|
Small earth is SMALL!!! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by iTranscendence
Except earth has this amazing thing called the carbon cycle, you should look into it. |
We should pump all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere into Mars. Then, when Mars gets warm enough, we can all move there before the nukes fly! |
|
|
| stren |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
I don't feel down about it, I love being insignificant :p. |
| quote: | Originally posted by camshaft
Stren - off topic, but is your avatar the WTF smiley on top of the Airdrawndagger cover? That's awesome. |
thank you, I've been putting all kinds of things on that ball over the years on TA |
|
|
| iTranscendence |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
We should pump all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere into Mars. Then, when Mars gets warm enough, we can all move there before the nukes fly! |
I think the earth is a big girl and will be able to handle herself, with or without us.
| quote: | Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration ca. 800 ppm
(3 times pre-industrial level) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous |
|
|
| floyd741 |
Just got home.
Bricks have been shat.
Just thought I'd let you all know. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| that is truly incredible. makes the evolution thread pretty boring lol |
|
|
| Fledz |
So many of you have never seen this before? Seriously? :wtf:
This is older than the pyramids (though very worthy of a repost I will admit). |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
But science never actually proves anything at all, and nor does it claim to. I think the obvious problems physics has with satisfactorily explaining the universe emphasises that our understanding of the universe is not proven. They are only theories, theories that have yet to be reconciled.
Science clearly thinks that the universe has other levels we cannot observe, because it's drawing up hypothetical ones such as string theory and multiple dimensions. |
True it doesn't "prove" anything, perhaps a better way of putting it is that it is a system where, given numerous positive hypotheses, the superior hypothesis is the one with fewer unsupported assumptions and more predictive value. |
|
|
| Fledz |
When a number becomes so large in maths, what do we do with it? We call it infinity.
That's the same way you can think about a hypothesis in science which has been proven so many times and is virtually unbreakable. It may not be 100% correct but it may as well be. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
True it doesn't "prove" anything, perhaps a better way of putting it is that it is a system where, given numerous positive hypotheses, the superior hypothesis is the one with fewer unsupported assumptions and more predictive value. |
I understand that. I'm not in any way trying to make a scientific claim for God. I'm not even claiming there is a "God" in any existing sense.
What I'm saying is consistent with several facts: that science is always finding new levels of reality, that scientific understanding is linked to the technology that allows observations to be made, science has several large unanswered questions about the universe, and that the laws of science are not consistent. Quantum physics and relativity - the theories of how the universe works on very small and very large scales - don't work together. Scientists are still searching for a unifying Theory Of Everything. Finally, throw in the fact that whenever science has thought it largely has everything explained with just a few theoretical tweaks, something big has always come along and changed everything.
When all that is considered, I think my thinking is self-evidently different altogether from religious arguments: I'm not claiming anything like metaphysics, the afterlife or a soul. My thinking is not obviously anthropocentric and it does the very opposite of placing us at the centre of reality. I'm not making any begging the question fallacies that cannot think of reality without a creator. I'm also not making any positive claims about what there is.
Anyway, I consider myself agnostic because I believe there is unsufficient evidence to draw any kind of comprehensive conclusion about existence. The .gif hammered home the sheer scope of trying to do so. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by stren
|
:stongue: |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by BTG
that picture is so utterly depressing.
*
it makes me wish i was born 20,000 years later. So i cant at least experience a taste of real space travel.
this lazy planet. |
What, so you can play Playstation, drink beer and watch hockey on a spaceship as it hurtles towards some distant planet? I can just see it now; your girlfriend at the window and you saying "I'll come and look later..."
Also, I think this short story is highly relevant to this thread, and everyone should read it. It just proves why Isaac Asimov is one of the greatest science-fiction writers ever.
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I understand that. I'm not in any way trying to make a scientific claim for God. I'm not even claiming there is a "God" in any existing sense.
What I'm saying is consistent with several facts: that science is always finding new levels of reality, that scientific understanding is linked to the technology that allows observations to be made, science has several large unanswered questions about the universe, and that the laws of science are not consistent. Quantum physics and relativity - the theories of how the universe works on very small and very large scales - don't work together. Scientists are still searching for a unifying Theory Of Everything. Finally, throw in the fact that whenever science has thought it largely has everything explained with just a few theoretical tweaks, something big has always come along and changed everything.
When all that is considered, I think my thinking is self-evidently different altogether from religious arguments: I'm not claiming anything like metaphysics, the afterlife or a soul. My thinking is not obviously anthropocentric and it does the very opposite of placing us at the centre of reality. I'm not making any begging the question fallacies that cannot think of reality without a creator. I'm also not making any positive claims about what there is.
Anyway, I consider myself agnostic because I believe there is unsufficient evidence to draw any kind of comprehensive conclusion about existence. The .gif hammered home the sheer scope of trying to do so. |
Yeah I was taking your statement as completely separate to any argument.. I didn't read your previous posts.
Generally I have no problem with agnostics or Deists... I don't even have much of a problem with the broader Theistic positions. I'd probably consider myself an agnostic too. |
|
|
|
|
