Creationists actually appear to function as destructionists for the most part. My assumption is that they want to speed the onset of The Rapture(TM).
WIll growing religiosity in the world by 2050 hurt science and space development?
- Thread starter CmdrShep2183
- Start date
And the dumb part of that whole Apocalypse thing? According to the Bible (you know, that book they keep waving in everyone's face but, apparently never actually read) you won't know when the second coming will happen. You can't force it to happen, you can't predict it in any way.
It will come as a thief in the night - is basically what the Bible says. They have chosen to ignore "The Word of God" (TM) in order to believe in some made-up B.S. started up just some 150 years ago...
I've quoted this before:
"What you've got to remember is that these are simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new west! You know...morons."
It will come as a thief in the night - is basically what the Bible says. They have chosen to ignore "The Word of God" (TM) in order to believe in some made-up B.S. started up just some 150 years ago...
I've quoted this before:
"What you've got to remember is that these are simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new west! You know...morons."
Praise the Lord!
It's certainly very depressing.
I once read an article in Astronomy magazine about the hypothesized heat death of the universe. I must have cried for a good 20 minutes afterward. It just seems so unfair that this universe is actually temporary and that eventually nothing will be remembered.
It's at times like this that I think Isaac Asimov was a genius. His story "The Last Question" is the only science fiction story I can think of that can satisfy both atheists and believers.
At the rate we're going with getting farther than the International Space Station, we'll need that time.I didn't like the 500 million year thing.. kinda like aaaaah????we have to hurry with getting off this planet aaaaaaah!!!
Back in the '70s I read a science fiction story in my Grade 6 reader about a teenage boy who goes to the Moon to visit his father, who works there. The boy is on a school holiday.
The story is set in 1985. The story was written much earlier, in the '60s, I think, or it might have been earlier.
Anyway, I remember when 1985 came and there were no colonies on the Moon. I feel cheated.
I don't believe in a God.
And like Ricky gervaise once said
"Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result."
And like Ricky gervaise once said
"Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result."
Again with the worldwide flood. So I guess he's not going to comment on where enough water to cover the entire globe came from, or where it went.
I didn't like the 500 million year thing.. kinda like aaaaah????
Old joke:
Two young men sat in the back of science class, one of them dozing off as the teacher talked. Suddenly he woke with a start and asked his friend:
"What did the teacher just say about the sun?"
"He said it will burn out in about five billion years."
"Oh what a relief, I thought he said five million!"
Last edited:
If we were sufficiently advanced, we could make the Sun last longer and reduce its luminosity by reducing its mass. For stars with a mass of between 0.43 and 2 solar masses, luminosity goes as the fourth power of mass (although luminosity also increases with age on the Main Sequence, which leads to a time limit for action of 500Ma rather than 4.5Ga). To reduce the luminosity by 5%, one would need to reduce the mass by about 1.25%. Lifetime on the Main Sequence is approximately 10^10 years * (M/Msol)^-2.5 so reducing the mass by 1.25% would mean the Sun would stay about 1.6% longer on the Main Sequence or about 160 million years, assuming it has already fused about half the hydrogen in its core. If we sent the removed mass outside the solar system, rather than keeping it near the Sun, the planetary orbits would increase in radius by 1.25% (conservation of angular momentum), further reducing the power per unit area received from the Sun by about 2.5% (inverse-square law).
Perhaps we could remove mass from the Sun by magnetic field manipulation, increasing the strength of the solar wind? Currently, the Sun loses about 2.5×10^−14 of its mass each year due to the solar wind. The mass loss due to nuclear fusion is about 6.5x10^-14 solar masses for a total of 9x10^-14 solar masses. That's about one Earth mass or a paltry 0.0003% of the Sun's total mass every 40 million years. This sounds like fantasy engineering, but we might need to do it someday.
Perhaps we could remove mass from the Sun by magnetic field manipulation, increasing the strength of the solar wind? Currently, the Sun loses about 2.5×10^−14 of its mass each year due to the solar wind. The mass loss due to nuclear fusion is about 6.5x10^-14 solar masses for a total of 9x10^-14 solar masses. That's about one Earth mass or a paltry 0.0003% of the Sun's total mass every 40 million years. This sounds like fantasy engineering, but we might need to do it someday.
Last edited:
Picard: "Make it so."
Janeway: "Do it."
Seriously, though, I'd want more information about the other planets before manipulating their orbits. After all, there is a reasonable possibility that there may be life on one or more of Saturn's moons.
Human civilisation would need to be Kardachev type II to manipulate solar output or change planetary orbits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_II_civilization_methods
Michio Kaku has speculated that we might reach type I status in a couple of hundred years time, type II after a few thousand years, and type III in a few hundred thousand years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#Type_II_civilization_methods
Michio Kaku has speculated that we might reach type I status in a couple of hundred years time, type II after a few thousand years, and type III in a few hundred thousand years.
That is, of course, if we don't:
A - Destroy ourselves (doing a bangup job of it!)
B - Get "nuked" by an asteroid (could do something about that.)
C - Actually end up in an Idiocracy (Trumpists would love that.)
A - Destroy ourselves (doing a bangup job of it!)
B - Get "nuked" by an asteroid (could do something about that.)
C - Actually end up in an Idiocracy (Trumpists would love that.)
Everything that can happen, does happen.
I believe that the question, "Will growing religiosity in the world by 2050 hurt science and space development?" Simply because some of the people on this thread may not possess a respect for people of religion does not mean that they are entitled to make fun of it. Respect everyone and argue logically. If you have an opinion, share it, but have a reason prepared. Making fun of religion is not fun.
I just re-read the entire thread, and I'm satisfied with my posts, whether I was replying to you or someone else.
Those videos some people posted, in which YECs were trying to elicit "gotcha!" moments on scientists, and the numerous incidents of insisting that atheism is a religion after being told emphatically by many of us that it is not, are hardly examples of respect and arguing logically.
Now that we've all had several months' experience of our lives being disrupted and even locked down due to this global pandemic that's going on, there are instances where people insist on worship gatherings even though they've been told not to, that such gatherings are one of the prime ways to spread COVID and disrupt efforts to prevent people from getting sick.
Some churches have gone online, and that's great. They've demonstrated good sense. But the ones who haven't are hurting science by creating more stress on the medical professionals - some of whom would rather be working on developing a vaccine, instead of tending to even more careless or willfully obtuse people who ignored medical advice and even the laws against large gatherings.
And don't get me started on the anti-vaxxers...