VincentRJ

Of course I believe that accidents and unpredictable events occur. I also believe in rationality, common sense, logic, the process of cause and effect, good behaviour, compassion, and so on and on. Whatever you believe in has to be clearly defined in order to have a rational discussion. I've just searched for some dictionary definitions of 'chance', on the internet. The following 4 definitions are the most common. I've highlighted the crucial words in each definition that supports my understanding of the concept of 'chance'. (1) a possibility of something happening. (2) the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause. (3) something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause (4) the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence In summary, I use the word chance to describe any event when the causes are unpredictable, unobservable, indiscernable and/or incalculable. If we had the ability to continuously monitor all activities in our environment, at the atomic, molecular and photonic level, (which is impossible) then probably nothing would occur by chance. I say 'probably', because in Quantum Mechanics even the act of observation itself might cause some unpredictable behaviour of photons.

That statement is only a half truth. If Mark Twain had my wisdom ???? he would have said: "What get's us into trouble is not only what we don't know. It's also what we know for sure that just ain't so." An example of what we don't know that could get us into trouble, would be the approval of a new housing estate in a beautiful, remote area near a river. The people who authorize the construction do not do any research on past weather events in the area, and the buyers of the homes assume that the area is safe, otherwise the authorities would not have approved the housing constructions. Unfortunately, the historical evidence shows that the area has been subjected to extreme flooding every 20 or 30 years, on average. 10 years after the houses have been sold, and the occupants have settled down and filled their rooms with expensive furniture, computers, TVs, family photos, and so on, the next major flood arrives and destroys everything, as well as taking a few lives. ????

Well, if you love good science, please explain what your alternative theory is, based upon good science. An Intelligent Designer, perhaps, or some sort of God who came out from nowhere? ????

Really?? You think that the explanations from thousands of scientists who have spent decades studying these issues, are no more credible than a 'Fairy Tale'? Crikey! You must have a terrible grudge against science. What I suggest you do is give up your current life-style, which is dependent upon past scientific research and discoveries, and go and live for a few years in a remote forest without any modern products and appliances. Sleep on the forest floor, and eat berries and fruit from the surrounding trees. Then get back to us, and tell us how wonderful it was. ????

So I take it you don't belief that Black Holes exist either. Black Holes are huge amounts of matter, the equivalent of several suns, which are packed into a very small area about the size of a city. The gravitational field is so strong that nothing can escape. From Wikipedia: "Gravitational singularities are mainly considered in the context of general relativity, where density apparently becomes infinite at the center of a black hole, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang/White Hole. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity However, there are obviously different interpretations of the available data and different hypotheses favoured by different scientists. This is not 'settled science' like Anthropogenic Climate Change. ????

Okay! I'll address the point I've highlighted in your above comment. I also care whether or not any claim makes sense. The whole of scientific enquiry is based upon 'making sense of things'. However, scientists are also humans with flaws and biases and sometimes assume a degree of certainty about a theory which doesn't warrant such certainty without the true methodology of science having been applied. Many issues remain uncertain, which places them in the category of 'hypothesis', because it's often not possible to apply the full 'methodology of science', due to the long time scales involved for results to be observed, and also due to the complexity of the situation with so many interacting forces, many of which might be unknown. When discussing such issues which have a degree of uncertainty, there is also the problem of the exaggerated and distorted reporting of the science by journalists. For example, I've seen it repeated many times in this thread that The Big Bang 'hypothesis/theory' is nonsense because something cannot be created from nothing. Therefore, there must be something, such as a Creator God, or Intelligent Designer. However, the Big Bang hypothesis/theory does not state that the universe was created from nothing. I'll quote again from the Phys.org news article I linked to earlier. "The Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity." Infinite density and intense heat is not nothing. It might be difficult for some people to imagine how the entire universe could be compressed into such a small particle as a singularity, but a good analogy would be to hold a large block of polystyrene foam in one hand, and compare the weight with a very small block of lead held in the other hand, then imagine if those difference in 'weight per volume' were extrapolated trillions upon trillions upon trillions of times. "As far as the search for the answer to the origins of life my contention, which I cannot overemphasise, is this: that in their search science is necessarily relying on many assumptions to be true; and which I deem to be false. Perhaps foremost is the assumption that physical reality is the one and only reality in all of existence. Your cherished scientific method is wholly dependent on a reality which is physical in nature. If it is true that other realities exist and that not all are physical then in those realms which are not physically based the scientific method would be quite meaningless. This should be quite logical." Addressing another of your points that I've highlighted above, 'what do you mean by a physical reality'? Do you agree with the following definition of a physical property? "A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system." Isn't it obvious that no-one can be aware of anything that cannot be measured in some manner or to some degree, whether they are a scientist or not? Science not only specialises in a great precision of measurement, but also the measurement of 'things' that are invisible and undetectable to anyone without the appropriate scientific instrument. Do you believe that a Guru, whilst sitting down meditating on a universal consciousness, is aware of the multitude of radio waves, and other electro-magnetic waves of various frequencies, that are passing through his body? I've not seen any research that shows any human can feel or detect Radio Waves, X-rays, or Gamma Rays that are passing through his body and head, yet we are expected to believe that certain Gurus can detect a universal consciousness beyond the capabilities of current science. ???? Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against anyone hypothesising that there might exist some sort of universal consciousness, as a result of personal feelings experienced whilst meditating, or even as a result of intellectual speculation. However, such claims can be no more than a hypothesis, or a belief, or a Quale, until they are verified using the 'methodology of science'. For the sake of clarity, I'll also point out that Science is of the general opinion that the photons that make up the electromagnetic spectrum, have no mass and no weight. They are therefore not 'matter'. But those non-material photons are essential for all life as we know it. Even if some creatures appear to thrive in total darkness, the food they eat needs photons to grow. This process is called 'photosynthesis'. In other words, life is dependent on non-material sources. ????

A major problem in discussing such complex issues as the 'origins of life' and the 'origins of the universe', is the precise definition of the common words we use to discuss the issues. For example, in science there is a distinction between the meaning of 'theory' and 'hypothesis', but the distiction is not clear-cut. It's not an 'either/or' distinction. The words or often used interchangeably. Here's a quote from a Physics journal describing the Big Bang, where the two words are used as though they have the same meaning. "The basics of the theory are fairly simple. In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began." https://phys.org/news/2015-12-big-theory.html As I've mentioned before, there's a wide range of degrees of certainty in science, ranging from, say, 0.1% to 99.9%. It is not reasonable to state what the 'percentage point of certainty' is, when a hypothesis changes to a theory, because the calculation of certainty can itself be uncertain. Your comment that "the methodologies of science have naught to do with uncovering the mystery of life" seems absurd to me. There's been a huge amount of research in many scientific disciplines attempting to understand how the first forms of life evolved. Since this event is estimated to have occurred around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago (on planet Earth), it's not surprising that the issue is not settled, and great uncertainty still prevails, with many competing hypotheses. The following scientific article provides a good overview of the problems. "Understanding the origin of life (OoL) is one of the major unsolved scientific problems of the century. It starts with the lack of a commonly accepted definition of the phenomenon of life itself, but difficulties go far beyond merely that obstacle. OoL research involves a large number of diffuse concepts cornering several natural sciences and philosophy, such as entropy, information and complexity. Despite evidence that untangling this knot will require a concerted and collaborative effort between different disciplines, technologies, individuals and groups, division in OoL research is still marked, concerning both theories (e.g., RNA world vs. metabolism-first) and approaches (e.g., bottom-up vs. top-down). What causes these on-going divisions, and how can heated debates be moderated?" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151616/

Okay! I'll try to explain it to you. The words 'chance' and 'accident' are human constructs which describe events that have causes that are too complicated for humans to precisely understand and control. When we say 'something happened by chance', it means 'we don't understand in sufficient detail all the causes of the event and therefore cannot control the outcome', as in the example of tossing a coin and predicting the outcome of 'heads' or 'tails'. Science is based upon a general understanding that every effect has a cause, and scientists do their best to understand those causes. Engineers and technologists use that understanding to create the products that contribute to our safety and prosperity, and during the past couple of hundred years or so, they've done a remarkable job, wouldn't you agree? However, whether it's a confirmed scientific theory, or a new technological project, scientists understand that nothing is 100% certain. Everything lies within a range of probabilities, and accurately assessing those probabilities is sometimes very challenging and often impossible. The problem is that most of the population don't seem to understand the 'methodology of science', which requires repeated testing under controlled conditions in order to reach a high level of confidence that a particular outcome can be predicted as a result of a sufficient understanding of the causes involved. The degree of certainty about many issues are therefore exaggerated for political, personal, and economic purposes, and some scientists go along with that exaggeration for various personal reasons, probably associated with career opportunities, wealth and fame. Attributing a cause to 'God' is probably the most extreme exaggeration. However, some people probably benefit from the 'placebo effect', which is very prevalent throughout society. When people are prescribed pharmaceutical drugs by their doctor, part of the efficacy of those drugs is due to the placebo effect, that is, a belief in the doctor and the medical industry. The placebo effect is estimated to be around 30 to 35%, according to many studies. Got it? ????

Don't you know that nothing occurs by chance or accident? ????

The early ancestors of humans were slow to develop and had to hide during the time of the Dinosaurs. God was not pleased, so he sent to the Earth a huge asteroid, between 10 and 15 km wide, in order to destroy all of those huge, vicious creatures. ???? This allowed our early ancestors, such as purgalicious primatoids, which were small furry animals like rats, to gradually evolve into apes, monkeys and humans. "The diversity of mammals on Earth exploded straight after the dinosaur extinction event, according to UCL researchers. New analysis of the fossil record shows that placental mammals, the group that today includes nearly 5000 species including humans, became more varied in anatomy during the Paleocene epoch - the 10 million years immediately following the event." https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/dec/mammal-diversity-exploded-immediately-after-dinosaur-extinction

Surely the main issue here is whether those who were injured, and died, as a result of the collapse, will be compensated by the government, and/or contractors, due to their incompetence regarding safety controls, and how much will that compensation be to the families of those who died.

What I find amazing is that the USA is the third worst. South Africa is the worst. Thailand is the 2nd worst and the USA is the third worst. Crikey!

Wow! I've never seen so many maggots. I guess they just love that fried egg. ????

I hope there are no cases of 'spontaneous combustion of batteries'.

Excellent idea! The more parks the better. I hope they can find enough vacant property, and/or relocate slum dwellers.

This is a good policy, as long as they don't consider the CO2 emissions a pollutant. ????

This is the crucial point that seems to have been missed by those who did not read the full story. "He admitted he was not familiar with the effects of marijuana and was also highly intoxicated on alcohol." Excessive alcohol can interact with many supplements in a bad way.

To get things into perspective, considering the likelihood that there are hundreds of trillions of planets in the universe, the closest stars to our planet Earth, with orbiting planets similar in size, are around 4.25 to 4.35 light years away. "The two main stars are Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B, which form a binary pair. They are about 4.35 light-years from Earth, according to NASA. The third star is called Proxima Centauri or Alpha Centauri C, and it is about 4.25 light-years from Earth, making it the closest star other than the sun." https://www.space.com/18090-alpha-centauri-nearest-star-system.html Now, the fastest speed we have ever achieved in a spacecraft, so far, is 164 km per second. The speed of light is 299,792 kilometers per second. Dividing 299,792 by 164, then multiplying by 4.25, we get 7,769. In other words, if we were able to travel continuously at our current maximum speed of 164 km/sec in a spacecraft, it would takes us 7,769 years to reach the closest orbiting planet outside of our solar system. Even if we were able to increase that speed by 10x, as technology develops, it would still take almost 800 years to reach Proxima Centauri, which has an orbiting planet about 1.4x the mass of the Earth. "Astronomers announced in August 2016 that they had detected an Earth-size planet orbiting Proxima Centauri. The planet is also in the star's habitable zone, that just-right range of distances from a star where liquid water can exist on the surface of a body."