Jeremy Bamber Forum
OFF TOPIC => General => Topic started by: Roch on January 19, 2012, 08:10:PM
-
http://youtu.be/58fs5yI8K9I
How big do you think we are?
-
I'm bumping this... Have you seen our Sun compared to Antares? It's smaller than a pin head!
-
I'm bumping this... Have you seen our Sun compared to Antares? It's smaller than a pin head!
Whoa! bogus man. Think I'll go and rob a bank. It's just a trifle compared to this.
-
Astronomy for Idiots! It's my level. Me mate's got a telescope and is always banging on about the night sky.
-
im not a serious buff but ive always been interested, i remember showing my niece about 7 yrs old the planet saturn through my telescope , she had great intrest when i said its not a star but a planet the rings were faint but there, im sure that helped her doing good at school, i gave up years ago trying to guess how big space is , i will, settle its big.
-
The truth is out there.....
-
im not a serious buff but ive always been interested, i remember showing my niece about 7 yrs old the planet saturn through my telescope , she had great intrest when i said its not a star but a planet the rings were faint but there, im sure that helped her doing good at school, i gave up years ago trying to guess how big space is , i will, settle its big.
Its' size is staggering beyond comprehension. Astounding. I wonder what the justice system is like on Betelguse 5? :P
-
The truth is out there.....
Somewhere... locked in a safe... in Chelmsford
-
I remember we always said Uranus when referring to the planet. Until they discovered it also have rings like Saturn. The all of a sudden they started pronouncing it Urinus. I suppose it was so people wouldn't keep making up jokes about rings around Uranus?
-
Are we alone?
-
Are we alone?
Doubt it
-
I'd like to know bob's opinion on this.
-
Are we alone?
Hi Andrea Are we Alone ? there are 3 possible answers the last one is a little sour, to me the 1st one is there is life out there but its too far away,
2nd they might not want to contact us, ( the 1st televised radio signal to leave earth in 1936, was hitlers speech opening the 1936 olympic games in berlin!, the last one is there is no one out there just us.
-
Do aliens exist?
www.doaliensexist.org
-
we are aliens but as to others quite certain they do , but they have no intention of helping or contacting us, the moment we developed nuclear weapons that was it, bye bye earth, chances are they are helping other worlds not to go down that road.
-
I dont think we are alone, space is infinite and just keeps expanding all the time.
No way is there just us, amongst that great vastness.
-
I dont think we are alone, space is infinite and just keeps expanding all the time.
No way is there just us, amongst that great vastness.
I agree 100% on that Andrea , imagine a little fella on a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy right now munching on a bic mac because he picked up a mc donalds transmission in his home.
-
contact jody foster good film
-
E.T was more my thing ;)
I even cried at the end, but i was only a kid at the time. ;D
-
E.T was more my thing ;)
I even cried at the end, but i was only a kid at the time. ;D
i can see you now cheering when et lifts his finger in the basket on elliotts bike and lifts over the cop cars along with his mates on bikes !
-
Ha Ha, it was a good film, but then it didnt have the same effect when i found out that E.T was made from a vaccum hose ;)
-
It was a good film but looking back the effects were rubbish,there is no way a little alien is going to be left shut out of a survey ship is there !, im about to enter kippo land going to bedford early in morn, but on a serious note Andrea if outer space does intrest you,,, you may know of a sadly passed away tv presenter,scientist carl sagan, he wrote the novel contact whichthe film is based on, he presented his superb series in 1980 called cosmos, music by vangelis, the episodes are on youtube,in 1 episode carl said there are more stars in the universe than all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth.
-
I'd like to know bob's opinion on this.
Sorry - only just spotted this thread...
No - I don't think we are alone.
But... beyond our solar system, the distances to other likely inhabited planets are too large for us to ever have any chance of breaching, so whilst I am very confident that Earth isn't the only place in the universe to harbour intelligent life, I'm equally confident that we'll never encounter any other intelligent life forms - well, not in our lifetimes.
That's not to say we won't find some less advanced life forms in the local neighbourhood - there could well be microbial life buried on Mars, and there could certainly be all manner of life under the frozen surface of the waters of Europa - if you think of the organisms that live near the undersea volcanic vents on Earth, those kind of things could have evolved on Europa.
-
Are we alone?
That's a strange expression. Are WE alone. Well there are several billion of us on the planet.
-
I dont think we are alone, space is infinite and just keeps expanding all the time.
No way is there just us, amongst that great vastness.
How can space be infinite and expanding at the same time?
If we say things like space is infinite then how can we be so dog sure that God doesn't exist? Just because we can't think that big we dismiss it altogether. But we have something tangible that forces us to think in such terms. The plain facts are we can't entertain thoughts of how big the universe is. We just cannot comprehend it. Our finite minds simply do not have the capacity to think that big. Rochy showed us pictures of the farthest reaches of the universe and still we cannot see the end. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions?
-
The truth is out there.....
Yeah, it's in a woods near Marlow!!
-
How can space be infinite and expanding at the same time?
If we say things like space is infinite then how can we be so dog sure that God doesn't exist? Just because we can't think that big we dismiss it altogether. But we have something tangible that forces us to think in such terms. The plain facts are we can't entertain thoughts of how big the universe is. We just cannot comprehend it. Our finite minds simply do not have the capacity to think that big. Rochy showed us pictures of the farthest reaches of the universe and still we cannot see the end. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions?
Space is infinite and expanding - but the expansion is into a dimension which you can't see.
Imagine you were a 2-dimensional being living on the surface of a balloon. As you're 2-dimensional you only have the concept of forward/backward and left/right (no up/down). So you can travel around the surface of your balloon forever - your space seems infinite as you could never reach an "edge" (although if it were a fixed sized balloon you would eventually end up back where you started).
Now imagine somebody is blowing up the balloon you live on - now your space would also be expanding. If there was a spot on the balloon an inch ahead of you, you would see it is getting further away as the balloon expands - but you don't have the concept of up/down, so all you see is the spot receding in the dimensions that you do understand - the reality is that rather than the spot moving away, more space is being added in between you and it.
That's kind of how it works.
-
Space is infinite and expanding - but the expansion is into a dimension which you can't see.
Imagine you were a 2-dimensional being living on the surface of a balloon. As you're 2-dimensional you only have the concept of forward/backward and left/right (no up/down). So you can travel around the surface of your balloon forever - your space seems infinite as you could never reach an "edge" (although if it were a fixed sized balloon you would eventually end up back where you started).
Now imagine somebody is blowing up the balloon you live on - now your space would also be expanding. If there was a spot on the balloon an inch ahead of you, you would see it is getting further away as the balloon expands - but you don't have the concept of up/down, so all you see is the spot receding in the dimensions that you do understand - the reality is that rather than the spot moving away, more space is being added in between you and it.
That's kind of how it works.
Very nicely explained Bob. I find this really fascinating. My big career choice was made when I was 15, it was either law or astronomy and I chose law. I have always maintained my interest in astronomy however and sometimes regret the career choice.
-
Space is infinite and expanding - but the expansion is into a dimension which you can't see.
Imagine you were a 2-dimensional being living on the surface of a balloon. As you're 2-dimensional you only have the concept of forward/backward and left/right (no up/down). So you can travel around the surface of your balloon forever - your space seems infinite as you could never reach an "edge" (although if it were a fixed sized balloon you would eventually end up back where you started).
Now imagine somebody is blowing up the balloon you live on - now your space would also be expanding. If there was a spot on the balloon an inch ahead of you, you would see it is getting further away as the balloon expands - but you don't have the concept of up/down, so all you see is the spot receding in the dimensions that you do understand - the reality is that rather than the spot moving away, more space is being added in between you and it.
That's kind of how it works.
Like I said. It's beyond our reasoning powers. We cannot imagine infinity. The word infinity in itself means what it says. It leaves no room for expansion. In other word the expression "expanding" is superfluous. You don't need it for infinite includes all that information any way. So you can't use the two words in the same sentence.
-
Very nicely explained Bob. I find this really fascinating. My big career choice was made when I was 15, it was either law or astronomy and I chose law. I have always maintained my interest in astronomy however and sometimes regret the career choice.
There's no money in astronomy. Unless you're a fat old guy with a monocle. ;D
-
There's no money in astronomy. Unless you're a fat old guy with a monocle. ;D
Patrick Moore has introduced many people to astronomy. I read my first astronomy book when I was 8 years old. The book was written by Patrick Moore and I wrote to him asking a number of questions. He replied immediately with full answers to everything. That started an exchange of correspondence which lasted for several years. He was prepared to chat on the phone and gave me advice on my first telescope. He used to ask me to look at particular things which he was studying at the time. He always wrote as if to an equal, without any condescension towards a young lad.
-
Patrick Moore has introduced many people to astronomy. I read my first astronomy book when I was 8 years old. The book was written by Patrick Moore and I wrote to him asking a number of questions. He replied immediately with full answers to everything. That started an exchange of correspondence which lasted for several years. He was prepared to chat on the phone and gave me advice on my first telescope. He used to ask me to look at particular things which he was studying at the time. He always wrote as if to an equal, without any condescension towards a young lad.
I used to buy his Yearbook of Astronomy every year. I used to watch him when he was a young man with black hair. I made a refractor telescope. I went to an opticians who made an object glass for me and this thing was about 8ft long. Made out of an old carpet tube. Every time I put the thing in my garden everyone used to close their curtains. ;D
-
I don't think we are alone, space is infinite and just keeps expanding all the time.
No way is there just us, amongst that great vastness.
I know some people this is happening to!!
-
Like I said. It's beyond our reasoning powers. We cannot imagine infinity. The word infinity in itself means what it says. It leaves no room for expansion. In other word the expression "expanding" is superfluous. You don't need it for infinite includes all that information any way. So you can't use the two words in the same sentence.
If you give my explanation some thought you will realise that you certainly can use "infinite" and "expanding" in the same sentence - it's fundamental to cosmology. It helps if you've studied it for a while but human beings are certainly capable of getting their heads around such concepts - if not Einstein could never have formulated General Relativity - and he was a mere patent clerk!
-
Very nicely explained Bob. I find this really fascinating. My big career choice was made when I was 15, it was either law or astronomy and I chose law. I have always maintained my interest in astronomy however and sometimes regret the career choice.
Funny you should say that Neil - I considered becoming a barrister when I was in sixth form - not sure what the common factor is between the law and astronomy?!
-
I used to buy his Yearbook of Astronomy every year. I used to watch him when he was a young man with black hair. I made a refractor telescope. I went to an opticians who made an object glass for me and this thing was about 8ft long. Made out of an old carpet tube. Every time I put the thing in my garden everyone used to close their curtains. ;D
Have you been watching Stargazing Live this week? Seems Astronomy is the current "in thing" :D
-
I know some people this is happening to!!
Me for one. I need more exercise to stop myself expanding.
-
How can space be infinite and expanding at the same time?
If we say things like space is infinite then how can we be so dog sure that God doesn't exist? Just because we can't think that big we dismiss it altogether. But we have something tangible that forces us to think in such terms. The plain facts are we can't entertain thoughts of how big the universe is. We just cannot comprehend it. Our finite minds simply do not have the capacity to think that big. Rochy showed us pictures of the farthest reaches of the universe and still we cannot see the end. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions?
I dont personally believe in god Grahame, but i understand that some people take comfort from religion, wheres the evidence for god?
do you favour "intelligent design" or evolution?
-
If you give my explanation some thought you will realise that you certainly can use "infinite" and "expanding" in the same sentence - it's fundamental to cosmology. It helps if you've studied it for a while but human beings are certainly capable of getting their heads around such concepts - if not Einstein could never have formulated General Relativity - and he was a mere patent clerk!
Well, I suppose we must all keep thing in persective where our thought are concerned. I just do a bit of signwriting myself. ;D
-
Have you been watching Stargazing Live this week? Seems Astronomy is the current "in thing" :D
Yes I watched one and thought it a bit unco-odinated so I turned it off.
-
I dont personally believe in god Grahame, but i understand that some people take comfort from religion, wheres the evidence for god?
do you favour "intelligent design" or evolution?
What I'm saying Andrea in all this great universe that we find so amazing and vast how can we we so definite about there not being anything greater than ourselves. In other words how can non intelligence create intelligence? If you are discussing the possibility of aliens for which there is far less proof. Why not accept that there may be an entity far more intelligent than ourselves who may indeed have created us? It's just an obvious question that's all.
-
What I'm saying Andrea in all this great universe that we find so amazing and vast how can we we so definite about there not being anything greater than ourselves. In other words how can non intelligence create intelligence? If you are discussing the possibility of aliens for which there is far less proof. Why not accept that there may be an entity far more intelligent than ourselves who may indeed have created us? It's just an obvious question that's all.
I find it more likely Grahame , that there is intelligent life in the universe rather than some super higher being that created it all.
I cant accept that there is a god because there is no proof, according to the bible the earth is only thousands of years old, we know thats not true.
I put my faith in science and good people.
-
do you favour "intelligent design" or evolution?
Why can't both co-exist? Evolution is evident in that things apparently change according to their environment. For instance there are many different kinds of human beings. But that in itself presupposes one common ancestor? This in itself I find amazing. But if you look at how many different breeds of dogs there are it is evident that these changes do not need millions of years to occur. In fact logic tells us (yet this does not seem to be discussed much) that an object only 8000 miles in diameter cannot remainmolten at the centre (which the earth is) for millions of years.
-
If we are all alone it seems a great waste of space, i did believe in god but no longer the big mac is my god im at my happiest that first bite, Patrick moore might be old school but he explains things very simply , i used to send off for the sky at night newsletters, did you know you can see another galaxy with no optical aid, M31 The Andromeda Galaxy , a fuzz of yellowish light .
-
if god allowed 9/11 to pass without intervention grahame then god is not almighty , i would call him a terrorist.
-
Why can't both co-exist? Evolution is evident in that things apparently change according to their environment. For instance there are many different kinds of human beings. But that in itself presupposes one common ancestor? This in itself I find amazing. But if you look at how many different breeds of dogs there are it is evident that these changes do not need millions of years to occur. In fact logic tells us (yet this does not seem to be discussed much) that an object only 8000 miles in diameter cannot remainmolten at the centre (which the earth is) for millions of years.
evolution does not always take millions of years to occur Grahame, a few years ago a certain species of lizard was introduced to a certain island (cant remember which) and within 20yrs the lizard had developed 2 stomachs in order for it to adapt to its environment.
People in the some parts of the world are being born shorter than they were years ago, its still evolving.
-
Mertol, 9/11 and 7/7 were both terrible events, why do you think they happened?
What did those terrorists think they were gaining by doing the bombings etc?
-
I find it more likely Grahame , that there is intelligent life in the universe rather than some super higher being that created it all.
I cant accept that there is a god because there is no proof, according to the bible the earth is only thousands of years old, we know thats not true.
I put my faith in science and good people.
I never put my faith in people Andrea. I may end up like Jeremy. I look down the corridors of history and find nothing but evil that men have done. Yes and also in the name of some god or other. Faith in changeable men? Definitely not. I may fimd myself locked up in gaol some day wth many friends whi keep changinbg their faith in me as to whether IO am guilty or not. Yet I have put my faith in Christ. I have discovered that he has never let me down. People may. But God never. Speaking for myself mind. ;)
-
if god allowed 9/11 to pass without intervention grahame then god is not almighty , i would call him a terrorist.
Who knows what God thinks? Why do we always blame God for bad things yet fail to praise Him for the good that he does.
-
Its not actually blaming god Grahame, its more blaming religion.
-
evolution does not always take millions of years to occur Grahame, a few years ago a certain species of lizard was introduced to a certain island (cant remember which) and within 20yrs the lizard had developed 2 stomachs in order for it to adapt to its environment.
People in the some parts of the world are being born shorter than they were years ago, its still evolving.
Of course. I would not call that evolution. I would call it adaptation. Because it could easily happen in reverse depending out the environment. Evolution also presupposes that things are getting better. But that is not always the case. Look at some of the breeds of dog. Some definitely have breathing and other problems. It is a change that is dependent upon environment. It doesn't happen spontaneously for the better. If that was so why do people still act in the same way as they did 1000's of years ago? I think Mertol's 9/11 post fits in here perfectly. If anything good happens, "Oh yes it's evolution" they say. If anything bad happens "Oh its God" they say. But the plain facts are that if it were not for people having faith in God you wouldn't have organisations today such as Bernardo homes and the nursing profession and the reform of the prison system etc and etc.
-
Its not actually blaming god Grahame, its more blaming religion.
Well to be truthful Andrea mertol was blaming God.
-
I used to buy his Yearbook of Astronomy every year. I used to watch him when he was a young man with black hair. I made a refractor telescope. I went to an opticians who made an object glass for me and this thing was about 8ft long. Made out of an old carpet tube. Every time I put the thing in my garden everyone used to close their curtains. ;D
So did I - I still have several years' worth! I used to watch "The Sky at Night" every month. I had to negotiate a special concession from my parents - it was on very late so they woke me up, I watched it then went back to bed. No videos in those days!
-
Well to be truthful Andrea mertol was blaming God.
I personally blame religion and not god.
But this is an argument that would last forever, does god exist or doesnt he?
-
Funny you should say that Neil - I considered becoming a barrister when I was in sixth form - not sure what the common factor is between the law and astronomy?!
Very interesting Bob. I am not sure there is a connection between the two. Why did you decide against becoming a barrister?
You don't play chess by any chance do you? There does seem to be some connection between chess and astronomy. C.H.O'D. Alexander was well known in both circles. Patrick Moore is a keen chess player. I used to play for my County.
-
Going back to the video Roch posted, excellent video, makes you think doesnt it?
Prof brian Cox is good to watch.
-
I personally blame religion and not god.
Do you also blame religion for the good things it has brought as well?
-
I think people have brought good things grahame, not god or religion.
though religion is the inspiration for some nice art and architecture (have i spelt that wrong) ???
-
I think people have brought good things grahame, not god or religion.
though religion is the inspiration for some nice art and architecture (have i spelt that wrong) ???
Andrea. At the beginning of the 18th century society had sunk to such depths in the land that a Frenchman is quoted to have said that religion is dead in England. Morals had slumped to an all out low. Crime was untamed. Every 6th house in London had a gin still in the so called gin craze. Drunkenness was a blight on the country and fueled many terrible crimes. The government in desperation to control the crime wave made over a 100 crimes punishable by death. Society was in a much worse state than ever before in the history of England.
Then in the 1740's there came into being what was termed the great awakening. Through the preaching of men like George Whitefield and John Wesley men and women began to turn to Christ in their 1000's. Soon the effects of this religious awakening ie men and women believing in Christ was felt all over the nation and very soon the pubs and gin houses began to close and became chapels instead. You had as a direct consequence of this awakening charities being formed by Christians. Orphanages and benevolent societies of different sorts. In fact it was even written by historians that if it were not for the great awakening England may have gone the way of France and would have had a bloody revolution. Now that was a direct result of religion upon people. Or rather "real" Christianity.
-
Its interesting to note that a lot of scientists are religious (which is a surprise to many people), if you go back to the so called big bang most people agree that this event happened, astronomers have radio telescopes which show this vividly, the Astronomer Royal often does lectrues on this with great photos..... However what caused it - this is where science and religion converge and neither can prove it one way or another - if God caused the big bang or it was a purely scientific event horizon - If you call this God, then he exists !! As for him controlling human behaviour, sadly the species acts for the most part like all other species who exist to re-produce and become the dominant species by natural selection, which in a lot of cases results in mass killings in the name of religion. By far the most successful species are the insects...... maybe God planned it that way !
-
Those good changes came about because people believed in god, it still doesnt mean he exists
I understand what youre saying Grahame and where youre coming from.
But on the flip side, terrible things are done in the name of religion.
Child exorcism
female genital mutilation
stoning
mass suicides as in the case of rev Jim Jones
women kept as second class citizens or worse
Genocide
homophobia
9/11
7/7
i realise that that 9/11 also occured due to american foreign policy, and religion wasnt the sole factor, though they did think that would end up in paradise with so many virgins.
I could go on, but i would be here all day Grahame, anyway thats just a few examples.
-
72 virgins for every martyr !! - wonder what the women get ? !
-
Its interesting to note that a lot of scientists are religious (which is a surprise to many people), if you go back to the so called big bang most people agree that this event happened, astronomers have radio telescopes which show this vividly, the Astronomer Royal often does lectrues on this with great photos..... However what caused it - this is where science and religion converge and neither can prove it one way or another - if God caused the big bang or it was a purely scientific event horizon - If you call this God, then he exists !! As for him controlling human behaviour, sadly the species acts for the most part like all other species who exist to re-produce and become the dominant species by natural selection, which in a lot of cases results in mass killings in the name of religion. By far the most successful species are the insects...... maybe God planned it that way !
It is all a mystery to me. Nothing is cut and dried, or put into pat theories. I can only refer to thing I know to have happened or do happen in the realm of human nature. But man seems to evolve in everything except his wicked nature it seems. In that realm he cannot seem to make headway it seems. There seems to be a force within man which is intent on killing his neighbours?
-
Women wouldnt have got anything ;) just dead!
-
72 virgins for every martyr !! - wonder what the women get ? !
Billy Connelly said, "75 virgins? What a nightmare!. Give me 2 fire breathing whores any day". ;D
-
Very sad, but true...
-
Those good changes came about because people believed in god, it still doesnt mean he exists
I understand what youre saying Grahame and where youre coming from.
But on the flip side, terrible things are done in the name of religion.
Child exorcism
female genital mutilation
stoning
mass suicides as in the case of rev Jim Jones
women kept as second class citizens or worse
Genocide
homophobia
9/11
7/7
i realise that that 9/11 also occured due to american foreign policy, and religion wasnt the sole factor, though they did think that would end up in paradise with so many virgins.
I could go on, but i would be here all day Grahame, anyway thats just a few examples.
Andrea. I can't speak for those of other religions. Neither can I speak for those who would be false prophets like Jim Jones and many others. But to see the truth do as I used to tell others to do. Go back to the New Testament and show me where Christ advocated any of those things.
-
Sorry, that was meant to be a reply to man killing his neighbours, not to Billy C !
-
Andrea. I can't speak for those of other religions. Neither can I speak for those who would be false prophets like Jim Jones and many others. But to see the truth do as I used to tell others to do. Go back to the New Testament and show me where Christ advocated any of those things.
This is the spirit of the New Testament. "God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
-
Andrea. I can't speak for those of other religions. Neither can I speak for those who would be false prophets like Jim Jones and many others. But to see the truth do as I used to tell others to do. Go back to the New Testament and show me where Christ advocated any of those things.
What im saying is grahame, christ or god didnt advocate any of those things, its peoples belief in god and religion that makes them do these things, they will committ atrocities in the name of a religion or god, when there is no proof he exists.
Look at America, where surgeons are murdered for performing abortions, northern ireland where people were killed for being the wrong type of christian.
All these things took place because of peoples religious beliefs, its sad because there is no proof god exists.
im going round in circles here ???
-
Hi Andrea, not just religion, look at football hooligans for example, prepared to fight or stab another human being simply because he has a different colour scarf and does not support the same team ....
-
yes thats true, there was plenty of trouble at Elland Rd in the 80's.
Alot of the hooliganism was pre arranged, thats the worse thing!
-
Its a crazy world...
-
What I'm saying Andrea in all this great universe that we find so amazing and vast how can we we so definite about there not being anything greater than ourselves. In other words how can non intelligence create intelligence? If you are discussing the possibility of aliens for which there is far less proof. Why not accept that there may be an entity far more intelligent than ourselves who may indeed have created us? It's just an obvious question that's all.
When I was small my mum and dad said they created me, and I don' think their gods - in fact I know they aren't!!
God was created by man ;)
-
I find it more likely Grahame , that there is intelligent life in the universe rather than some super higher being that created it all.
I cant accept that there is a god because there is no proof, according to the bible the earth is only thousands of years old, we know that's not true.
I put my faith in science and good people.
I met Z in Prestatyn and he told me he's got a picture of god as well ::)
-
Well. What I would like to know is this. If evolution is true, why haven't we developed a third arm so we can scratch our own backs?
-
we invented loofahs for that! or the husband
-
When I was small my mum and dad said they created me, and I don' think their gods - in fact I know they aren't!!
God was created by man ;)
If God was good enough for Einstein, he's good enough for me. By the way, Einstein said there is no basis for science or rationality without God. I agree with him. I'm not speaking of God as an old man in the clouds, but as the essence of rationality and unity in the cosmos. Without that rationality, we wouldn't be having this debate.
-
we invented loofahs for that! or the husband
Does that mean there were two people in the beginning? ;)
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/einstein-letter-belief-in_n_101626.html
not according to this.
-
Well. What I would like to know is this. If evolution is true, why haven't we developed a third arm so we can scratch our own backs?
How would that confer any reproductive advantage?
-
By the way, Einstein said there is no basis for science or rationality without God. I agree with him.
Can you point me to a reference where he made that statement, Keira?
I know he said this: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "
-
Grahame, do you accept Darwins theory of evolution, or that man began when god took a handful of dust and made the first man, then took a rib from the man to make woman? the bible makes some unbelievable claims doesnt it?
-
Grahame - did you not have a big post on this thread earlier in which you revealed you were a Calvinist etc. or did I imagine that?
-
Can you point me to a reference where he made that statement, Keira?
I know he said this: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "
see my above link Bob
-
see my above link Bob
There we go then Andrea. 'Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" '
I wonder how many of chochokeira's other "facts" are also biased figments of her imagination - most worryingly, those related to this case?
-
Grahame, do you accept Darwins theory of evolution, or that man began when god took a handful of dust and made the first man, then took a rib from the man to make woman? the bible makes some unbelievable claims doesnt it?
Well now Andrea, let me furnish you with a bit of useless information. Did you know that the Hindus thought of evolution 1000's of years before Darwin when we were still crawling around in caves?
-
Never heard that one before Grahame, news to me.
What happened to that post grahame, im sure i saw a post you did earlier then it dissapeared.
its that time of night again, and the forum is getting slow, why does it happen at this time?
-
There we go then Andrea. 'Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" '
I wonder how many of chochokeira's other "facts" are also biased figments of her imagination - most worryingly, those related to this case?
No Bob. For that to be even feesible she would have to come down your level of intellect.
-
What is perspective anyway and why should anyone keep anything? What's wrong with losing a completely fixed flat position and dying at the same time?
Sorry Roch but what on your God's Clean Earth are you on about?! :-\
-
No Bob. For that to be even feesible she would have to come down your level of intellect.
That's pretty weak Grahame.
You can attack me on many levels, I am sure, but claiming I am somehow of "low intellect" is playground.
-
Well now Andrea, let me furnish you with a bit of useless information. Did you know that the Hindus thought of evolution 1000's of years before Darwin when we were still crawling around in caves?
Where did you make that up from?
If you didn't make it up, can you post us a reputable source, as it would be fascinating if it were true.
-
Never heard that one before Grahame, news to me.
What happened to that post grahame, im sure i saw a post you did earlier then it dissapeared.
its that time of night again, and the forum is getting slow, why does it happen at this time?
You mean that you haven't read the Hindu holy book the Mahabharata? Ask any Hindu as well. Roch may be able to confirm this? They also say many things about the universe that we are only just discovering. Or shall I say rediscovering. Did you know they described colliding galaxies? The called that happening the returning of the sons to the father.
They wrote all those many years ago in their sacred texts that originally man was a red haired bisexual monkey? That is why monkeys are counted sacred by the Hindus. Did you know that they spoke of the universe as being wheels within wheels? How well that describes the universe today with all its complexities.
-
That's pretty weak Grahame.
You can attack me on many levels, I am sure, but claiming I am somehow of "low intellect" is playground.
No bob I'm not saying that you are of low intellect as you suppose. But that Keira is a higher intellect than you.
-
Where did you make that up from?
If you didn't make it up, can you post us a reputable source, as it would be fascinating if it were true.
No Bob. I'm not going to spoon feed you all the time. On this one you must do your own research. I read the Mahabharata many years ago in my teans when I was into all that kind of thing. I expect you to do the same rather than calling me a liar.
-
I am not of this earth and I am pissed out of my skull Let me ask you a question... what killed the dinosaurs? (i know the ansewr)
before you tell us the answer roch, spell it ;)
-
Roch what has got into you lately? apart from ale.
-
the answers fuckjin obnvious and dont give me any of your meteor shit bob
High cholesterol?
-
He had a terrible diet did ole T Rex ;)
well im led to believe it was a meteor that struck earth, creating a massive ash or dust cloud, that put an end to ole Rexy ;)along with his mates.
-
No. Ill never understand how people dont get this becauwe it's fuckin obvois. cavemen.
Eh? There weren't any cavemen around during the dinasaur era.
-
Eh? There weren't any cavemen around during the dinasaur era.
If that's the case... how do you explain this?
http://youtu.be/W2bgeq6hAlU?t=16s
-
the answers fuckjin obnvious and dont give me any of your meteor shit bob
Cave men invented the machine gun?
-
No Bob. I'm not going to spoon feed you all the time. On this one you must do your own research. I read the Mahabharata many years ago in my teans when I was into all that kind of thing. I expect you to do the same rather than calling me a liar.
How does this belief in Hinduism sit with your Calvinist beliefs Grahame? Seems an odd match, but I'm no expert on religion, so am happy to be enlightened.
-
If that's the case... how do you explain this?
http://youtu.be/W2bgeq6hAlU?t=16s
Yeah bob explain that. An authentic piece of caveman film uncovered recently by geobologists.
-
Ah, you mean Ray Harryhausen the geobiologist ;)
-
How does this belief in Hinduism sit with your Calvinist beliefs Grahame? Seems an odd match, but I'm no expert on religion, so am happy to be enlightened.
I'm not a believer in Hinduism Bob. I just thought it was interesting, that modern man thinks he's so genned up in this science stuff he trusts in so much and when it comes to it he is just reiterating old beliefs thought up 1000's of years ago. Well it seems the wise man was right who wrote the proverb "there is nothing new under the sun. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again"
-
Ah, you mean Ray Harryhausen the geobiologist ;)
Nah the geobologists. You know those fellers who invented rocks an' stuff.
-
It was a joke Grahame, harryhausen was a special effects bloke from years back.
-
It was a joke Grahame, harryhausen was a special effects bloke from years back.
Yes I know. ;D Let's face it. Its all beyond any of us for any of us to know definitely about these things. Most of us are pretty much agnostic about a lot of things we profess to know. Whatever we may think about whether God exists or not our common intellect will always be pathetically deficient in the light of the unimaginable vastness of space. What are we? We are to the universe as the atom is to us. We may or may not speculate on the being of God whilst quite possible there are creatures infinitely smaller than us, who may or may not speculate about us. ::) We live in a time when anything seems possible that is far beyond our comprehension.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/einstein-letter-belief-in_n_101626.html
not according to this.
This is a rather poor article, Andrea, the author/blogger gives a totally one sided view of Einstein. Einstein wrote:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
"I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza... I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."
(Einstein 24 April 1929 responses to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein: "Do you believe in God?)
He also wrote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
and,
"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos." (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)
and,
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." (Albert Einstein)
and,
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."
(Interview 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great)
and,
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein, 1941)
-
Where did you make that up from?
If you didn't make it up, can you post us a reputable source, as it would be fascinating if it were true.
Buddist monks invented steam power, Bob, a few thousand years before it was used to drive the machines and transport of the industrial revolution. They merely used it to drive their prayer wheels.
-
Can you point me to a reference where he made that statement, Keira?
I know he said this: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "
Yes. See my reply to Andrea, Bob.
-
Buddist monks invented steam power, Bob, a few thousand years before it was used to drive the machines and transport of the industrial revolution. They merely used it to drive their prayer wheels.
What's that got to do with the assertion that they discovered evolution thousands of years before Darwin & co.?
-
Yes. See my reply to Andrea, Bob.
Why did you choose to put the 1941 quote at the end, whilst burying the 1954 quote in the middle?
Not a tad disingenuous, perchance?
-
There we go then Andrea. 'Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" '
I wonder how many of chochokeira's other "facts" are also biased figments of her imagination - most worryingly, those related to this case?
You're the one posting biased figments of the imagination, Bob.
You have selectively cherry picked part of a quotation in order to use this to make a personal attack on me. You have done so without bothering to research your subject. As a result, you misunderstand and have misrepresented Einstein's views.
All you've succeeded in doing is in twitting yourself.
-
Why did you choose to put the 1941 quote at the end, whilst burying the 1954 quote in the middle?
Not a tad disingenuous, perchance?
What a pompous twit you are.
-
What a pompous twit you are.
If you can't hold your own in a reasoned debate, then I guess personal abuse is the next best thing ::)
-
What's that got to do with the assertion that they discovered evolution thousands of years before Darwin & co.?
If you're unable grasp that I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
-
You're the one posting biased figments of the imagination, Bob.
You have selectively cherry picked part of a quotation in order to use this to make a personal attack on me. You have done so without bothering to research your subject. As a result, you misunderstand and have misrepresented Einstein's views.
All you've succeeded in doing is in twitting yourself.
Trust me chochokeira - when it comes to understanding Einstein, you lose.
-
Why did you choose to put the 1941 quote at the end, whilst burying the 1954 quote in the middle?
Not a tad disingenuous, perchance?
All of the quotes are in agreement with each other, Bob.
-
All of the quotes are in agreement with each other, Bob.
Err... no they are not.
-
What's that got to do with the assertion that they discovered evolution thousands of years before Darwin & co.?
They didn't. The Hindus did. ;D
-
If you can't hold your own in a reasoned debate, then I guess personal abuse is the next best thing ::)
There we go then Andrea. 'Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" '
I wonder how many of chochokeira's other "facts" are also biased figments of her imagination - most worryingly, those related to this case?
You ought to know, judging by your personal abuse above.
A tip for you, Bob: attempts to smear others, such as your miserably failed attempt to smear me above, will goad those you try to smear into angry responses. If you dislike angry responses, don't abuse others.
-
They didn't. The Hindus did. ;D
By the way. They didn't discover it. I misled you on that bit. It was part of their belief system. Science didn't come into it. But they will have you believe that they thought of it before Darvin did. Well they did in a way. Just as they spoke of having flying machines long before the wright brothers. They called them Vimanas. But it was all to do with their concept of God or gods.
-
You ought to know, judging by your personal abuse above.
A tip for you, Bob: attempts to smear others, such as your miserably failed attempt to smear me above, will goad those you try to smear into angry responses. If you dislike angry responses, don't abuse others.
Did you win that one Keira?Wheres he gone?To set up another thread to vote us off the forum? ::)
-
Trust me chochokeira - when it comes to understanding Einstein, you lose.
Isn't it time you stopped fantasising? ;D
-
This topic has some mileage, i do not believe life evolved here the human race is too violent and greed is a benchmark of our race why would aliens come here , what do we have to offer? i do believe some races may have entered our solar system from a safe distance saw and carried on.
-
.....why would aliens come here ....
Well, Bob has...
-
Well, Bob has...
;D ;D ;D
-
its life jim but not as we know it
-
Did you win that one Keira?Wheres he gone?To set up another thread to vote us off the forum? ::)
He's gone to the place where all trolls go, Tyler :D
-
its life jim but not as we know it
I love that post! ;D
-
They didn't. The Hindus did. ;D
;D ;D ;D
-
Isn't it time you stopped fantasising? ;D
There weren't many people who could understand Einstein. He was a Jew so he would have an inbred consciousness of God for a start. He did make several references to God whom he called the creator. He was a far humbler man than a lot of those who quote him and had an open mind to such things. More so than most of his students who teach today's budding scientists.
He was asked once if he could explain some of his theories in plain English. He thought for a moment and replied that he could not.
-
This topic has some mileage, i do not believe life evolved here the human race is too violent and greed is a benchmark of our race why would aliens come here , what do we have to offer? i do believe some races may have entered our solar system from a safe distance saw and carried on.
Warning. Do not land. Natives dangerous.
-
The worlds primary industry is warfare we have demonstrated with flair an inability to live together in peace , how much more time do we need?, been talking about aliens with a friend today and david icke came up oh no dont get me there!!
-
Did you win that one Keira?Wheres he gone?To set up another thread to vote us off the forum? ::)
What?
-
Isn't it time you stopped fantasising? ;D
Mmm... care to go head-to-head on a couple of fantasy General Relativity questions?
Fully up to speed on your tensor calculus are you?
-
This topic has some mileage, i do not believe life evolved here the human race is too violent and greed is a benchmark of our race why would aliens come here , what do we have to offer? i do believe some races may have entered our solar system from a safe distance saw and carried on.
It was indeed an interesting thread Mertol, until Keira hijacked it for the purposes of personal abuse.
Now I understand what Hartley feels like ::)
-
He was asked once if he could explain some of his theories in plain English. He thought for a moment and replied that he could not.
Hardly surprising. I tried to explain the basic concept of curved space to you earlier in very simple terms and you still maintained it was beyond comprehension. Einstein's theories are more complicated than my simple explanation, so it is no wonder that he would struggle to explain them in "plain English" - not least because it wasn't his first language. That does nothing, however, to undermine their validity.
-
Sorry - only just spotted this thread...
No - I don't think we are alone.
But... beyond our solar system, the distances to other likely inhabited planets are too large for us to ever have any chance of breaching, so whilst I am very confident that Earth isn't the only place in the universe to harbour intelligent life, I'm equally confident that we'll never encounter any other intelligent life forms - well, not in our lifetimes.
That's not to say we won't find some less advanced life forms in the local neighbourhood - there could well be microbial life buried on Mars, and there could certainly be all manner of life under the frozen surface of the waters of Europa - if you think of the organisms that live near the undersea volcanic vents on Earth, those kind of things could have evolved on Europa.
Thanks for the response and it's well thought out. It makes sense. I was only kidding about the cavemen killing off the dinosaurs last night. I do not believe that even a tightnit team of experienced cavemen, with good communication and organisational skills, could bring down an Tyrannosaur. I think they would have avoided beasts of that size.
-
Thanks for the response and it's well thought out. It makes sense. I was only kidding about the cavemen killing off the dinosaurs last night. I do not believe that even a tightnit team of experienced cavemen, with good communication and organisational skills, could bring down an Tyrannosaur. I think they would have avoided beasts of that size.
So no bronosaurus steaks then? :-[
-
So no bronosaurus steaks then? :-[
Cant see it my self. But their lumbering nature may have given the cavemen a decent shot at formulating a plan.
-
Cant see it my self. But their lumbering nature may have given the cavemen a decent shot at formulating a plan.
Like...erm......throwing banana skins in their path?
-
Yeah just kidding of course. Cryptozoology is interesting though.
-
Yeah just kidding of course. Cryptozoology is interesting though.
Rochy. You don't need to tell us you're kidding all the time. We know you're kidding. You were 4 sheets to the wind last night. ;D and I got too pompous and had to delete one of my posts before everyone dropped dead from boredom.
-
I do not believe life evolved here . . . I do believe some races may have entered our solar system from a safe distance saw and carried on.
Races of what? A safe distance for them or for life on earth? Omitting detail and using "not" and "may" in this type of statement produces, at best, vague useless guesses.
-
Rochy. You don't need to tell us you're kidding all the time. We know you're kidding. You were 4 sheets to the wind last night. ;D and I got too pompous and had to delete one of my posts before everyone dropped dead from boredom.
I've deleted about three of mine. Total garbage :-\
-
Races of what? A safe distance for them or for life on earth? Omitting detail and using "not" and "may" in this type of statement produces, at best, vague useless guesses.
Yes reader...... ::)
-
Alien: "I want your clothes. Your boots. And your unicycle".
-
Space is infinite and expanding - but the expansion is into a dimension which you can't see.
Imagine you were a 2-dimensional being living on the surface of a balloon. As you're 2-dimensional you only have the concept of forward/backward and left/right (no up/down). So you can travel around the surface of your balloon forever - your space seems infinite as you could never reach an "edge" (although if it were a fixed sized balloon you would eventually end up back where you started).
Now imagine somebody is blowing up the balloon you live on - now your space would also be expanding. If there was a spot on the balloon an inch ahead of you, you would see it is getting further away as the balloon expands - but you don't have the concept of up/down, so all you see is the spot receding in the dimensions that you do understand - the reality is that rather than the spot moving away, more space is being added in between you and it.
That's kind of how it works.
Impossible!....Cos I wear spikes.
-
I've deleted about three of mine. Total garbage :-\
Perhaps we need a post-pub thread that automatically gets cleared down every morning at 5am? :D
-
Very interesting Bob. I am not sure there is a connection between the two. Why did you decide against becoming a barrister?
You don't play chess by any chance do you? There does seem to be some connection between chess and astronomy. C.H.O'D. Alexander was well known in both circles. Patrick Moore is a keen chess player. I used to play for my County.
Sorry I didn't answer this before Neil...
I think maybe if we could have studied law at 6th form and I'd got good grades in it I might have been more likely to go into it - the same applied to medicine, where in retrospect I think I might have liked to go into that, but as it was, I was more familiar with what the day-to-day nitty gritty of physics was actually about, having studied it at school so I was more confident that it's something I would certainly enjoy doing more of.
As it is, I don't think being a barrister would have worked out for me - I would get too frustrated by the idea of juries being swayed by personalities, and prior prejudices during a trial, rather than being able to dispassionately analyse the evidence. It must also be difficult when you know you have a complex piece of important evidence that some jurors just can't be bothered to comprehend. I think the changes in the rules you described recently in another thread, whereby you can no longer challenge jury membership pre-trial, must have made this situation even worse. Do you find that side of things frustrating? (sorry, I know I'm going way off topic here!)
As for chess - I used to play at school and uni just for fun, but I realised that to be good you had to put in the bookwork rather than just wing it, and I was ultimately too lazy for that :-[
-
The plain facts are we can't entertain thoughts of how big the universe is. We just cannot comprehend it. Our finite minds simply do not have the capacity to think that big.
If "we" refers to you and me (at least), that's not plain fact at all, as I am entertaining thoughts of how big the universe is right now. By simply adding a few zeros to the end of various numbers involved, I can think of far bigger things as well.
It's beyond our reasoning powers. We cannot imagine infinity. It leaves no room for expansion.
You can't logically conclude "It leaves no room for expansion" without reasoning about infinity. Are there more than 10 grains of sand on earth? Yes. More than 10 thousand? Yes. More than 10 million? Yes. After a few more steps, the correct number is reached (give or take a factor of 1000). This demonstrates it's easy to think of quite large finite values. Now consider all the positions available for grains of sand on earth. That's easy, but there are infinitely many such positions, and still room for expansion. Moreover, there are numerous books that contain reasoning about such infinities. Their existence proves that reasoning about infinity can be done by humans. You can read them and do such reasoning too.
Why not accept that there may be an entity far more intelligent than ourselves who may indeed have created us?
Why not accept that the earth supports a large population of invisible unicorns or any other absurdity one can invent? Would you prefer visible unicorns? There are several references to unicorns in the Bible.
In fact logic tells us that an object only 8000 miles in diameter cannot remain molten at the centre (which the earth is) for millions of years.
Logic doesn't tell us that, and available evidence indicates the earth's centre is solid anyway.
I have discovered that he has never let me down.
That's logically compatible with his non-existence. Also, I would classify "letting you down" as including allowing you to declare as "fact" or "plain fact" various things that you shortly afterwards admit are mistakes.
Evolution also presupposes that things are getting better.
No, it doesn't, so your reasoning is fallacious.
It is all a mystery to me. Nothing is cut and dried, or put into pat theories.
Both "It is all a mystery to me" and "Nothing is cut and dried" are pat theories of yours, so your reasoning is again fallacious (even if those theories are correct, which is arguably logically impossible).
It's all beyond any of us for any of us to know definitely about these things.
And you definitely know that, do you? How come it's not beyond you to do so?
-
Perhaps we need a post-pub thread that automatically gets cleared down every morning at 5am? :D
Good idea bob. Think I'll stick to home made smoothies for a while. (even though I'll probably have a pint after work, just to take the edge off last night) 8)
-
Why not accept that the earth supports a large population of invisible unicorns or any other absurdity one can invent? Would you prefer visible unicorns? There are several references to unicorns in the Bible.
Getting back to Cryptozoology, it has been suggested that 'Unicorn' sightings are related to Elasmotherium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium
-
Sorry I didn't answer this before Neil...
I think maybe if we could have studied law at 6th form and I'd got good grades in it I might have been more likely to go into it - the same applied to medicine, where in retrospect I think I might have liked to go into that, but as it was, I was more familiar with what the day-to-day nitty gritty of physics was actually about, having studied it at school so I was more confident that it's something I would certainly enjoy doing more of.
As it is, I don't think being a barrister would have worked out for me - I would get too frustrated by the idea of juries being swayed by personalities, and prior prejudices during a trial, rather than being able to dispassionately analyse the evidence. It must also be difficult when you know you have a complex piece of important evidence that some jurors just can't be bothered to comprehend. I think the changes in the rules you described recently in another thread, whereby you can no longer challenge jury membership pre-trial, must have made this situation even worse. Do you find that side of things frustrating? (sorry, I know I'm going way off topic here!)As for chess - I used to play at school and uni just for fun, but I realised that to be good you had to put in the bookwork rather than just wing it, and I was ultimately too lazy for that :-[
I would have found maths, physics and chemistry A levels more interesting than the English, Latin and Greek I took, believing them to be more suited to following with a law degree. Later I found law students who had taken science A levels and they experienced no disadvantage. If I had taken science A levels I would almost certainly have continued with astronomy at university.
I did find the gradual erosion of long standing protections, such as the right to challenge jurors, frustrating. It was also hard to come to terms with those cases where justice had clearly not been done. Sometimes that could be remedied by appeal to a higher court, sometimes not. The idea of justice to an extent being a lottery was something I found hard to accept. The problem is that despite the obvious issues surrounding the jury system, it is hard to devise something which would produce better results. I would certainly oppose judge only trials.
-
I would have found maths, physics and chemistry A levels more interesting than the English, Latin and Greek I took, believing them to be more suited to following with a law degree. Later I found law students who had taken science A levels and they experienced no disadvantage. If I had taken science A levels I would almost certainly have continued with astronomy at university.
I did find the gradual erosion of long standing protections, such as the right to challenge jurors, frustrating. It was also hard to come to terms with those cases where justice had clearly not been done. Sometimes that could be remedied by appeal to a higher court, sometimes not. The idea of justice to an extent being a lottery was something I found hard to accept. The problem is that despite the obvious issues surrounding the jury system, it is hard to devise something which would produce better results. I would certainly oppose judge only trials.
Do you think there's any mileage in the idea of "professional "jurors Neil, or would that just be another avenue open to possible corruption?
I can see the argument for having them in complex fraud cases and other areas where already having a good grounding in the area being tried would be helpful, but I can't see how it could work for general crime.
One area that might be worth exploring is the idea of a professional set of "jurors" to analyse all forensic evidence in a case - forensics now seem so fundamental a part of evidence that it seems odd that you can end up just having two opposing expert witnesses giving evidence, where the reality of the situation might be that 11 out of 12 expert witnesses would agree on the reliability of a specific test. Taking the JB case as an example - if he finds a photographic expert to challenge the crown's view of events, and the prosecution then put one up to counter the defence's new arguments, does that not give undue weight to one position or the other - the odds are that it isn't really a 50-50 issue - if there were 20 photographic experts looking at the pictures, I doubt they would line up 10-10 in their conclusions, but that isn't reflected at trial is it? Or is there some way you can introduce the idea that "we have 19 other experts willing to testify the same" (P.S. you might want to use your mod. superpowers to split this now-way-of--topic discussion into a new thread :D )
-
Do you think there's any mileage in the idea of "professional "jurors Neil, or would that just be another avenue open to possible corruption?
I can see the argument for having them in complex fraud cases and other areas where already having a good grounding in the area being tried would be helpful, but I can't see how it could work for general crime.
One area that might be worth exploring is the idea of a professional set of "jurors" to analyse all forensic evidence in a case - forensics now seem so fundamental a part of evidence that it seems odd that you can end up just having two opposing expert witnesses giving evidence, where the reality of the situation might be that 11 out of 12 expert witnesses would agree on the reliability of a specific test. Taking the JB case as an example - if he finds a photographic expert to challenge the crown's view of events, and the prosecution then put one up to counter the defence's new arguments, does that not give undue weight to one position or the other - the odds are that it isn't really a 50-50 issue - if there were 20 photographic experts looking at the pictures, I doubt they would line up 10-10 in their conclusions, but that isn't reflected at trial is it? Or is there some way you can introduce the idea that "we have 19 other experts willing to testify the same" (P.S. you might want to use your mod. superpowers to split this now-way-of--topic discussion into a new thread :D )
The problem with having "professional" jurors is that we then move away from the fundamental principle of a defendant being tried by his peers. In most cases the task of the jury is to decide which witnesses are telling the truth, and what inferences can be drawn from the evidence as a whole. That requires common sense and experience of life rather than any specialist knowledge. It is the job of counsel to explain the issues in a case so that lay people can understand them. Although that can be difficult, for example in complex fraud trials, it is not impossible. I accept the difficulty with scientific evidence. There have been many cases where scientific evidence has been of paramount importance. In my own experience expert witnesses tend to be treated with too much deference in court. When a scientist expresses confidence in a conclusion it is very hard to shake him, yet we know of cases (such as the Birmingham 6) where deeply flawed scientific evidence has led to a terrible miscarriage of justice. I do not know what the answer is to this. It is true as you point out that in court you may have a single expert witness for each side giving opposing views, but the balance of scientific opinion may be strongly in favour of one view. That can to an extent be explored before the jury by reference to published works or even by calling more than one expert witness.
-
If "we" refers to you and me (at least), that's not plain fact at all, as I am entertaining thoughts of how big the universe is right now. By simply adding a few zeros to the end of various numbers involved, I can think of far bigger things as well.
You can't logically conclude "It leaves no room for expansion" without reasoning about infinity. Are there more than 10 grains of sand on earth? Yes. More than 10 thousand? Yes. More than 10 million? Yes. After a few more steps, the correct number is reached (give or take a factor of 1000). This demonstrates it's easy to think of quite large finite values. Now consider all the positions available for grains of sand on earth. That's easy, but there are infinitely many such positions, and still room for expansion. Moreover, there are numerous books that contain reasoning about such infinities. Their existence proves that reasoning about infinity can be done by humans. You can read them and do such reasoning too.
Why not accept that the earth supports a large population of invisible unicorns or any other absurdity one can invent? Would you prefer visible unicorns? There are several references to unicorns in the Bible.
Logic doesn't tell us that, and available evidence indicates the earth's centre is solid anyway.
That's logically compatible with his non-existence. Also, I would classify "letting you down" as including allowing you to declare as "fact" or "plain fact" various things that you shortly afterwards admit are mistakes.
No, it doesn't, so your reasoning is fallacious.
Both "It is all a mystery to me" and "Nothing is cut and dried" are pat theories of yours, so your reasoning is again fallacious (even if those theories are correct, which is arguably logically impossible).
And you definitely know that, do you? How come it's not beyond you to do so?
If you say that reader then it must be true. If you're so fond of referring to the Bible let me give you a couple of verses from it. (Proverbs 26:4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Now I wasn't going to let it get this serious. That's why I deleted one of my posts because I thought it sounded pompous. But after reading your post just now I discovered that my post could never be as pompous as yours. ::)
(Romans 1:21-25) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen , being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful ; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened . 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools , 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator , who is blessed for ever.
You have done well grasshopper. But you have yet much to learn. But for that to happen a person must humble himself. I stated that I am a Calvinist. That means I believe in the sovereignty of God. So your arguments to me are just nonsense and full of contradictions. If you can't see those contradictions then I cannot be bothered to point them out to you. And because I am a Calvinist nothing you say can phase me because I know they are the ramblings of someone who is full of his own importance.
-
I wasn't intending pomposity. The main points were not regarding Calvinism or the like, but about such things as claims regarding the cooling of the earth, that were given without any explanation or reasoning. Even if they were correct, they wouldn't be obvious. Stars can take billions of years to burn out, so why can't the earth, which is well-insulated and has additional heat being generated all the time, also stay hot inside for billions of years? There are numerous signs of ancient volcanic activity on Earth, and such activity implies a hot interior. Why attack me with ad hominems, such as your suggestion that I am "fond of referring to the Bible" after I'd mentioned it just once? I'm not attacking your religion or making sweeping generalizations, just pointing out that you've made specific claims of fact that seem to be, or have already been admitted to be, mistakes or illogical, and in making those claims you more than once used the word "we" to suggest the agreement of others could be taken for granted.
-
He [Einstein] was a Jew so he would have an inbred consciousness of God.
Was that intended as a joke? It comes across as somewhat racist.
-
In fact, logic tells us . . . that an object only 8000 miles in diameter cannot remain molten at the centre (which the earth is) . . .
The earth's solid core is not tiny - it's about three quarters the size of the moon, and is very hot (c. 6000 degrees Celsius). Its solidity is evident from its magnetic field and how well it transmits seismic waves. However, that solidity is not because Earth is "only" 8000 miles in diameter; it's possible because the large mass of Earth causes very high pressure within the core, allowing it to be solid despite its high temperature. A documentary programme about Earth's core was repeated just recently on the Eden channel.
-
The earth's solid core is not tiny - it's about three quarters the size of the moon, and is very hot (c. 6000 degrees Celsius). Its solidity is evident from its magnetic field and how well it transmits seismic waves. However, that solidity is not because Earth is "only" 8000 miles in diameter; it's possible because the large mass of Earth causes very high pressure within the core, allowing it to be solid despite its high temperature. A documentary programme about Earth's core was repeated just recently on the Eden channel.
Hi Reader
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agfX4pJs-vo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
;) ;D :-*
-
The earth's solid core is not tiny - it's about three quarters the size of the moon, and is very hot (c. 6000 degrees Celsius). Its solidity is evident from its magnetic field and how well it transmits seismic waves. However, that solidity is not because Earth is "only" 8000 miles in diameter; it's possible because the large mass of Earth causes very high pressure within the core, allowing it to be solid despite its high temperature. A documentary programme about Earth's core was repeated just recently on the Eden channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core
-
Was that intended as a joke? It comes across as somewhat racist.
Reader. This is the comment that made me end this discussion between me and you. The fact that you took my words as not only to be a joke. But also to be racist. I would have thought with the vast intellect that you appear to possess that you would have figured out that my comment was not a joke, neither was it intended to be racist. As you can see modern man has many resources to which he can turn in order to aquire knowledge by the sweat of other men's brows in order to support one argument over another and appear to others that the knowledge acquired was indeed of their own hard toil.
I was rebuked by some that I speak about my own faith as a Christian believer, which they describe by the somewhat generic term "religion". I suspect they refer to it in that way because then they can roam over the entire spectrum of human beliefs in order to ridicule it, wrongly assuming that all so called faiths in the world are the same.
I have by the request of a rather small minority to desist from any reference to my personal faith, except to try and explain certain things when someone mentions any Bible passage. This is not preaching as some seem to think. Preaching is when a person "applies" that Bible verse to another person directly.
Unfortunately I have been sideswiped in underhanded ways in order to goad me into speaking about my faith which I have attempted to resist (I will not explain further as those who make certain remarks know they are doing so to that purpose). But if anyone is interested in Christian things I am obliged to give a reason for the faith that is in me.
For I believe in the doctrines of Grace. You may wish to look up the term T.U.L.I.P so that you be informed as to what I believe.
But coming back to your remark concerning my comment about Einstein. If my comment was in any way "racist" or a joke about Jews then no doubt it would have been deleted. No man can level that accusation against me as it quite simply is not true and the reason why you levelled that somewhat veiled accusation against me may come rather from the depths of your own heart rather than mine?
I must admit to be somewhat confused though that those very people who rat on against me talking about "religion" (their term not mine) are the very people who seem so paranoid that they must bring it up again and again. Even when I say nothing. It does seem a bit one sided doesn't it? That I am forbidden, or berated if I speak about Christian things and yet they can feel free to speak against Christianity whenever the whim comes over them?
But of course they seem to speak about these things understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
For the most part I let them carry on of course feeling no desire to correct their blind fumblings about things they know nothing about. But to be accused of racism and in such a veiled way even for you is rather lame and designed only to get a reaction from me.
But at that time I made it clear by my absence that this debate was at an end as far as I am concerned. So it is now a conversation between you and yourself. I cease to have any interest in the subject.
-
So it wasn't a joke then? ;D
Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree I guess. :-\ We can't all be right all of the time.
-
So it wasn't a joke then? ;D
Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree I guess. :-\ We can't all be right all of the time.
And no one's perfect either. Particularly me. ;D
-
And no one's perfect either. Particularly me. ;D
Indeed. ;)
-
Grahame, I responded regarding the reasoning in your comment about Einstein, treating it as immaterial whether you were referring to someone famous or someone little-known. Using the words "Jew" and "inbred" in the same sentence can make that sentence seem flippant, and such flippancy, even if unintended, has overtones of racism unless you are intentionally joking.
I wasn't making any kind of veiled attack on your beliefs; I wasn't addressing Calvinism, hadn't read the comments you referred to, and wasn't accusing you of anything. I simply asked whether you were joking, explaining only briefly why I asked, as my immediate preceding post (Reply #160) made it clear that I wasn't attacking you or your faith.
-
Grahame, I responded regarding the reasoning in your comment about Einstein, treating it as immaterial whether you were referring to someone famous or someone little-known. Using the words "Jew" and "inbred" in the same sentence can make that sentence seem flippant, and such flippancy, even if unintended, has overtones of racism unless you are intentionally joking.
I wasn't making any kind of veiled attack on your beliefs; I wasn't addressing Calvinism, hadn't read the comments you referred to, and wasn't accusing you of anything. I simply asked whether you were joking, explaining only briefly why I asked, as my immediate preceding post (Reply #160) made it clear that I wasn't attacking you or your faith.
Perhaps my coice of the word "inbred" was an unwise choice? What I meant by that was that as a Jew he had the Jewish tradition drummed into him as a child and although he proclaimed himself an agnostic, nevertheless he still had that niggling thought at the back of his mind that there perhaps is a God. For as I seem to recall he used to say things like "Only the Almighty knows". Only a Jew would use expressions such as "The Almighty" when referring to God. But I admit the word "inbred" has taken on other connotations in this modern age. But I was in no way being flippant. I apologise for the confusion.
-
Perhaps my coice of the word "inbred" was an unwise choice? What I meant by that was that as a Jew he had the Jewish tradition drummed into him as a child and although he proclaimed himself an agnostic, nevertheless he still had that niggling thought at the back of his mind that there perhaps is a God. For as I seem to recall he used to say things like "Only the Almighty knows". Only a Jew would use expressions such as "The Almighty" when referring to God. But I admit the word "inbred" has taken on other connotations in this modern age. But I was in no way being flippant. I apologise for the confusion.
Hi Grahame
I recall visiting the Jewish quarter in Prague with my partner some years ago as we entered a Jew (I assume) in traditional dress welcomed those entering before us and asked if they were Jewish. He looked us up and down and looked away :'( :'( :'( We are both part Irish and look Irish with dark hair, blue eyes and very fair skin. Certainly don't look Jewish. Anyway the museum was amazing. All these instruments and clearly defined rules for circumcision and preparing meat. Unbelievable.
A good friend of mine (Welsh) was a pharmacist in Hampstead and she said the Jews were the rudest people she had encountered in her life. I'm sure they are not all that way.
9/11 (Arabs) bought the financial district of Wall St to its knees. Then roll on 7 years and the same sort of thing happened with the financial crisis (Jews) :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Hi Grahame
I recall visiting the Jewish quarter in Prague with my partner some years ago as we entered a Jew (I assume) in traditional dress welcomed those entering before us and asked if they were Jewish. He looked us up and down and looked away :'( :'( :'( We are both part Irish and look Irish with dark hair, blue eyes and very fair skin. Certainly don't look Jewish. Anyway the museum was amazing. All these instruments and clearly defined rules for circumcision and preparing meat. Unbelievable.
A good friend of mine (Welsh) was a pharmacist in Hampstead and she said the Jews were the rudest people she had encountered in her life. I'm sure they are not all that way.
9/11 (Arabs) bought the financial district of Wall St to its knees. Then roll on 7 years and the same sort of thing happened with the financial crisis (Jews) :-\ :-\ :-\
A friend of mine was in London in the early 50's and was walking along a street in Golders Green on a Saturday night and was suddenly approached by two tall gentlemen with beards hats and dark clothing. They asked him to follow them, which he did. They led him down a dark alley and into a house and a darkened room, where he spied in the shadows about 6 other figures all dressed in dark clothing.
They then asked him if he would please switch on the light for them. Which he did. He then learned that they were all traditional Jews who would refrain from doing any work on the Sabbath Day including switching on the light. But it was ok to ask a Gentile to things for them. ;D
Now there's an example where some people need to keep life in perspective.
-
In fact, logic tells us that an object only 8000 miles in diameter cannot remain molten at the centre (which the earth is) for millions of years.
That's not the case if the object is internally generating heat all the time, which the earth does through friction and radioactive decay. However, the earth's core is partly molten and partly solid (due to the extreme pressure nearer the centre), despite having a temperature nearing that of the surface of the sun.
-
Also, logic tells us nothing at all about how long anything can remain molten. Such times are determined from measurements that have been made.
-
Getting back to Cryptozoology, it has been suggested that 'Unicorn' sightings are related to Elasmotherium.
I see... but then how does one explain the "leviathan", given that "its breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from its mouth"?