Life On Earth, Science Vs Religion

[jd_1984]

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://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/life-earth-started-300-million-6664589

[Khandro]

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?

[naomi24]

Jom, //except archaeologists..// Not at all. Archaeologists are expert in their given area – just not in this one.

[naomi24]

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.

[jim360]

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://www.iflscience.com/space/earth-may-have-formed-earlier-92-other-habitable-planets

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.

[naomi24]

Interesting link - more food for thought. Thanks Jim.

[jomifl]

/Archaeologists are expert in their given area – just not in this one./ but ancient pyramid design and evolution, the symbolism of primitive paintings, rock carvings and statues is exactly their area of expertise.

[jomifl]

Khandro, as you might expect I disagree, the abliity to chew a problem over subconsciously and fit a model to the data is a bit different from fitting the data to a model which has been 'plucked out of the air'.

[naomi24]

They assume that primitive art is symbolic and so like many other things, they slot it all into a convenient niche – whether it really fits or not.

[jomifl]

Well of course that would explain it then...Those archaeology degrees aren't worth a damn.

[naomi24]

Careful, Jom. You're beginning to sound like Mikey.

[jomifl]

Thankyou for that carefully crafted answer Naomi..at least Mikey answers questions.

[jim360]

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.

[naomi24]

Jom, had you asked me a question I'd have answered it - but you didn't.

[EDDIE51]

jim360 is this the article
https://dub115.mail.live.com/?tid=cmjqLSbTd35RGzAgAhWtnfaA2&;fid=flinbox
I have 'Inbox Astronomy' it is free lots of useful information.

[EDDIE51]

sorry try again
https://dub115.mail.live.com/default.aspx?tid=cmjqLSbTd35RGzAgAhWtnfaA2&fid=flinbox

[jim360]

That seems to amount to a link to your inbox, and just redirects to mine -- sorry.

[EDDIE51]

I give up ,It was on' Inbox Astronomy' 20th Oct , you should be able to get it free.

[naomi24]

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.

[jim360]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.01202.pdf -- full text, and I believe identical to the journal version. So much for the paywall.