Life on Earth older than thought?

Skybird · 05-20-09, 03:29 PM

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-aa3051909.php

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...ept_on_ticking

All a joke, since the universe and life is just 6000 years old according to creationism. But what a good joke it is, and what a display of imagination!

Stealth Hunter · 05-20-09, 04:17 PM

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

:rotfl:

Fundies Say the Darndest Things! is pure gold.

Letum · 05-20-09, 04:41 PM

That fundie quote annoys me doubly because high entropy stated can be well
ordered and it seams a common mistake to think otherwise. It leads to false
ideas like the Boltzmann Brain Paradox.

Ed to expand:
because causal chains that follow simple patterns or rules can form complex,
highly ordered states whilst resulting in a overall increase in entropy.
The B.Brain paradox is wrong because it does not recognize that there are
many (many, many!) starting conditions that can lead to the causal chain
consciousness, there is a certain inevitability about it, given enough time
and space, whilst there are relatively few conditions that are Boltzmann Brians.

ed2: This is a personal bugbear for me.

Skybird · 05-20-09, 06:07 PM

Entropy and thermodynamics are paradigms, or better: theories or theoretical constructions. They make sense in that they match a lot of observation data, and are capable to bring new observations into an order that matches their claim. Nevertheless they are just theories. Like anything else in sciences is just subjective observation, and theory.

A responsible scientist does not claim to know the ultimate truth, but he will always say: "our current model explains it like this, and this makes sense according to what we know so far, because..." Only religious zealots and narcisstic missionaries - or stupid scientists - claim to have ultimate explanations that will not see any further alteration in the future.

Hell, even Hawking has given up some years ago his life-long claim that the world could be explained in one final, ultimate formula or model. It seems he made the step from knowledge to wisdom.

Only wisdom can serve as an antidot to being stupid, while most people in responsible positions, who mess up the world and peoples' lives, are very knowing people indeed. It seems that knowledge alone is just a necessary but no adequate and sufficient condition to act intelligently. You can know a lot - and still be stupid.

Or as Spock put it in ST6: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom - not it's end."

Letum · 05-20-09, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Entropy and thermodynamics are paradigms[...]

Don't you mean: "Skybird's current model explains entropy and
thermodynamics as paradigms", or don't you apply the same
standards to your meta-knowledge as you do to your knowledge?

(ed: not that I disagree with much of your above post, although I am a
little confused as to why you bought such issues up here)

Aramike · 05-20-09, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Entropy and thermodynamics are paradigms, or better: theories or theoretical constructions. They make sense in that they match a lot of observation data, and are capable to bring new observations into an order that matches their claim. Nevertheless they are just theories. Like anything else in sciences is just subjective observation, and theory.

Actually, entropy with regards to thermodynamics is not a theory - its a physical law of nature. For it to be untrue, nature itself would have to change, whereas there would then be a new truth. This is often known as a "vacuum".

Quote:

A responsible scientist does not claim to know the ultimate truth, but he will always say: "our current model explains it like this, and this makes sense according to what we know so far, because..." Only religious zealots and narcisstic missionaries - or stupid scientists - claim to have ultimate explanations that will not see any further alteration in the future.

You couldn't be more wrong. A responsible scientist claims to know the truth when he does indeed know the truth. Scientific truths are what enables technology to expand. For instance, it is a scientific truth that splitting the atom releases immense energy. It is a scientific truth that the earth is round.

There is a clear difference between a "theory" and a "law". A theory is predictive, whereas a law is an expression that is always true under the same conditions.

Skybird · 05-21-09, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

Don't you mean: "Skybird's current model explains entropy and
thermodynamics as paradigms", or don't you apply the same
standards to your meta-knowledge as you do to your knowledge?

(ed: not that I disagree with much of your above post, although I am a
little confused as to why you bought such issues up here)

What's the word surgery about here? Practically all theoretical statements of sciences are thought models and theories only, no ultimate truths and final answers, and where they form an influencing meta-theory, we call them a paradigm. Theories come and go, some stay long, others not as long, some get abandoned and given up, others get complemented. But always it is human mind's created order of thoughts that decides where we put that new observation that we just made. and this case of observation and this artificial order we created decides on our efforts how to make new observations.

Or to put it more poetically: all science is observations only that dances and plays with human mind.

You just said it yourself, Letum, in your reply to Aramike. You talked of what you believe theories are. Which is another theory - about theories.

I am not minimizing the value of theories in principle. I am all for making pragmatic use of them, to do things that are in our reach to do, and to think thoughts we are able to think. But a theory is nothing more than that, a theory. There are no nature's laws - just our assumptions about nature having this or that regularity. And that again is a theory, based on many observations.

Just too take it as granted that such theories are so unlimited and infinite in validity that they embrace all universe although we know close to nothing about this universe - that is a bit too much. With nature's laws it could very well be that we find out one day that it is with many of them like it is with Newtonian physics and quantum, physics: the one model works wonders to explain Pool, the other is useless. The latter theory is great according to our current standard of knowledge to explain subnuclear events, Newton sucks.

We live on just one little planet, and have thrown a couple of little toys into the air close to us. Let's not antropomorphise the rest of the universe altogether, and let's not fantasize that we really do any form of space travel really worth to be called that.

Most intelligent life out there probably will be eons older, than we are. Most of these intelligences will be so much superior in intelligence that we probably will be unable to even recognize them as what they are: intelligence, as long as they do not help us to recognize them. Like we are also unable to recognize an intelligence that is too much inferior to us. And if we have this problem of not recognizing inferior intelligence, why do we assume that other superior intelligences do not have the same problem in recognizing us? For all the others out there, "universe" will be something very different than for us. And the superior intelligences there are, probably are capable of means and abilities that for us border to pure magic. Astronomy tells us we live in those 10% of this galaxy's volume that are the youngest part of this galaxy. That means 90% of solar systems in this galaxy are much older than Earth. If anybody has dreams about us meeting others on a basis of same eye level or missionary superiority, Star Trek style, you better think twice. for that reason I have said farewell to the idea to send drones into space and trying to make active contact, and want passive listening being done only. Since most of those out there already are superior to us, what makes us assuming that they all are necessarily friendly? The example of human societies on planet Earth?

05-20-09, 03:29 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Life on Earth older than previously thought? http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-aa3051909.php http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...ept_on_ticking All a joke, since the universe and life is just 6000 years old according to creationism. But what a good joke it is, and what a display of imagination! __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 05-20-09 at 03:39 PM.

05-20-09, 04:41 PM	#3
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	That fundie quote annoys me doubly because high entropy stated can be well ordered and it seams a common mistake to think otherwise. It leads to false ideas like the Boltzmann Brain Paradox. Ed to expand: because causal chains that follow simple patterns or rules can form complex, highly ordered states whilst resulting in a overall increase in entropy. The B.Brain paradox is wrong because it does not recognize that there are many (many, many!) starting conditions that can lead to the causal chain consciousness, there is a certain inevitability about it, given enough time and space, whilst there are relatively few conditions that are Boltzmann Brians. ed2: This is a personal bugbear for me. __________________ Last edited by Letum; 05-20-09 at 04:55 PM.

05-20-09, 06:07 PM	#4
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Entropy and thermodynamics are paradigms, or better: theories or theoretical constructions. They make sense in that they match a lot of observation data, and are capable to bring new observations into an order that matches their claim. Nevertheless they are just theories. Like anything else in sciences is just subjective observation, and theory. A responsible scientist does not claim to know the ultimate truth, but he will always say: "our current model explains it like this, and this makes sense according to what we know so far, because..." Only religious zealots and narcisstic missionaries - or stupid scientists - claim to have ultimate explanations that will not see any further alteration in the future. Hell, even Hawking has given up some years ago his life-long claim that the world could be explained in one final, ultimate formula or model. It seems he made the step from knowledge to wisdom. Only wisdom can serve as an antidot to being stupid, while most people in responsible positions, who mess up the world and peoples' lives, are very knowing people indeed. It seems that knowledge alone is just a necessary but no adequate and sufficient condition to act intelligently. You can know a lot - and still be stupid. Or as Spock put it in ST6: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom - not it's end." __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

05-20-09, 04:17 PM	#2
Stealth Hunter Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Y'ha-Nthlei Posts: 4,262 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. :rotfl: Fundies Say the Darndest Things! is pure gold.