would a large thrust for a shorter period.
of course this applies only to deep space.

the accumulated particles?
maybe even the protein itself.
it's an interesting thought.

 

Right, that activates it. Now where does the energy come from?

As an analogy, you could imagine that UV radiation might turn a light switch on, which would then illuminate a light. But the energy to light up the light bulb still has to come from somewhere.

OK. So all the energy comes from the radiation? There are several technologies that can do this:

1) Solar sail. Uses the pressure of the solar wind to accelerate a vehicle.
2) Solar powered ion engine. Uses solar panels to convert photons to electrical energy, then uses that energy to accelerate ions; the ions are exhausted and used to accelerate the vehicle.
3) Solar thermal. Solar radiation is focused on a point; a material is then heated and exhausted and thrust results.

I could see proteins being used to enhance the efficiency of a solar panel or create a better solar sail, but you still need all that collection area (solar sail or solar panel.)

 

Option A.

"It" refers to imagination.

I can communicate how to "build" an imagination scientifically. The problem here is the descriptions rest in the heads of individuals who understand small things very well and are unable to connect them to the larger picture as a whole. Therefore I am unable to trust them because of their judgmental fashions and inability to communicate properly. Hence the key to imagination above inspirational qualities is lost between the translations of physics, the actuality of physics, and the human mind.

 

what a small opinion you must have of some of the posters here.
i would be careful about what i assume if i were you.
although the thread has been up and down the road a few times, most of the posters understand what has been said quite well.

 

Rav...

...aside from being classed with dogs and monkeys (an idea evolution proponents on the surface have no problem with), why is it ''absurd''?

I don't ignore darwinian evolution, I go looking for the evidence. I always have. My theism does not permit me from accepting anything that is true, or that makes sense. In fact it adds to it. I could easily accept evolution and claim that God is the author, and therefore keep my theism in tact, if I was a stubborn apologetic, or ''fundamentalist''. It's not a problem.

The truth of the matter is, I can't see it. It's not obvious. And I can't accept something based on something that makes no sense to me, no matter how hard I try. The truth of every occurrence always prevails in the end, and it's come to the point where find the importance of this debate very close to zero because...

a) it is never going to be resolved, because it's not about finding the truth. It's about dominance, political, mental, physical and spirtual.

b) It's of no benefit to the individual human being ie, human happiness has no dependancy on whether or not we evolved from a common ancestor. And what is human life if not the pursuit of contentment, and such contentment only requires shelter, food, work, social interaction, and contemplation, seeking the truth on issues that really matter, issues that encourage the development of contentment.

What more is there?

So if you would, could you simply explain to me what makes the 'fact' of macroevolution, truth, to you. Plus, why is it so important that it is dominates human contemplation even if (probably) 99.999999% of humans alive today don't get it, and couldn't possibly give an accurate description of it (even in jest), or even know what it actually is regardless of whether they accept it or not (as far as you guys are concerned every argument that has been put forward against the theory is the result of either ignorance, or idiocy, regardless of the status of the person).

Can you put it into simple terms?
Can it be explained in those terms?
If not, why should we accept it?

By ''simple terms'' I mean in a way tha,t a basically, intelligent human being can grasp, therefore seeing the obviousness that you do.

God can only be absolute (from our perspective). If we have intelligence, then it follows that God must have intelligence. If we have the capacity to transmit and recieve love (loving relationship) then so must God. So for you, if God existed then He will exist withing the realm of your perception, not because He is limited, but because you and I are limited within this physical framework. God give us what we desire.

jan.

 

jan,
how do you explain an intelligence without substance?

how can you rationalize a creator in regards to "where life came from"?

 

Not only does anybody with any understanding of biology not have a 'problem' with humans being classed with dogs and monkeys, it is an accepted fact that all of those animnals are of the class mammilia.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The comment from wellwisher is stupidly absurd because he tries to use religion as a taxonomy division - essetially saying that religious people are a different species than atheist. It is beyond absurd actually - more along the lines of batshit crazy.

Then I fear the large eye of your avitar is blind...

Good news it has been resolved, the earth is billions of years old and life has evolved!

Understanding how we have evolved will not in and of itself make humans happier. But the quest for understanding the universe has more rewards than happiness.

Nothing if you are a hedonist I suppose.:shrug:

This thread does that - multiple sites on the net also do that. Any reasonably intelligent person can understand evolution in a day using the resources at your finger tips. You seem like an intelligent person - unforutunately it is clear you are utilizing your intelligence in a desperate attempt to NOT understand evolution due to a misguided belief that the truth somehow is against your religion.

Clearly God does not give us what we desire, unless there is a large percentage of the population that desires to be poor and go to bed a hungry.

 

Yes:

• A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.
• Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them.
• Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:

— More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.
— Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
— Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.
— Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.
— Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their

genes to the next generation.​

— Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct​

Yes, this is the explanation, simplified by summary, stated in its own terms.

That's been cleared up, leaving only the question: why shouldn't anyone accept it?

 

You know what I mean by ''macroevolution'' don't you?

jan.

 

origin,

So if I call your wife pig or a dog, you would more commend me on my correct biological cslassification than see it for the intended insult it would be?
Fair enough I'll leave that to people who aren't so absolutely correct as you to ponder on.

y

Why is it batshit crazy?
Pigs and dogs don't express any kind of theism or religiousity, neither do atheists. You see no problem with being classed with them.
I've seen and heard discussion about atheists not wanting to marry theists.

I accept what is known as ''microevolution''. I have nothing to gain from not accepting what is known as ''macroevolution'', so I don't see how ''blindeness'' is a reason for the lack of sense that macroevolution makes when it comes to accepting it as ''truth'' or even fact. This is why I asked rav to explain what it is that makes it so obvious to him, and why it should to anyone.

???

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but, like what?

These threads are blunt instruments, like fanitical religions. They are intolerent of any apposing view. One idiot in this very thread proclaimed that another human being with a difference of opinion shouldn't have the right to express his opinion (or words to that effect).

Here's your chance explain it so that anybody can see the ''obvious fact'' of what is known as macroevolution.

It depends how you look at it.
Desires have consequenses, and souls don't ever die (you do the calculation).

jan.