[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Lurker

That link just opens a black window. Anyway I stand corrected (I think). But you can't still argue that it happened exactly as in the Bible as that would possible. How could we know God did it seven days? I think that was what I actually meant, not that you can't argue in favour of God creating the universe in general.

We are discussing creationism, are we not? Creationism is a cosmology, NOT a religion. This is why the debate over I.D. is retarded; it assumes that creationism and judeo-christianity are one in the same.

[gualbert]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I don;t wanna say more cuz someone will steal my idea.

Some scientists maybe.
They take lots of idea from sci-fi writers.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

it would take a spacecraft some 7675 years to travel the 24,920,647,758,761 (coincidently that number is in the range to the total US debt right now which the CIA world fact book places around $12,000,000,000,000) odd miles that separates Earth from the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri..

Thanks.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

doesn't the practice of philosophy require us to be current, i.e., to address the situation at hand, with our current knowledge?

In short, no.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

A girl made you feel bad, so kids struggling to make sense of themselves and/or their world should not be given the avenue to do so?

what?

what you said doesn't make sense to me at all, so, can you explain before i answer?

[pbradley]

You should have told the girl to let you finish explaining before she had her way with it.

[Rob Instigator]

Here is my thing.

Imagine that humans have developed an engine that can proplel a spacecraft fast enough to reach, let's say half the speed of light.
Imagine that this spacecraft is loaded up with humans and these humans take off for a star 100 light years away. (it would take them 200 years to get there).
Before leaving, they send my proposed microbial seeding spacecraft to venus, mars, mercury, titan, io,and any other place in the solar system that we can find compatible microbial life on earth to suit it's environments.
The super fast human will take 100 years to get to their destination, traveling at a speed which is relativistic and warps spacetime. They stay for 100 years and then travel back to Earth at the same speed.
In their experience, only 500 years would have gone by, but they spent 400 of those years traveling at relativistic speeds. On earth and in the solar system, time progressed much more rapidly (I d not know the exact calculations but let us imagin ethat a million years have gone by)

In that time, the whole of humanity or even life on earth may be gone.
Can you imagine that in those intervening million years some of that microbial seeding would have not only survived but flourished and by doing so altered the planets/moons/asteroids where we have seeded them?

Mars could be covered by continent sized mats of microbial life that eat iron oxide and shit out oxygen, allowing for a slow oxygenization of that planet, or venus could be an ocean of microbes converting the methane into hydrogen and carbon. who knows?

These humans could check shit out, then head right back to their original destination, coming back every 500 years to them, but every milion or so years to our solar system.

it could be done.

and it would rock.

sweet ass comic book based on this will be forthcoming from the rob instigator

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

what?

what you said doesn't make sense to me at all, so, can you explain before i answer?

What you described wasn't the practice of philosophy. Philosophizing is uninterested in modern or ancient, German or Greek. Philosophy is asking what and why. Critiquing and defending philosophers is not philosophy.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

at times like these, when the sky is falling, I am thankful to be a man of faith, as I have entirely lost my confidence in the abilities of people to be good stewards for the planet.. luckily for us we are not necessarily in charge here

that's what Vonnegut said. he thought humanity had ruined itself and the earth with it and that we were past the point of repairing it all.

I think he gave us maybe another thousand years of existance, robably reverted back to agrarian subsistence existence, before we become a footnote in the life cycle of the planet earth
(that is why we need to take off into space!)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

You should have told the girl to let you finish explaining before she had her way with it.

there was no girl. my friend was a professor, her friend was an older wrinkly woman who likely had been taught "philosophy" at a seminar, hence, rather than listen to the explanation, she refuted my terms at every point based on the fucking doctors of the church.

i was not "made to feel bad", i just thought it was stupid of her that she'd refuse to hear a theory because it was not compatible with a dead greek (an admirable one, still dead). she was great at quoting archaic sources but useless at understanding.

my question though (which you haven't answered yet, and i'm not interrogating, i'm honestly asking) is what do these archaic people have to do with our current debates? yes, they came up with certain solutions, certain modes of addressing problems, but besides that, you posted a link to the summa theologica and in spite of your answer to lurker i still don't get how you see that book as relevant to the current debate of creationism "vs." science.

i side with stephen jay gould in believing that science and religion don't/shouldn't touch each other's dicks, so i find the opposition to be a spurious one, based more on politics than on a quest for truth, but that's just me.

so again could you explain your posting of the link to the aquinas wikipedia article? because i don't see the relevance.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

What you described wasn't the practice of philosophy. Philosophizing is uninterested in modern or ancient, German or Greek. Philosophy is asking what and why. Critiquing and defending philosophers is not philosophy.

right, that's exactly what i posted in my question to you. so we agree on this point.

but why aquinas??

[Rob Instigator]

platonic ideals fucked up the development of humanity's creativity for thousands of years.
his ideas on the humours of the body fucked up medicine until late into the 19th century.

fuck them mo-fuckers.

[gualbert]

Great idea ( for a book ), Rob.
But travelling near the speed of light also alter the mass of the object, in theory, so when they'll be back, the astronauts and their ship will be huge and they won't be able to adapt to any environnement.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

my question though (which you haven't answered yet, and i'm not interrogating, i'm honestly asking) is what do these archaic people have to do with our current debates? yes, they came up with certain solutions, certain modes of addressing problems, but besides that, you posted a link to the summa theologica and in spite of your answer to lurker i still don't get how you see that book as relevant to the current debate of creationism "vs." science.

I haven't said that it is relevant to the current discourse. If you read earlier, I was arguing that creationism, if it should be at all taught, should be through philosophical seminar. My reference to Aquinas was to show that creationism can be argued. Evidently there are students for and against intelligent design in every high school, or at least they are curious about it. It is in a philosophy course that creationism be allowed to be heard and argued over.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Here is my thing.

Imagine that humans have developed an engine that can proplel a spacecraft fast enough to reach, let's say half the speed of light.
Imagine that this spacecraft is loaded up with humans and these humans take off for a star 100 light years away. (it would take them 200 years to get there).
Before leaving, they send my proposed microbial seeding spacecraft to venus, mars, mercury, titan, io,and any other place in the solar system that we can find compatible microbial life on earth to suit it's environments.
The super fast human will take 100 years to get to their destination, traveling at a speed which is relativistic and warps spacetime. They stay for 100 years and then travel back to Earth at the same speed.
In their experience, only 500 years would have gone by, but they spent 400 of those years traveling at relativistic speeds. On earth and in the solar system, time progressed much more rapidly (I d not know the exact calculations but let us imagin ethat a million years have gone by)

In that time, the whole of humanity or even life on earth may be gone.
Can you imagine that in those intervening million years some of that microbial seeding would have not only survived but flourished and by doing so altered the planets/moons/asteroids where we have seeded them?

Mars could be covered by continent sized mats of microbial life that eat iron oxide and shit out oxygen, allowing for a slow oxygenization of that planet, or venus could be an ocean of microbes converting the methane into hydrogen and carbon. who knows?

These humans could check shit out, then head right back to their original destination, coming back every 500 years to them, but every milion or so years to our solar system.

it could be done.

and it would rock.

sweet ass comic book based on this will be forthcoming from the rob instigator

no disrespect Rob, but Earth has enough problems to deal with as it is with out dreams of terraforming and intergallactic space travel to waste even more unimaginable sums of money on.. as it is NASA spends over $1 BILLION on a program to attempt to terraform mars while we let the earth fall to shit...

"rally sight of Mars ship in darkness, cite them truth, right in front of them kids, but you're bound to see a world full of misfortune and dread.." (ie, even if the teraform mars, we will just relocate all the human problems on earth to mars)

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

but why aquinas??

Because it is an example of philosophy in favor of creationism. Creationism is capable of being philosophically discussed.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Because it is an example of philosophy in favor of creationism. Creationism is capable of being philosophically discussed.

thank you!

[pbradley]

And capable of being philosophically rejected.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

I haven't said that it is relevant to the current discourse. If you read earlier, I was arguing that creationism, if it should be at all taught, should be through philosophical seminar. My reference to Aquinas was to show that creationism can be argued. Evidently there are students for and against intelligent design in every high school, or at least they are curious about it. It is in a philosophy course that creationism be allowed to be heard and argued over.

ok, but when lurker said "i still dont' see how you can argue for creationism", he wasn't referring to the middle ages, he meant (i'm sure) in our current context. hence i found your posted link irrelevant.

the question then is to be rephrased as "how can you credibly argue for creationism today"? and you could-- but you could look at more modern sources that take into account our scientific knowlege (unlike kant's discussion on the number of stars). there was recently (the 70s?) this english physicist genius madman, fred hoyle, who argued in favor of a "constantly created" universe (and he was a theist i believe). and roger penrose i believe has argued (i'm not sure successfully) for the existence of a platonic world of ideas that makes mathematics possible...

and yes, creationism could be discussed in philosophy, i never "denied kids the right to expressed themselves" because "a girl made me feel bad". what the fuck! but am i IRATE about the fucking churchmongers fucking with kid's science education? fuck yes. it's an atrocity.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by gualbert

Great idea ( for a book ), Rob.
But travelling near the speed of light also alter the mass of the object, in theory, so when they'll be back, the astronauts and their ship will be huge and they won't be able to adapt to any environnement.

the odd thing relativity wise, is that the mass only increases as your speed increaes. it decreases as your speed decreases.
where it comes from? who knows?

it must be like the Hulk's extra mass. where does that come from? cu the fucker is at least a thousand kilograms more massive than puny banner.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

no disrespect Rob, but Earth has enough problems to deal with as it is with out dreams of terraforming and intergallactic space travel to waste even more unimaginable sums of money on.. as it is NASA spends over $1 BILLION on a program to attempt to terraform mars while we let the earth fall to shit...

"rally sight of Mars ship in darkness, cite them truth, right in front of them kids, but you're bound to see a world full of misfortune and dread.." (ie, even if the teraform mars, we will just relocate all the human problems on earth to mars)

that is why it will be done by private enterprise.

not governments.

Nasa served it's purpose. it can maintain hat it does.

it will take private enterprise to do the rest.
and it needs to be done, for if we as a species understand that our possibilities are far far greater than we currently imagine, we may yet realize that 99% of what we argue about is meaningless shit, and I include personal beliefs in that.