What can science not explain?

take everything wrote: »

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.

That's true, but at the same time since it got a start life has managed to find a way to survive in all sorts of places where we didn't think it could survive. Including spending time in outer space or frozen in ice for 30 years, coming back to life and breeding again. There are creatures on this planet that could survive being blown out into space and if it ever found somewhere warm enough to defrost it could maybe come back to life and start breeding again.

Can't remember the details but everything from the cosmic level down to how the moon orbits the earth (IIRC) etc. Whatever about the details it's mind-boggling to think of the unlikeliness of life.

Eclipses would be one of those bizarre coincidences. The moon is just the right distance between the sun and earth to create perfect eclipses (on some parts of the earth). Although, it hasn't always like that, and won't always be like that as the moon is slowly moving away. But that makes it an even bigger coincidence, that it's happening at the time when there just so happens to be a sentient creature that can notice the difference and appreciate it. Our planets relationship with the moon could be a one in a billion thing that doesn't happen that often. Or it could be that the moon is a vital part of the equation that makes life possible and every planet with sentient life would have eclipses like ours.

take everything wrote: »

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.

There is a few errors in thinking inherent in that impression. But it is an impression most people share.

An example error in thinking there lies in the inherent assumption that life on earth is the exemplar of life. But we do not know this. It is the only example we know sure. But who knows what else there is in the set "life" and what conditions would be conducive to it.

Another error is that the conditions are not AS specific as you think. Look at the subset of Earth life called "Extremophiles". They are living and existing in environments much different to our own. This links back to the first error as we can see there are different forms of "life" that exist in different conditions. There is a range of conditions on this world, not a specific sets, and life arises in even the most extreme ones.

The comedy writer Douglas Adams made a good analogy here. Imagine a puddle in a hole somewhere that magically becomes conscious. The puddle would look at the hole it found itself in and think "Wow, it is amazing that this hole is the EXACT shape to fit my size shape and form!!!".

We humans think like that puddle.

But the real explanation is not that the hole was formed exactly to fit the puddle.... but the puddle arose and formed to fit the whole. The puddle, like most humans, has it exactly backwards. Life on earth rose into the conditions on earth. It is not that the earth is amazingly specific to house life as we know it, it is that life on earth was forged by that earth to fit it.

Finally the error in the impression is that it is earth-centric as a view. There is a whole continuum of conditions out there in the universe. All kinds of throws of the dice and worlds with varying attributes and conditions. So whatever the attributes are for the rise of life, there will be somewhere it could do so.

take everything wrote: »

It's one of those things (like the structure eye) that makes you think ”is there a designer".

And I can see why it would illicit that thought in people. But when one considers the evolutionary path-way of things like an eye, it is remarkably simple and elegant. There is just as much requirement for a designer as there is evidence that was one. None. And that is before you mention the design flaws in such systems that show just how bungling a designer it would have had to have been.

riffmongous wrote: »

But there are still edges there in this example, only as a 2d being you cant observe them

Opportunity for 'quirky book recommendation of the day'...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/433567.Flatland

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But the real explanation is not that the hole was formed exactly to fit the puddle.... but the puddle arose and formed to fit the whole. The puddle, like most humans, has it exactly backwards. Life on earth rose into the conditions on earth. It is not that the earth is amazingly specific to house life as we know it, it is that life on earth was forged by that earth to fit it.

Even so, it still makes sense for the likes of NASA to stick to the criteria of earth life. Because we know what it looks like and how to narrow down the search. When it comes to other kinds of possible life forms we may not even know how to recognise them, nevermind find them. There's probably a huge variation and by searching for the styles of life we know we may come across something we weren't expecting.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely it makes sense in terms of deploying our very limited resources. And in terms of the fact we do not really know what to look for. But not in terms of the fact that we honestly do not know what other life is possible, which is the point I was making merely to address the claim of how fine tuned for life the earth appears. It only appears like that because we are assuming one kind of life... the one we know of. But is that a safe assumption to make?

The earth life was born out of was vastly different to our own. The planet as we know it now was basically created by life. We wouldn't have an oxygen rich atmosphere for a start, life created that (at the detriment of most living things at the time). So even within the confines of what we know about life on earth there's a huge variety of conditions suitable for life. As well as looking for the obvious earth as it is today we could also be looking for the earth as it was a 3 billion years ago.

Science cannot agree on an explanation for airplane flight!! Now think about that the nest time you are sitting on the runway

The secret to airplane flight? No one really knows

Cambridge scientist debunks flying myth

sleep well!

Is yawning not intended to try and keep us awake? We Yawn as a means of a very deep breath to take in a large gulp of oxygen to re-energize.

At least thats what I was told!!!!!

irishgrover wrote: »

God?

Explained

Fairytale, arising from a need to understand and explain the world in the face of limited knowledge of natural phenomenon, and a primitive egocentric worldview.

ardinn wrote: »

Is yawning not intended to try and keep us awake? We Yawn as a means of a very deep breath to take in a large gulp of oxygen to re-energize.

A lot of people think that alright, but there seems to be no truth to it and it does not affect oxygen levels in the body much at all. In fact a single deep breath is unlikely to do that.

One of the main reasons we think we yawn now is actually to cool down your brain. It causes both an increase of blood to the brain AND a cooling of that blood. And in experiments where they got two groups of people and warmed up the heads of the people in one group.... those people yawned a LOT more than the control group.

And when they then COOLED the heads of a group, the hardly yawned at all.

The experiments were also repliated in mice where yawning came when their head temperatures increased, and after the yawning a drop in temperature was observed.

So yeah, it seems like a natural heat sinking method and nothing to do with oxygen at all.

endacl wrote: »

Explained

Fairytale, arising from a need to understand and explain the world in the face of limited knowledge of natural phenomenon, and a primitive egocentric worldview.

Didn't realize they'd scientifically disproven the existence of a higher power?Must've missed that now! nice try though

Seriously how did fish turn into monkeys that turned into humans?

And I'm not a big fan of God created it all in 7 days either!

What's option C? Aside from Aliens? Damn you science, what's option C?

kneemos wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjE8bOhkMvLAhVEuw8KHRb1Cso4FBAWCBswAQ&usg=AFQjCNF132UHOfzchSDTMXLXD2GSwZDzLQ

Can you be more specific? Did YOU even read anything in your link? I randomly opened seven documents in that link and:

1) Did not open, broken link.
2) Was not peer reviewed science but a blog piece about fraud in people faking research.
3) Also broken did not open.
4) One document that describes the content of NDE but finds no reason to think there is anything supernatural about it.
5) An appeal for more resarch but not actually research itself.
6) A paper that acknowledges "selective reporting" in research means we have no real idea how valid positive results actually are.
7) The famous studies of "intercessory prayer" which showed not only is there no effect of such prayer... but people who knew they were being prayed for actually had MORE post operation issues than any other group.

And so on and so forth. So perhaps you can be a little more specific what you think that link contains. Or did you just read the title, see a lot of links, and assume there must be something there?? Because the links I looked at either:

a) do not work
b) Show no significant results
c) actually show the opposite of what you appear to want to argue.

eeguy wrote: »

There are 11 dimensions.

We live in the 3rd dimension.

In the 4th dimension you can see your past and future self.

In the 5th dimension you can see your past and future self and every result of every decision you've ever made.

There are 6 more dimensions above this.

Mind bending stuff.

Will ye go and ask the back end of me bollix