Japan plans to build robot moon base by 2020
May 28, 2010 by Lisa Zyga
An illustration of Japan's proposed robot moon base. Credit: JAXA.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Believing that a moon base is essential for exploration of the solar system, Japan has recently announced plans to send humanoid robots to the moon to construct a robot lunar base. As part of the $2.2 billion project, the robots will begin surveying the moon around 2015, and then build the unmanned base near the moon’s South Pole by 2020.
A Japanese government panel chaired by Katsuhiko Shirai, President of Waseda University, has developed a rough outline of the project. First, the robots, weighing about 660 pounds each, will begin by surveying the moon, taking images of the surface, collecting rocks, and returning the rocks to Earth via rocket for seismographic research. Later, robots will be sent to the moon to construct the lunar base for themselves.
According to the government panel, the robots and the unmanned moon base will be powered by solar panels. The robots will be controlled from Earth, but will also have a high degree of autonomy that enables them to operate on their own to perform certain tasks. Ultimately, the base could serve as a starting point for future robot colonizers, and even human colonizers.
More information: via: CNET
© 2010 PhysOrg.com
-
United States plans to build lunar base
Mar 28, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Italy plans telescope on moon
Jan 05, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
NASA Robots Practice Moon Survey in the Arctic Circle
Jul 20, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Japan to launch 'space yacht' propelled by solar particles (Update)
Apr 27, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
China says completes 3D moon map
Sep 29, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (31) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
Titan's lack of impact craters
Feb 09, 2012
-
Real pictures of black hole eating a star?
Feb 08, 2012
-
Hypothetical way to travel faster than light, but not technically exceed lightspeed
Feb 06, 2012
-
How do scientists monitor the Sun's activity?
Feb 05, 2012
-
Search patterns in observational studies
Feb 05, 2012
-
Derivation of Pogson's law
Feb 03, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - General Astronomy
More news stories
Could Venus be shifting gear?
(PhysOrg.com) -- ESAs Venus Express spacecraft has discovered that our cloud-covered neighbour spins a little slower than previously measured. Peering through the dense atmosphere in the infrared, the ...
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
5 hours ago |
5 / 5 (5) |
7
|
Humans may have helped the decline of African rainforests 3000 years ago
(PhysOrg.com) -- Large areas of rainforests in Central Africa mysteriously disappeared over three thousand years ago, to be replaced by savannas. The prevailing theory has been that the cause was a change ...
Mars Science Laboratory computer issue resolved
(PhysOrg.com) -- Engineers have found the root cause of a computer reset that occurred two months ago on NASA's Mars Science Laboratory and have determined how to correct it.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
6 hours ago |
5 / 5 (5) |
3
|
Clam fields found at deep, low-temperature Mariana vents
(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have marveled at the unusual life forms thriving at high temperature hydrothermal vents of the deep ocean.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
5 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
Two new moons for Jupiter
Advances in technology have lead to the discovery of new planets outside of our Solar System, and now even new moons in our own backyard.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
5 hours ago |
not rated yet |
2
Putting the squeeze on planets outside our solar system
(PhysOrg.com) -- Using high-powered lasers, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and collaborators discovered that molten magnesium silicate undergoes a phase change in the liquid state, abruptly ...
Employers feel no love for unscrupulous practice of 'service sweethearting'
A new study led by two Florida State University marketing professors finds that some frontline service employees who are rewarded for hikes in customer loyalty and satisfaction also may engage in "service ...
US issues guidelines to avoid heparin contamination
Four years after US drug-maker Baxter International's blood thinner heparin was contaminated in China, causing dozens of deaths, US regulators on Friday issued draft guidelines for safe production.
Expat French get Internet vote for first time
French citizens will for the first time this year be able to vote in a parliamentary election over the Internet, an experiment that could be extended to other elections if successful.
"Twisted Metal" gamers get shot at real gunplay
Fans of "Twisted Metal" will get to welcome a long-awaited sequel of the car-battle videogame with a real-world bang by blasting an ice cream truck to bits with a machine gun.
The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males
A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...
May 28, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
They are gonna do this on a two billion dollar budget, and the U.S. somehow "can't afford" a basic space program any more.
Pathetic.
But yeah, mathematically in terms of gravity and requirements for liftoff, you MUST have a full scale mining operation on either Mars or the Moon, or another planet's moons, to do much of anything else in the Solar System. But Only Mars or the Moon are close enough to have efficient solar power needed to mass produce a robotic infrastructure.
May 28, 2010
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (4)
May 28, 2010
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (8)
May 28, 2010
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (4)
Because people are stupid.
If you were really going to send humans to the moon as workers, you'd want them there permanently. It is not economically feasible to have payloads of material going back and forth from earth ot the moon and back any time soon.
In order to colonize the moon properly requires a massive self assembling robotic infrastructure.
The notion of one buck rogers style domed city filled with humans on mars or the moon is a joke.
By the time we are able to colonize the moon or mars with permanent human civilizations, existing economic models will collapse as "money" will be meaningless. After all, if you have self-assembling robots, you do not need the majority of human labor. All humans do at that point is improve robots...
May 28, 2010
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (9)
While I praise the desire to establish a permanent presence on the moon, I definitely agree with your comment. Only the Japanese would think of sending cute little anthropomorphic robots to the moon to build little houses for themselves.
May 28, 2010
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
May 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
May 28, 2010
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
To pull this off Japan will have to make a great leap forward into robotics. With their track record that is not going to be a problem. Second, they have access to resources on the moon (eg, Helium-3).
Their robotics industry will be a generation ahead of everything the western world produces. Its like an X-Prize for Robotics.
Helium-3 is rare on earth but thought to be abundant on the moon. It is used in fusion reactors and can help Japan with their future energy need. (see wikipedia for details).
Last, such an accomplishment can unify a nation and build a drive to succeed. Anyone remember the Apollo missions...
So, mock them all you want, I think they are on to something.
May 29, 2010
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (11)
Pathetic".....
That's what happens when a country puts all its money into war, only for oil profiteering, hmm....still looking for those WMD's.."nope not under here". I guess Karachi will be next to finish off the pipe line arena.
May 29, 2010
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (4)
Believe you me!
May 29, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Seriously tho i commend them and hope it works out for them.
May 29, 2010
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
May 29, 2010
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (10)
May 29, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
All electronic equipment, including robots, will need a hardened shelter to protect it from the radiation of solar storms. Additionally, they will need a "clean area" free of lunar dust for sensitive equipment as well as cleaning stations for the robots. All of this will need to be sheltered. I'm sure there are many other reasons for a shelter that I haven't thought of, but that should be enough to give you an idea.
May 29, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
That is true regarding the need of clean rooms and shelter from solar storms.
Regarding both human and robotic development, I have figured out architectures for regolith shields which allow a minimum of external "doors". By making a double-wall at each exit from the habitat, it is possible to make an air-locking system which never allows any radiation into the habitat (or clean rooms). To accomplish this, you simply have one shielding that wraps around the external door and faces south, with an opening a few meters south of the airlock. THen, this is enclosed in a larger shielding which totally wraps it, but faces north. Picture a maze with one "L" turn, one "U" turn, and then another "L". In this way, it is impossible for radiation to "bounce" around and get into the airlock.
May 29, 2010
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
May 29, 2010
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Since you only need to harden the CPU you don't need a shelter. These robots can afford to be a bit heavier than terrestrial sattelites since they can move as slowly as they want and in the Moon's gravity even that doesn't take much energy.
If they did need to shelter from some serious solar flares they could simply dig down and lie low.
May 29, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
And don't forget the military applications for robots as proxies for "first person shooter" applications on the battle field.
May 29, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
That's something they don't seem to get.
A 1hp engine on the moon would be roughly equivalent to a 6hp engine on earth. So a robot on the moon could be built twice as massiv and still use significantly less, ~1/3 the energy.
So a wheeled dump truck robot could easily carry around an entire array of orientable solar panels which could "roll down" out of the way of the bed while it's being filled, and then roll back up to being orthogonal to the Sun. It's pretty much limited only by the mass of the robot itself so that it doesn't become "top heavy".
May 29, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Well see, that's just it...If your robots are self replicating, there won't need to be any future "arrivals"...at least not until they have covered the entire moon with solar paneled, heavily shielded arcologies with oxygen (from moon rock,) already in place. Then they would ship Helium3 back to earth, and beam excess power back to earth. Humans using Helium3 could then populate the moon and mars easily, bringing any needed carbon, nitrogen, water, calcium, etc, with them...
May 29, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Also related:
http://en.wikiped...atistics
May 29, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
We will follow when the first one is thick enough to be pressurized, protect against radiation and meteors, and maintain a reasonable inside temperature.
Construction robots can be made cheap if they only need to build a bunker. Collect dust/rock, water and power, grind, mix, pile it up, let it dry in the sun. Send a lot of cheap little robots with specific tasks, and a resupply mission every year to replace failed robots.
They could even be real-time controlled from Earth, the delay is short enough. We may have to send some relay satellites in orbit around the moon first, unless the south pole location is always radio-visible from earth. But that has to be done anyway.
Go Japan. From a european decrying the lack of vision and determination here as well as in US.
May 29, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
More massive robot = more expensive robot to push off the earth. Even with $2.2 billion, the Japanese are going to have to be very cost effective.
May 29, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Nope.
You send scaled down robots (1/4th scaled excavators, etc,) which establish an infrastructure and once they have the resources, the scaled down robots build scaled up robots...
This way you get the best of both worlds. You get the ultra-light payloads from earth, but then you get the power to surface area ratio and volume to surface area ratio of a full scale machine, eventually, once the smaller ones make the larger ones.
At 1/4th scale, by the time you do the volume formula, that's 1/64th the volume, and therefore about 1/64th the payload mass for the launch vehicle from earth (or another way of looking at it is you can send a far more complex system of robots involving up to 64 times as many specializations as a full scale operation).
So then the 1/4th scale robots build full scale on site...
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
The solar system will be settled and developed largely through the use of robotics. Robotic nuclear-powered earth borers will soon be carving habitats beneath the lunar regolith and mining your He-3. This is both a field test and a first step being made by the country currently in the best position to do so. We will all benefit.
May 30, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Superstition? Not really. If you are referring to Christianity as "Superstition" you are wrong on several fronts. But most importanly, most people in America who identify themselves as "Christian" do not even know basic doctrines.
Secondly, affordable living and social justices are among the most important Christian doctrines in existence.
I am morally one of the most conservative Christians alive, but I absolutely want space colonization and advancement of technology. I practically demand it.
America's real problem is that it is first of all Godless. It may be "religious" or even "superstitious" but is is Godless.
Then there is the culture of spending on drugs and alcohol and $250-$750 per seat concerts, but they won't pay for solar or wind farms.
May 30, 2010
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
They found more then they had bargained for...
DUN DUN DUUUUUUN!!!
Now, a giant robot army, led by the evil AI mastermind "HAL/0 KIT_y" seek to destroy humanity and rule the universe!
--------------------------------------------------
And now for something completely different:
I am pleased with the recent developments in space-tech so far.
VASIMR rockets, magnetic heat-shields and robot-labor! Oh, my!
In a few decades, we might establish bases on other planets or moons in the solar system.
Thus starting our inevitable path to conquer all of spacetime, and then some.
Oh, and if any of you become a space marine, make sure you get stationed on Deimos.
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
In general, the people will not do this themselves because they are either too short sighted, or generally ignorant of anything other than their friday and saturday night bar/club debauchery culture, or some flat out don't care about future generations and figure just live as they please now, and still others simply can't afford a large "up-front" long term investment that Solar power requires, as they live pay check to pay check, whilst the CEO makes ten millions or hundred millions per year...
Also, capitalism in it's modern form is about as anti-christian and Godless as communism ever was.
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
It is relatively easy to design a semi-autonomous system capable of a level intelligence of doing it's job, without the risk of true "self awareness" and rebellion.
Through the use of scripting, rather than an actual "AI", one can make a mining robot or a production robot that has no chance of becoming "self aware". WE already have countless millions of such robots in use on earth today in many industries: production, assemblers, palletizers, fork lifts, and so on.
An automated dump truck and excavator is really actually simpler than an automated production robot or palletizer, yet for some reason we don't use them yet...
You could make a fully automated mining or farming operaton on earth right now using existing GPS satellites plus 2 or 3 marker beacons, and any 3D video game development company in the world could write the software to run it...
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
I am perfectly aware of the inner workings of a robot, thank you. I was merely attempting to convey some of my (apparently vague) humour.
The AI-mastermind's name consists of "HAL" and "KIT", two well-known AIs. And together, they form a name which resembles "Hello Kitty", a popular japanese cartoon-cat.
The line: "And now for something completely different!" is from Monthy Python.
If I were oblivious of the millions of robots used in industry today, then I would most probably not even be on this site.
---------------------------------------------------
"That is the saving grace of humor, if you fail no one is laughing at you."
A. Whitney Brown
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
May 30, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
But GO Japan. Try it.
Ou, and please stop killing dolphins.
May 30, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Christianity = superstition? No
Creationism = superstition? Yes
By denying one branch of science, these people undermine all science. The area I live in is rife with Christian schools where students get a "Biblical based education". That means they are taught that anything that even hints that anything in the universe is older than 4,000 years is heresy. They are taught that their mistaken church doctrines trump science and knowledge. And this group of people continues to get larger every year. Oh yes, and a large part of medical research is evil and shouldn't be "messed with". This is not Christianity; it is superstition.
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
The advantage of having a collection of specialized robots to perform unique tasks in stead of one stand-alone robot jack-of-all-trades is that you can make them smaller, cheaper, more efficient, etc.
You also could have one set of articulated arms at the base for assembling things like solar panels in stead of having to build everything in packages that have motors and springs so that they fold out on arrival.
The trick to all this would be getting landings accurate enough that you end up near the base when you go back with each landing after the first, without getting too close and causing damage to stuff already on the ground.
May 30, 2010
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
I think this is very naive. We are far away from robots that can build factories that can build robots. A lot of the parts (and even basic materials) needed require very specific and highly complex processes (from making copper wire to silicon chips to high precision gears to solar cells to, .... ).
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
Umm...sounds like superstition to me. Creationism sounds downright RATIONAL compared to that.
May 30, 2010
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
May 30, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Denying a branch of science and disagreeing on interpretation of facts are two quite different things.
First of all, you have misrepresented the facts because young earth creationists believe the earth is somewhere around 6700 years old, not 4000. You can get at least 4700B.C. Just by adding up the lineages in the Bible.
Secondly, the majority of christianity currently teaches the self-contradicting "Gap theory", which believes in an earth of indeterminant age having been in existence "before" the "seven days" of creation.
May 30, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Well, those are called idiots.
Luke the apostle was a physician by trade, and even one of Jesus' own parables involved a person providing medical treatment for another, i.e. the parable of the "good samaritan". So these people who deny themselves medical treatment are, for lack of a better word, foolish, and one cannot find a Biblical justification for that position.
But let me ask this, on the subject of embrionic stem cells, when does it end?
Even if you argue the frozen embryos are gonna die anyway, you have placed yourself in a position of homicide in the name of medicine.
Do they have life? Yes. If we can call a frozen microbe in the arctic as "life" then a frozen embryo is life, human life. Ending it prematurely is nobody's right.
May 30, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
See where that goes?
But you know what, I have made a "slippery slope" argument, but that's beside the point. Killing an embryo is murder with or without the slippery slope.
May 30, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
"Superstition is a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason, knowledge, or experience."
Xians cannot substantiate their god through reaspon (their god is not testable). So "no reason": Check
Xians have no knowledge of their god (at lest none they can produce which can be tested). So "no knowledge": Check
Xians do not have experience of their god creating the universe - yet they belive it. So "no experience": Check
Can't get much more superstitious than that.
May 30, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Atheists cannot substantiate their lack of God through reason...check.
Atheists have no knowledge of God's non-existence, check.
Atheists have no experience of God not creating the universe...check.
Atheists cannot substantiate the BB, and did not experience it, yet they believe it...check.
Atheists cannot substantiate abiogenesis and did not experience it yet they believe it...check.
Can't get much more superstitious than that...
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
May 31, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
There are those of us who believe in the teachings of Jesus (and are therefore called Christians) but who do not believe in his divinity. Quantum Conundrum does not have a monopoly on who is or is not called a Christian. The literalism of many Christians (in the interpretation of the Bible) is anathma to us. Is there a God who created the universe. Maybe, maybe he created the big bang: or maybe not. Maybe God is the universe and we are all part of "God". I don't know the answers and neither does anyone else. But I do not allow my philosophical questions to interfere with factual sciences such as evolution.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
You forget that atheism is not a belief - it is the ABSENCE of belief. So it can't be a superstition.
By your (illogical) logic someone who DOESN'T believe in unicorns would be superstitious because he's 'atheistic' towards unicorns, And someone who believes in unicorns would be superstitious, too.
This makes no sense as the two have nothing whatsoever to do with the stance of atheism.
(As an aside: BB and abiogenesis are the currently favored HYPOTHESES by scientists (note the 'hypo' in hypothesis). Nothing is ever 'accepted' in science. Everything is theory.)
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
By your reasoning, sperm is life and should be "allowed to live". A line dividing life and non-life has to be drawn somewhere. The most pragmatic approach is to use the test of when the fetus becomes viable if taken out of the womb, usually considered around 22 to 24 weeks. At that stage, the chances for survival are terribly bad, but it is possible. Most courts consider the division between the second and third trimesters to be the dividing line. I reject your argument that fertilized embryos are human. Potential humans maybe, but not human. An egg or a sperm are potential humans, but they are not considered human.
May 31, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
If this is the case, then everythign in science is superstition, and you in fact have no rational, "scientific" basis to criticize "religion".
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
Thank you for that antialias! I'm putting that on my wall!
But back to more serious matters: What we are experiencing is exponential (not linear) progress in technological development. The convergence of nano, bio, and q-bit technology should allow a gov't or private concern to send very small payload to create anything we want on the moon.
If we could just put a leash on all the religious zealots who want to kill everyone who doesn't believe in all their crazy stories, we might live long enough to benefit from the coming convergence.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
I think you don't understand what science is. Science does not require belief (actually, belief is a very detrimental thing to good scientific practice).
I'm not criticizing religion. I'm simply pointing out that religion is a superstition (i.e. a baseless acceptance of truth).
Science is something entirely different. It is not concerned with what is true but only with what works. It is a substition if you so will.
May 31, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I dare say you are both a liar and insane.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
"Then anything you do, think, say, or want is suspect. People who actually believe their god is better than all the others are incapable of rational thought and can only simulate it at times."
Note the topic. Keep your bullshit religion out of here.
May 31, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Since I am a scientist by profession I dare say I know a tad better what is and what isn't science.
But don't take my word for it. Just google the 'philosophy of science' and you will be enlightened.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Note that there **IS** a stage between the absence of science and the final scientific proof where one may, in fact, BELIEVE, however, unlike religion (which is based PURELY on "faith"), this belief must, in the least, be RATIONAL.
The main defining characteristic of a religion is that it can NOT be proven. The moment when it IS PROVEN, it is no longer religion, but is, in fact, science.
A scientist is someone who, by nature, must be sceptical. This is in contrast with someone who is religious, who must have faith. Be aware that though these are opposites, they are not mutually exclusive. One can simply not be religious and scientific about the same topic.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Ha ha... "Eeeee-very sperm is saaaaacred, Eeeee-very sperm is good.... Eeeee-very sperm is needed, in your neighbourhood."
-- Monty Python, the Meaning of Life. On the topic of Catholics vs. Protestants.
Believe me, there ARE people who would agree with that reasoning. Look up the Catholic church's BAN ON CONDOMS. This is what it comes down to.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Should one value the POTENTIAL life more than EXISTING life? I am not going to attempt to provide any answers to this, since to be honest, I'm not qualified. I don't think that anybody is, but unfortunately, somebody *MUST* be, which is the source of the universal disagreement on the subject. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It is probably in the right place if NOBODY is happy with it.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
To clarify: Intelligent design and Evolution are both equally unfalsifiable, but are not mutually exclusive. We all seem to be fighting over who is right instead of truly seeking truth. To say that Evolution theory is hokum is just as stupid as saying that the earth was created in 7 days. So fuck common ground-seek truth. Indeed, a great many ancient scriptures are based in fact, but that truth is long lost to us by now. Religious people MUST acknowledge this to be considered rational. Likewise, atheists MUST acknowledge the fact that the universe is not governed solely by meaningless happenstance. Essentially, both sides must fully admit that they aren't automatically correct. Because Intelligent Design and Evolution both exist in this universe, neither side can be exclusively right.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
I sincerely hope that others will join us in truly seeking truth rather than reactively opposing each other for the sake of being right.
I hope that, as a species, we resolve this before we colonize the moon and other planets.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
"LAHORE, Pakistan -- At least two gunmen disguised in police uniforms attacked a hospital in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore late Monday, killing six people in a failed attempt to free a captured militant being treated there, officials said.
The gunmen managed to escape but left without securing the release of the militant, who was part of a group of gunmen who attacked a minority sect in Lahore on Friday and killed 93 people, said Rana Sanaullah, the law minister of Punjab province, where Lahore is the capital."
-Define 'overboard'.
And they choose to come here and dump. There is no difference.
May 31, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Yes - and the existence of meadows does not exclude the presence of unicorns. Yet I see no _reason_ to believe in unicorns. Until and unless some real good _evidence_ comes along.
Believing in stuff just because it has not been proven to _not_ be possible is just stupid. If we were to do that we would have to belive in all kinds of hokey things. If you support that sort of argument then you have to ask yourself: why don't you believ in Thor? Or Osiris? Or ghosts/vampires/leprechauns?
So much for the ability of these 'geniuses' to perform rational philosophy (or elementary logic)
I am a part of the scientific community. At least in that part that concerns itself with physics, mathematics, engineering, biology, chemistry and medicine I have yet to meet a colleague who would support creationism.
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
May 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Unfortunately, because there is not time enough for reason to supplant it before it in fact supplants reason itself, events so heinous as to cause disgust and revulsion sufficient for the people of this world to throw it off, will have to occur. Another great war, a pandemic, or similar may be in the cards. The world today looks a lot like it did in 1932.
Jun 01, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
SPACE-ROBOTS!
It's like if someone told you that the Germans were making Jurassic Park FOR REAL, with a whole feed-a-raptor-a-sausage event and you started banging on about tea and dictionaries and sweater-vests.
Jun 01, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
If life has any value what so ever, defence of it is moral. But the effective defence of life requires the right tools for a given situation. Which brings us up against the long standing official policies of a certain island nation. OKSLIP, pensioner Reginald Baker, farmer Tony Martin, Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997.
Engineering, science, and exploration are all possible when the fruits of these endeavours benefit the majority. When the profits only benefit an oligarchy the society begins to crumble.
Jun 01, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Jun 01, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Jun 01, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Jun 01, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
your statement of evolution not being something that has been seen (not word for word quoting there of course) is definitly not true.
Evolution is seen in labs daily. Hell, there was even an article on here last week talking about how a certain bacteria evolved into separate niches within mice when the mice were stripped of whetever chemical it was that they neturally fed on. Different bacteria adapted in different ways, and over the course of their experiments, those bacteria evolved.......
Evolution at its finest...and simplest....
Jun 01, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
However, if one is of a scientific mind, one should hold ideas to the same standards if one is to expect others to believe them.
You need evidence to support your claim. Evolution has that evidence. Creationism has not (and neither does intelligent design or all of religion for that matter). So if you believe in creationism then you are, in your worldview, internally inconsistent.
If you cannpot be consitent in your views then it only follows that people will be deeply suspicious of what you say.
Jun 03, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
How is that a proper analogy? And what's with: _this_?
?? "_" ????
There is in fact perfectly "_"reasonable"_" scientific "_"evidence"_" supporting Intelligent Design. Evolution "_"Theory"_" has the benefit of having no crazy religious organizations trying to latch onto it.
Creationism is a literal interpretation of genesis from the bible, a ridiculous story.
Intelligent design is completely scientific and uses only the scientific method to draw conclusions. As you claim to be "a part of the scientific community", perhaps you can apply these principles to this perfectly legitimate theory without an automatic bias. It's quite clear that you care far more about whatever psychological boost might come with being right than actually applying science to reality.
Truth is far more important than us.
Jun 03, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
* "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem. "
- Albert Einstein
Jun 04, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason. The religious claim there is a god without evidence. Denying that claim requires no proof. The big bang is not a principle of Atheism, it is a scientific theory that anyone can accept or refute. Most Atheists don't claim to know there is no god, they simply demand evidence of that which does not manifest. Claiming supernatural forces don't exist is not superstitious. Claiming that Zeus does not exist is not superstitious.Religion is superstitious and unsubstantiated. Own it
Jun 04, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
No. Intelligent design is not falsifiable or testable - hence it is not scientific.
Any observation you make can be attributed to intelligent design. As such there is no possible observation that can give you information on it (viz. Shannon information theory). Much like the hypothesis that there is a god: it is not falsifiable and also not testable.
Creationism is neither testable nor falsifiable. It, too, is not scientific.
Jun 04, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
I think I saw someone call evolution a theory earlier in the comments too...evolution has moved quite a bit beyond theory, considering that we observe it on a daily basis in many labs (and now with the creation of synthetic life occurring, coupled with the 1950s experiment showing a mix of chemicals with water exposed to an electric charge creates amino acids, which in turn create longer and stronger organic elements, seriously, what more evidence do you need). Evolution is a fact folks, like it or not.
And if there is a god of some sort, that only makes the rabbit he pulled from that hat that much more impressive.