|
| Thread: Will we survive? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Orion
Known Hero
Dark God of Ordered Chaos
|
posted July 01, 2004 04:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Total extinction of our species is only possible at this point in our existence if the planet in which live becomes the bystander of a Red Giant sun. We are no longer in danger of Asteroids, comets, ufo, etc. hitting our planet and destroying the atmosphere or some such similar catastrophe. We now have the technology to prevent such an occurrence.
are technology maybe but in the case of asteroids etc we have to no there coming years in advance so we can destroy them or change there path so none of it will hit and since only a small percent of the sky has been checked for threats like this we would no unitl it was to late to insure our survial
a 10 km asteriod would wipe all humanity out and leave the planet choked with dust for at least 100 years and we do not have plans in place to prevent this or to get us through it at the moment
the universe it self is stacked against us
but damn there is nothing better than looking death in the face dying and yet knowing that victory may still be yours cause your children, race, planet, life etc live on
____________
Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for it bends to my will
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 01, 2004 08:26 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 1 Jul 2004
|
N.E.A.'s
"Near Earth Asteroids" or "Near Earth Objects" are now being tracked via our many sattellites orbiting earth and on expeditions.
The most efficient method for tracking these objects was recently invented by a highschool student. A young girl found a way to effectively monitor such objects(and asteroids) using the internet and our sattellites. She was one of the Microsoft Science Award winners of the year.
For those of you not fully aware of this new process please visit this website:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news142.html
This is but one of many websites devoted to such a cause. Some asteroids even have each their own website due to their popularity among astronomers.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted July 02, 2004 02:12 AM |
|
|
@ bjorn
Quote:
Axioms are just fantasy, and with fantasy as a base, to me, science can be nothing more than a very useful fantasy. Nothing can ever be proven or disproven. Just guessed and fantasized about.
And just how are axioms (theories) fantasy?! They are based on experiments. A theory exists as long as it's not disproven. Until then it's the direct result of creative minds and sensory information registered through experiments. How can that be fantasy? What we're interested about is how processes occur, i.e. how we percieve them they occur, and that is directly dependant on our essence as species. Pure pragmatism, not fantasy.
Quote:
The arguments use reason, which is built into the scientific system, and since science claims reasoning is true, if reason disproves science, then science cant be true. Thus, science is false.
First argument: not correct.
Second argument: And what prevents science from being a viable system, even if it deals only with the subjective reality? After all, why would we need an ultimate objectiveness, when we can't use it? Science is a system adapted to the human essence, and derived from the manifastation of the objective reality. The key word here is usefulness, not ultimate objectivity.
That said, science imho is a more result of empiricism, than reason. Reason is only used as method for constructing theories, comprehensive understanding etc. While the true source of all knowledge would really be empricism, and hence the subjectiveness of science.
Quote:
Religion must have been a great way to make educated guesses back in its glory days, since you could get burned on a stake if you didnt follow the religious laws, much like you can die now if you disobey gravity and jump off a cliff without proper flight gear or stare direcly at the sun.
That is one hell of an inappropriate comparisson and you know it. Religious laws were constructed by man, and it was useful knowing them, beck then when people had to deal with the church hardcore divine ignorance, while scientific laws are always there, existant in nature, interpreted by man. One has to know scientific laws now, then, in the future, always. Anyway, that's not what we're talking about. We are interested in the difference between scientific interpretations and religioous interpretations, not the consequences of opposing the two views.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
