Chc Funding - How To Pass Assessments
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Life On Earth, Science Vs Religion
I don't wish to denigrate any individuals beliefs, but I am curious how this story is received by those who follow religion and the origins of the earth taught through religion.
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Do some Christians take the biblical accounts of creation literally, believing that they describe exactly how the universe and human beings were created.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jd_1984. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jomifl; The deliberate manufacturing of evidence is inexcusable, but most ideas which turn out to be true begin with a 'conclusion' not with a steady, plodding development from premise to premise, but with an instant, intuitive flash of insight - Archimedes in the bathtub, Einstein's relativity etc. Wouldn't you say?
-- answer removed --
Divebuddy, that’s the first of heard of that …. but again, it’s irrelevant to the fundamental question he poses. I don’t see why any discussion on the subject should exclude his name simply because people prefer to focus upon character assassination rather than the subject matter. They have a problem - and I find that very sad.
I'm a physicist by trade but my specialism is particle physics, not astrophysics. Ask someone else about first-/ second-generation stars, or find a wiki and I'm bored by now of being cited as the ultimate AB authority on literally everything with "physics" in the title. It only leads to silly arguments
An intriguing article popped up recently:
http://
the basic claim being that there is a high probability that we're quite early in terms of civilisation development; the actual research is behind a paywall and I haven't got around to reading it yet, but it could have something of an impact on the likelihood of the alien astronaut theory. Or not, since the numbers in question remain arguably large enough to support it. Still, I thought it worth sharing one way or another.
An intriguing article popped up recently:
http://
the basic claim being that there is a high probability that we're quite early in terms of civilisation development; the actual research is behind a paywall and I haven't got around to reading it yet, but it could have something of an impact on the likelihood of the alien astronaut theory. Or not, since the numbers in question remain arguably large enough to support it. Still, I thought it worth sharing one way or another.
If archaelogists rely overly on the symbolism approach to interpreting ancient art, it doesn't stop them being experts. It just means that the current expert approach to the field isn't open to a (very radical!) alternative approach. Experts aren't necessarily right, although hopefully they are more often than not.
Not sure anyone in the discussion above has a brilliant track record of identifying experts anyway. Hawking's specialism is general relativity, and I'd take his already speculative claims about the age of origin of life as far from definitive. And, hypo, while I appreciate the sentiment, until I'd read your post I'd actually never even heard of first- and second-generation stars, or at least given them next to no thought. It was presumptuous.
Not sure anyone in the discussion above has a brilliant track record of identifying experts anyway. Hawking's specialism is general relativity, and I'd take his already speculative claims about the age of origin of life as far from definitive. And, hypo, while I appreciate the sentiment, until I'd read your post I'd actually never even heard of first- and second-generation stars, or at least given them next to no thought. It was presumptuous.
jim360 is this the article
https:/
I have 'Inbox Astronomy' it is free lots of useful information.
https:/
I have 'Inbox Astronomy' it is free lots of useful information.
Jim. //It just means that the current expert approach to the field isn't open to a (very radical!) alternative approach. //
That's the point. It's not up for discussion - but it should be. If an archaeologist discovers a cave painting of men flying apparently by jet propulsion, or a picture of what looks to us for all the world like a spaceship, he should question how ancient man, whose knowledge of science was limited to not much more than making fire, could possibly have imagined that – but he doesn’t. He calls it ‘symbolism’ and pops it into the appropriate category. Job done. In its insistence upon adhering to a standard approach I can’t help wondering what is eluding science – and hence the rest of the world.
That's the point. It's not up for discussion - but it should be. If an archaeologist discovers a cave painting of men flying apparently by jet propulsion, or a picture of what looks to us for all the world like a spaceship, he should question how ancient man, whose knowledge of science was limited to not much more than making fire, could possibly have imagined that – but he doesn’t. He calls it ‘symbolism’ and pops it into the appropriate category. Job done. In its insistence upon adhering to a standard approach I can’t help wondering what is eluding science – and hence the rest of the world.
http://
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Film, Media & TV19 mins ago
York Dante Festival - 15 - 17 May
Other Sports22 mins ago