Humans and Stardust

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blah, I’m sorry we are never going to agree.

Read Thomas Kuhn’s “Structures of Scientific Revolutions” and Brian Esleas’ “Liberation and the Aims of Science.”

You and I are two completely different paradigms divided by the theory of mind. I don’t see Science as a Political Party or association one can belong to; I’m neither for or against Science as if it were a Political issue. I don’t see people who are interested in Science as necessarily, “smart.” Nor, do I feel public shame by not being associated with, “that,” crowd. Whatever that means.

You’ll just have to accept that I’m, “different,” in that while I will get vaccines, I will not listen to Science based on Science Fiction. Again, Bowie came up with this idea. Wrote a whole album about it =)
 
Jen7 said:
What on earth is stardust?
Click to expand...
Everything on earth, with the possible exception of hydrogen. Astrophysicists theorize that every other element on earth was made inside stars, mostly from hydrogen, and then redistributed when some of those stars blew themselves to bits.

Looking at it this way, God made our bodies entirely from hydrogen.
 
RepetantCatholic said:
Blah, I’m sorry we are never going to agree.

Read Thomas Kuhn’s “Structures of Scientific Revolutions” and Brian Esleas’ “Liberation and the Aims of Science.”

You and I are two completely different paradigms divided by the theory of mind. I don’t see Science as a Political Party or association one can belong to; I’m neither for or against Science as if it were a Political issue. I don’t see people who are interested in Science as necessarily, “smart.” Nor, do I feel public shame by not being associated with, “that,” crowd. Whatever that means.

You’ll just have to accept that I’m, “different,” in that while I will get vaccines, I will not listen to Science based on Science Fiction. Again, Bowie came up with this idea. Wrote a whole album about it =)
Click to expand...

I’m a little piece of the universe that has become self aware.
 
Last edited:
Oh, man, @Freddy You’re good vibes. I’m sorry if I’m being so flippant…but this Carl Sagan video is what I imagine when people use the term, “Stardust.” It sounds so Seventies. You can see the politics surrounding the issue and the reflection of the time the idea was conceived. To me this is speculation, not Science.

Well, Freddy, I’ve tossed prayers your way before. I hope everything gets better for you and you are good vibes. Too bad this forum is going to close.
 
What’s even sadder is the complete lack of rebuttal, which has been replaced with “Haha you’re funny.” It’s a stark reminder that an age of anti-intellectualism is upon us once more.
 
Well, I’m no expert but maybe I can take a more mature tone as I didn’t intend to upset @Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman.

The Scientific Method necessitates Predictability which is a Statistical Term which is something akin to a hypothesis cannot be disproved at the 99th percentile. In Science there has to be Probability and Statistics involved and the necessary Predictability, which again is a Statistical Term. The Statistics come from “Experiments.” With that level of Predictability, and Reliability (another Statistical Term) come things like technology.

Then there are other qualifications in the Scientific Method like Explanatory Value, that is also a Statistical Term. Again, this is all Mathematical and Mainly Statistical. The Explanatory Value not only indicates that not only can a hypothesis not be disproven but more importantly attributes to a conclusion about the subject. Explanatory Value is another Statistical Term.

Look at the Carl Sagan video. That video doesn’t bother you or make you laugh a bit? Again, if, in fact, this idea of Stardust originated in the era of Carl Sagan it is more a reflection of the era than an actual universal Truth. Again, not even the video as the explanation withstands the test of time.
 
RepetantCatholic said:
Look at the Carl Sagan video.
Click to expand...
Rather than focusing on the video - the scientific theory at issue is the manner of formation of the heavier elements. If you’ve concluded that theory is science fiction, could you outline how you’ve concluded that?
 
Well, you didn’t respond to my post about the Scientific Method and Predictability, Reliability, and Explanatory Value.

I concluded this theory has no merit or is of little consequence the SAME way you concluded it is a tenable theory: just out of my own experience, judgement, and my skepticism of the institutions involved.

Again, you have trust in the institutions. So, you place your trust in untested theories. But again, you did not base your judgment on your own Research or Scientific Evidence.

So, essentially, you are just saying, “who are you to disagree?” So, my response is, “who are you to agree?”
 
RepetantCatholic said:
Well, you didn’t respond to my post about the Scientific Method and Predictability, Reliability, and Explanatory Value.

I concluded this theory has no merit or is of little consequence the SAME way you concluded it is a tenable theory: just out of my own experience, judgement, and my skepticism of the institutions involved.

Again, you have trust in the institutions. So, you place your trust in untested theories. But again, you did not base your judgment on your own Research or Scientific Evidence.

So, essentially, you are just saying, “who are you to disagree?” So, my response is, “who are you to agree?”
Click to expand...
A theory (which wasn’t anywhere near what was being talked about in the video) is simply an explanation which ties all the available evidence together and makes a proposal. There may be more than one, but the one that explains the evidence the best and makes the most accurate proposals is the one that is generally accepted.

It’s not really possible to reject a theory unless you have a better one. Saying ‘that doesn’t sound right to me’ in isolation is a worthless statement. You need to tack on a ‘because…’ at the end of it. And then give the reasons why you think it’s wrong. And that will lead to you proposing an alternative. But there has to be an alternative. Because in a one horse race, that one horse always wins.

In threads such as the ones that discuss evolution there are two types of arguments that you see all the time. One person will propose an alternative theory and fight their corner using what they consider to be evidence which supports their proposal. Another person will simply keep posting versions of ‘Well, that’s rubbish. What nonsense’. And they refuse to give an alternative.

Don’t be that second person.
 
So…this conversation is going over my head. Are we made from stardust and if not, which scientist says otherwise?
 
Does the fact we’re made from stardust contradict Genesis? Or could one say it supports Genesis?
 
Last edited:
Let’s see… stars are globs of burning gases! Do they leave ashes? What exactly is stardust? Is it like fairy dust??? Have you ever seen any?
 
Petra202 said:
stars are globs of burning gases!
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The real heat and light doesn’t come from fire, but from nuclear fusion in the core. Stardust is the gaseous cloud left behind after a star dies and its layers are blown into space. And yes, we’ve seen them. They’re called Nebulae. Pretty beautiful things, too.
Hope1960 said:
Does the fact we’re made from stardust contradict Genesis?
Click to expand...
Don’t see how it would. God created everything, and created us by designing the universe such that stars would live and die and create different elements, all of which would wind up here for Him to create living things.
 
Hope1960 said:
Does the fact we’re made from stardust contradict Genesis? Or could one say it supports Genesis?
Click to expand...
Pick up a book on astrophysics and it’ll give you the prose. Read Genesis and it will give you the poetry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top