# Are We Alone?



## Madeline

What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?


----------



## Tom Clancy

Yes, and Yes.


----------



## hjmick

It's hard to believe that, in a universe so vast, there is not intelligent life out there somewhere...

Then again, I am left wondering...

If this life is so intelligent, and if they have, as some people claim, visited our planet, why do they always seem to abduct the cream of the trailer parks?


----------



## Madeline

Tom Clancy said:


> Yes, and Yes.



Why do you think this, Tom Clancy?


----------



## Tom Clancy

It's too big of a Universe not to say there isn't anything out there..


----------



## Madeline

Tom Clancy said:


> It's too big of a Universe not to say there isn't anything out there..



Darlin', triple negatives confuse me.  Are you saying that due to the size of the universe, you feel odds are there is other intelligent life out there?


----------



## R.C. Christian

Of course we're not. Only a stupid Christian would think otherwise.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Madeline said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too big of a Universe not to say there isn't anything out there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlin', triple negatives confuse me.  Are you saying that due to the size of the universe, you feel odds are there is other intelligent life out there?
Click to expand...




Exactly what I meant.


----------



## Madeline

R.C. Christian said:


> Of course we're not. Only a stupid Christian would think otherwise.



Why?  Besides, don't Mormons believe in ET life?


----------



## Tom Clancy

They believe when they go die, they get to inhabit another planet.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?


 
Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.

A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula

*[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
 
When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is. 




And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.


----------



## Tom Clancy

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
Click to expand...


Check it out.. Keeps you thinking..  and no not in a "there is no god" sort of way..

Through the Wormhole: Is There a Creator? : Videos : Science Channel


----------



## Madeline

Creepy story, guys.

Former Air Force Officers: UFOs Tampered With Nuclear Missiles


----------



## Madeline

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
Click to expand...


Do you mean the Bible excludes the possibility of life on other planets, The Light?


----------



## DiveCon

i absolutely believe in the possibility of intelligent on other planets


----------



## DiveCon

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the Bible excludes the possibility of life on other planets, The Light?
Click to expand...

personally, i think his position is rather arrogant
to assume that a creative God would suddenly stop being creative after creating us


----------



## Madeline

DiveCon said:


> i absolutely believe in the possibility of intelligent on other planets



Why?

BTW, is it true SETI broadcasts an analog signal?  Should we be funding this?


----------



## Madeline

DiveCon said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the Bible excludes the possibility of life on other planets, The Light?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> personally, i think his position is rather arrogant
> to assume that a creative God would suddenly stop being creative after creating us
Click to expand...


Well, mebbe this is not The Light's position, DiveCon.  He hasn't replied yet when asked for a clarification.


----------



## hjmick

The more I think about it...

I'd be happy if they could find intelligent life on this planet...


----------



## Madeline

hjmick said:


> The more I think about it...
> 
> I'd be happy if they could find intelligent life on this planet...



_*Cuddles*_


----------



## DiveCon

Madeline said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i absolutely believe in the possibility of intelligent on other planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> BTW, is it true SETI broadcasts an analog signal?  Should we be funding this?
Click to expand...

i believe SETI is LISTENING, not broadcasting


----------



## DiveCon

btw, on SETI funding

SETI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Madeline

Right you are, DiveCon.  My mistake (although we are sending out a signal, aren't we?).  This looks like a good article on the question, as best I can tell.

Howstuffworks "What are the odds there is extraterrestrial life in outer space?"


----------



## Douger

I hope there is intelligent life elsewhere.........they dam sho aint nun roun heah................


----------



## R.C. Christian

But then we have the distance problem don't we? That is a BIG problem. We talk about wormholes, and things of that nature but the energy needed to produce that result is simply incomprehensible. So much in fact that nearly cancels out 70 years of empirical evidence to the contrary.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

R.C. Christian said:


> Of course we're not. Only a stupid Christian would think otherwise.



Nothing in the Bible precludes a Christian from believing other life exists on other planets.

In fact the Bible talks of other works. And then of course there is the fact that the Bible talks about God making Adam and Eve and that Cain slew Able and was cast out to live with OTHER people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the Bible excludes the possibility of life on other planets, The Light?
Click to expand...


Only if you are a moron. The Bible talks of other works. And when Cain slew Able he was cast out to live with other humans not from the Garden.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I keep encouraging people to go read "The Day After Roswell" by Philip Corsi

Philip J. Corso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I'm amused that you think extraterrestrials should worship our social hierarchy. Do you really want them talking to Joe Biden or Obama without his teleprompter?

Additionally, Earth is teeming with inorganic life.

It's not so weird that SETI has so far come up lemons. The problem is that we're looking for creatures more or less like us and using energy the same way we do, the odds of there being other shoe wearing monkeys on any nearby planet using blackberry's and ipad is really slim.


----------



## dilloduck

It's not even worth my time to speculate. What difference does it make if planets a zillion miles away have life on them or not ?


----------



## California Girl

If there is intelligent life on other planets, my theory is they came, they saw, they laughed at us, and left.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We're an amusement park ride for other civilized races.

"Mom Dad!  Let's go visit the little shoe wearing monkeys on Earth again!  They're so funny!"


----------



## midcan5

"Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here."


Considering no one from out there has ever called, yes, we are alone. It could just be that in this entire humongous universe we - and most other living things on earth - are the only being(s) conscious of our being. Extrapolating that because there are infinite numbers of things only means there are an infinite number of things. I'm sure there will be never be another me so using that as my argument there are no other mes, so there are no other yous either and no other wes.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAy9bGIuXR0]YouTube - Frank Close talks about nothing[/ame]


----------



## Sunni Man

Madeline said:


> Do you mean the Bible excludes the possibility of life on other planets>



Might want to check out Genesis 6 in the Bible when it talks about the Nephilim


----------



## goldcatt

Of course there is intelligent life elsewhere. It's difficult for me to work up the arrogance to believe we're so unique and special. It's a big universe out there, even if the odds were one in several billion those are still pretty damn good odds considering.


----------



## p kirkes

We are specifically adapted to this planet, so much so that leaving it would be fatal.

Just a trip to our moon requires humans to bring their own atmosphere, water, food and suffer the affects of the loss that gravity has on our bodies. 

So it could be with ET's.  They may not be able to leave either and are right now pondering the same question.  Nature's laws seem to be universal and thus nature spawns beings specific to environment.  

Question, while we have apparently not be contacted are the ET's in contact with each other?  If so, then due to our violent predatory nature, we may be off limits.  But that's another area.

If the bible, which to a greater extent reveals God than does our natural senses, talks specifically about a personified "good", God, and a personified "evil", Satan, who is confined to earth and it's environs, then I don't see humankind being allowed to run all over the universe infecting God's pristine creation. 

Later, after the redemption of man and the earth is complete, scripture speaks in terms of glorified bodies, not limited like the one's we have now,  a new earth, a new beginning, a mix of the Spiritual and physical.

I look forward to zipping around the universe and interacting with the rest of God's creation not sitting on a cloud somewhere strumming a harp.

This can be heady stuff.

Regards,


----------



## dilloduck

Is there life inside of an electron ? The universe is as infinately small as it is big. The only answer not rife with speculation is "we don't know". Why we want to know is another question. Maybe humans are lonely? Maybe we are hoping that some other life form can be our salvation ? Maybe we're bored ?


----------



## zzzz

You pose a wide question. Is there life beyond Earth and I think there is no doubt there is life out there. Look at the where life has been found here on earth at the bottom of the oceans in extreme heat and other bizarre places. The vastness of the universe would imply that the same conditions that existed here occurred elsewhere. 

Intelligent life? I would also say yes. Why have we not been contacted? Distance is one factor. According to science it is impossible to go faster than light (and stay in this dimension), therefore space travel is not a real probable event. Of course science has been proved wrong before and if there are wormholes or other methods and Aliens have visited us before they may have the attitude that we are to evolve by ourselves. The old Star Trek policy. 

Does the Bible specifically eliminate other life? No I do not believe so. The Bible is for the human race (Hispanics too guys) and not for aliens. God may have created other worlds, other races, Lord knows he probably was not proud of the human race. Or he may have created other Earths with human beings since we are made in his likeness. 

Is it useless to speculate? No! We are an inquisitive species, always asking why, or what happened. this is what makes the human race the evolving species we are. When we stop asking questions then we become a dying race.


----------



## p kirkes

dilloduck said:


> Is there life inside of an electron ? The universe is as infinately small as it is big. The only answer not rife with speculation is "we don't know". Why we want to know is another question. Maybe humans are lonely? Maybe we are hoping that some other life form can be our salvation ? Maybe we're bored ?



Another possibility is that we are explorers.  Man's history is one of leaving the nest and exploring.


----------



## dilloduck

zzzz said:


> You pose a wide question. Is there life beyond Earth and I think there is no doubt there is life out there. Look at the where life has been found here on earth at the bottom of the oceans in extreme heat and other bizarre places. The vastness of the universe would imply that the same conditions that existed here occurred elsewhere.
> 
> Intelligent life? I would also say yes. Why have we not been contacted? Distance is one factor. According to science it is impossible to go faster than light (and stay in this dimension), therefore space travel is not a real probable event. Of course science has been proved wrong before and if there are wormholes or other methods and Aliens have visited us before they may have the attitude that we are to evolve by ourselves. The old Star Trek policy.
> 
> Does the Bible specifically eliminate other life? No I do not believe so. The Bible is for the human race (Hispanics too guys) and not for aliens. God may have created other worlds, other races, Lord knows he probably was not proud of the human race. Or he may have created other Earths with human beings since we are made in his likeness.
> 
> Is it useless to speculate? No! We are an inquisitive species, always asking why, or what happened. this is what makes the human race the evolving species we are. When we stop asking questions then we become a dying race.



Evolving into what ? Something better than we were a couple of hundred years ago ?
Because the are elephants one in place DOES NOT prove or even give credence to the possibilty there are elephants elsewhere.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Right now I am alone as all are off to school and work.  Do you hear that?  Silence.  Aaaahhhhhh, bliss.


----------



## zzzz

dilloduck said:


> zzzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pose a wide question. Is there life beyond Earth and I think there is no doubt there is life out there. Look at the where life has been found here on earth at the bottom of the oceans in extreme heat and other bizarre places. The vastness of the universe would imply that the same conditions that existed here occurred elsewhere.
> 
> Intelligent life? I would also say yes. Why have we not been contacted? Distance is one factor. According to science it is impossible to go faster than light (and stay in this dimension), therefore space travel is not a real probable event. Of course science has been proved wrong before and if there are wormholes or other methods and Aliens have visited us before they may have the attitude that we are to evolve by ourselves. The old Star Trek policy.
> 
> Does the Bible specifically eliminate other life? No I do not believe so. The Bible is for the human race (Hispanics too guys) and not for aliens. God may have created other worlds, other races, Lord knows he probably was not proud of the human race. Or he may have created other Earths with human beings since we are made in his likeness.
> 
> Is it useless to speculate? No! We are an inquisitive species, always asking why, or what happened. this is what makes the human race the evolving species we are. When we stop asking questions then we become a dying race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolving into what ? Something better than we were a couple of hundred years ago ?
> Because the are elephants one in place DOES NOT prove or even give credence to the possibilty there are elephants elsewhere.
Click to expand...


What you are saying is relative. The Earth is finite, the universe is for this example, infinite.


----------



## G.T.

I think there is def. life elsewhere. Intelligent, also. 

Back to Earth, though, I think we're headed towards appearing Alien, ourselves. 

The brain is electromagnetic impulses. That means, that one day, we could all be hooked into some sort of incubators ala The Matrix and living in a purely virtual fantasy world, all the while machines feed and nurture our bodies in the physical world. 

It sounds far fetched but we're so close to the possibility now, that it's easy to comprehend it actually occuring.


----------



## p kirkes

I guess what we are discussing is sentient beings.  All life forms on earth have a life spark that gives them animation, a language and to degree intelligence but they are not sentient, this list is not exhaustive.  My puppy is loyal, protective, affectionate but it's only because I feed and care for it. 

We can't generate the life spark, when we die we no longer can reproduce, hence species extinction.
Science cannot duplicate a live being of any kind without live components.

So, what is it in nature that imparts the life spark? Where does it originate? 

Is that life spark the same throughout the universe?

My head is starting to hurt, LOL.


----------



## goldcatt

p kirkes said:


> I guess what we are discussing is sentient beings.  All life forms on earth have a life spark that gives them animation, a language and to degree intelligence but they are not sentient, this list is not exhaustive.  My puppy is loyal, protective, affectionate but it's only because I feed and care for it.
> 
> We can't generate the life spark, when we die we no longer can reproduce, hence species extinction.
> Science cannot duplicate a live being of any kind without live components.
> 
> So, what is it in nature that imparts the life spark? Where does it originate?
> 
> Is that life spark the same throughout the universe?
> 
> My head is starting to hurt, LOL.



There's no reason to believe that life spark, as you call it, would be either the same or different. Or any reason to believe extraterrestrial life forms would be remotely similar to those we are familiar with, either. That they would be DNA or RNA based, for example. Or have the same senses, or respirate, or need water to survive, or communicate using verbal or nonverbal "language" as we know it, or really have any similarities. 

Which means when we're looking, we have no idea what we're looking for - we may have seen it a million times and missed it simply because it doesn't fit our paradigm. The same could hold true for any beings out there looking for us. Which is a little mind-blowing, sure. But also exciting to think about the possibilities.


----------



## Madeline

Some _smart_  people here.  I dunno what I think.  Like most of you, I laugh at the aliens-probed-my-anus stories and the Area 51 freaks (especially 52nd Street).  I think much of that is just free-floating anxiety over the A-bomb.  On the other hand, every time I watch a NOVA show about the universe, my brain itches.

I can certainly believe there are things beyond my limited imagination.


----------



## Mr Natural

Considering the vastness of the universe, there's probably a pretty good chance that we're not alone.

On the other hand,  if we are alone as the only intelligent life form in the entire universe, it's pretty sad the way we humanoids conduct ourselves.


----------



## syrenn

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?



It is arrogant to think that we are the only intelligent life in this galaxy, and there are millions of galaxy's in the universe.


----------



## G.T.

Mr Clean said:


> Considering the vastness of the universe, there's probably a pretty good chance that we're not alone.
> 
> On the other hand,  if we are alone as the only intelligent life form in the entire universe, it's pretty sad the way we humanoids conduct ourselves.



If we are or aren't alone has nothing to do with how sad it is that we conduct ourselves. It just "is."


----------



## rightwinger

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?



I think there are forms of life on other planets but you need the right environmental conditions. To get the right conditions is extremely rare in the universe

To get intelligent life is even rarer

Due to the extreme distances between Solar Systems and the limitations on how fast you can travel, I find it unlikely contact has ever been made or will be made


----------



## Sheldon

I bet there's some Carl Sagan fans in this thread.

Look at us. We're not a peaceful species. We kill each other over the most meaningless, trivial shit. I think this aggression in human nature is a byproduct of natural selection. At the same point in our history where we figured out how to get to our  own moon, we had already developed the capability to destroy ourselves  several times over.

Assume that we're not unique in being subject to natural selection. Where there's life, there's competition to survive. And competition breeds aggression.

I think the odds of a species destroying itself is greater than the odds of lasting long enough to develop the technology of long-distance space travel and communication.


----------



## boedicca

Yes, I believe that intelligent life exists beyond the confines of our planet Earth.  Given, however, the laws of physics and NASA's revised mission to promote Muslim Self Esteem, it's highly unlikely we will meet them of our own volition any time soon


----------



## rightwinger

> I think the odds of a species destroying itself is greater than the odds of lasting long enough to develop the technology of long-distance space travel and communication.



especially with "billions and billions" of stars separated by hundreds of light years


----------



## lizzie

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?


 
I've been looking for first-hand experience all my adult life for evidence of ET visitation here- I think it's possible, maybe even probable, based on historical drawings and paintings, and personal accounts by a good number of credible witnesses, but I've only ever seen one unexplainable (to me) phenomenon in the sky.


----------



## Sheldon

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: [/FONT]*N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
Click to expand...

 

 It's fun but essentially useless.  The equation can yield millions of planets supporting technologically-advance civilizations... or just one.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlikCebQSlY"]YouTube - Carl Sagan - Cosmos - Drake Equation[/ame]


----------



## Madeline

Trajan began a thread on a related topic that you guys might enjoy:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/134913-un-to-appoint-earth-contact-for-extraterrestrials.html


----------



## THE LIGHT

DiveCon said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: [/FONT]*N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the Bible excludes the possibility of life on other planets, The Light?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> personally, i think his position is rather arrogant
> to assume that a creative God would suddenly stop being creative after creating us
Click to expand...

 
I'm not assuming. I am going off of G-d's word. You are assuming that he did.

If truth is arrogance to you then so be it.


----------



## DiveCon

THE LIGHT said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the Bible excludes the possibility of life on other planets, The Light?
> 
> 
> 
> personally, i think his position is rather arrogant
> to assume that a creative God would suddenly stop being creative after creating us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming. I am going off of G-d's word. You are assuming that he did.
> 
> If truth is arrogance to you then so be it.
Click to expand...

please give the scripture that backs up this claim


----------



## THE LIGHT

DiveCon said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> personally, i think his position is rather arrogant
> to assume that a creative God would suddenly stop being creative after creating us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming. I am going off of G-d's word. You are assuming that he did.
> 
> If truth is arrogance to you then so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please give the scripture that backs up this claim
Click to expand...

 
I will once you give me the scripture that backs up yours.


----------



## DiveCon

THE LIGHT said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming. I am going off of G-d's word. You are assuming that he did.
> 
> If truth is arrogance to you then so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> please give the scripture that backs up this claim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will once you give me the scripture that backs up yours.
Click to expand...

you are the one makling the claim the bible says it wasnt possible
i'm asking you to show me where it says that


----------



## westwall

I must sayyes to both.  This galaxy alone contains up to 400 bilion stars.  There are at least 125 billion more galaxies out there.  There was a excellent book written back in the 1970's I believe called "Habitable Planets For Man by UCLA (I believe) professor Stephen Dole and he approached the problem from a purely mathematical POV and it makes for interesting reading.


----------



## THE LIGHT

DiveCon said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> please give the scripture that backs up this claim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will once you give me the scripture that backs up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one makling the claim the bible says it wasnt possible
> i'm asking you to show me where it says that
Click to expand...

 
I'll tell you manana.


----------



## DiveCon

THE LIGHT said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will once you give me the scripture that backs up yours.
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one makling the claim the bible says it wasnt possible
> i'm asking you to show me where it says that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you manana.
Click to expand...

hmmm
i'll hold ya to it


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Probably not.  The Drake Equation seems to imply we should have a universe teeming with life.

There's two problems though:

1.  The Universal speed limit, _c_, means communication is unlikely given the distances.  It is possible we'll use the time dilation effects of near luminal travel to one day head out and meet them, but the energy required to do so will be enormous.

2.  The Fermi Paradox:  Even with the great distances, we should have seen some indication of life in the universe.  The fact it certainly looks barren is deeply troubling.  I fear that one day we'll understand all too well the resolution of the Fermi Paradox.


----------



## G.T.

Dr.Traveler said:


> Probably not.  The Drake Equation seems to imply we should have a universe teeming with life.
> 
> There's two problems though:
> 
> 1.  The Universal speed limit, _c_, means communication is unlikely given the distances.  It is possible we'll use the time dilation effects of near luminal travel to one day head out and meet them, but the energy required to do so will be enormous.
> 
> 2.  The Fermi Paradox:  Even with the great distances, we should have seen some indication of life in the universe.  The fact it certainly looks barren is deeply troubling.  I fear that one day we'll understand all too well the resolution of the Fermi Paradox.



I don't think we necessarily should have seen indication, per your numeral deux.


----------



## Madeline

G.T. said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not.  The Drake Equation seems to imply we should have a universe teeming with life.
> 
> There's two problems though:
> 
> 1.  The Universal speed limit, _c_, means communication is unlikely given the distances.  It is possible we'll use the time dilation effects of near luminal travel to one day head out and meet them, but the energy required to do so will be enormous.
> 
> 2.  The Fermi Paradox:  Even with the great distances, we should have seen some indication of life in the universe.  The fact it certainly looks barren is deeply troubling.  I fear that one day we'll understand all too well the resolution of the Fermi Paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we necessarily should have seen indication, per your numeral deux.
Click to expand...


Why not, G.T.?


----------



## Liability

DiveCon said:


> i absolutely believe in the possibility of intelligent on other planets



It is *absolutely* *possible*, indeed.



I'm on to you Divey!


----------



## Madeline

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i absolutely believe in the possibility of intelligent on other planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is *absolutely* *possible*, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on to you Divey!
Click to expand...


Liability, buddy, please do not contract the dread_ Mr._ *Shaman* disease.


----------



## Liability

Madeline said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i absolutely believe in the possibility of intelligent on other planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is *absolutely* *possible*, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on to you Divey!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liasbility, buddy, please do not contract the dread_ Mr._ *Shaman* disease.
Click to expand...



No worries.  It wasn't "centered."


----------



## Jeremy

Yes.


----------



## Charles_Main

Madeline said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not.  The Drake Equation seems to imply we should have a universe teeming with life.
> 
> There's two problems though:
> 
> 1.  The Universal speed limit, _c_, means communication is unlikely given the distances.  It is possible we'll use the time dilation effects of near luminal travel to one day head out and meet them, but the energy required to do so will be enormous.
> 
> 2.  The Fermi Paradox:  Even with the great distances, we should have seen some indication of life in the universe.  The fact it certainly looks barren is deeply troubling.  I fear that one day we'll understand all too well the resolution of the Fermi Paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we necessarily should have seen indication, per your numeral deux.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not, G.T.?
Click to expand...


Because of the vastness of space of course. 

If Einstein had it right, and no one can travel beyond the speed of light. Then there could be literally tons of Civilizations out there, and we might never know it.


----------



## DiveCon

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i *absolutely believe* in *the possibility of intelligent on other planets*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is *absolutely* *possible*, indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on to you Divey!
Click to expand...

um, there were other words between those 2 that changes the meaning


----------



## G.T.

Madeline said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not.  The Drake Equation seems to imply we should have a universe teeming with life.
> 
> There's two problems though:
> 
> 1.  The Universal speed limit, _c_, means communication is unlikely given the distances.  It is possible we'll use the time dilation effects of near luminal travel to one day head out and meet them, but the energy required to do so will be enormous.
> 
> 2.  The Fermi Paradox:  Even with the great distances, we should have seen some indication of life in the universe.  The fact it certainly looks barren is deeply troubling.  I fear that one day we'll understand all too well the resolution of the Fermi Paradox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we necessarily should have seen indication, per your numeral deux.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not, G.T.?
Click to expand...


I don't know, his #1 says it nicely for me I think. *shrug*


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Charles_Main said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we necessarily should have seen indication, per your numeral deux.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not, G.T.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of the vastness of space of course.
> 
> If Einstein had it right, and no one can travel beyond the speed of light. Then there could be literally tons of Civilizations out there, and we might never know it.
Click to expand...


You should check out some calculations on Von Neumann machines.  It turns out even without the ability to break _c_ the universe should have a ton of these things running around.  Unless intelligent life forms are smart enough not to build self replicating machines.

Part of the Fermi Paradox centers on the idea that when you look at the age of the Universe, we're pretty late in the game.  The idea you're talking about has been given as one potential resolution of the Fermi Paradox, namely since the distance is so vast, and information can spread only so quick, its possible that all the intelligent civilizations are at roughly the same development level and as such the information just hasn't reached us.  Yet. 

It is also possible we're ahead of the curve, i.e. we're the first.  That would actually be very troubling because again, the Universe is already pretty old.

I've always found the Fermi paradox... troubling, but interesting.  It seems any resolution of it is a bit disturbing.


----------



## strollingbones

how can you deny that other life exists?  if you accept that...then you must accept that we are on the higher end of the scale.  there is some theory that man is or was a race developed to serve aliens if that is true why havent they returned?  did they lose the ability to travel?  i would doubt that.  even if we are years behind them...we can still be used and exploited...so then one might say...they are too advanced to do that..then why not help us.  leap us ahead in curing cancer etc..perhaps they know the only co existence is the elimation of man... surely if there is a more advanced civilization out there..they have seen us..they have heard us...and elected what?  not to answer...or are they answering and we just dont get it...i think not...if they are that advanced they would taylor their answer to us.

but then you have the question of time...and the measurement of time...perhaps this few centuries has just been  a brief time to an advanced race or culture. 

we could be some kid's ant farm for all we know


----------



## boedicca

Yes,  just like the Twilight Zone episode!


Stopover in a Quiet Town!


----------



## Care4all

I have thought often, for many many years now, that I would write a sci fi book on it....

the aliens and ufo's are really "us" of the future, and that they are time traveling back to our time and NOT from a kazillion, million light years away...they are humanoid "grays" because we went through some kind of catastrophe, maybe nuclear, maybe a big asteroid hit, that blocked the sun out or forced us to live underground for thousands of years and this is why we are smaller, with big big eyes, as the grays have been described....and the reason we are being abducted is that the future "us" are trying to experiment and get themselves genetically modified back to human's normal seed, before this great catastrophe.

Oh, and the governments throughout the world, KNOW THIS....they know it is the "us" of the future and this is why they have kept it from us and not been too freaked out about all the UFO's.


----------



## Jeremy

Care4all said:


> I have thought often, for many many years now, that I would write a sci fi book on it....
> 
> the aliens and ufo's are really "us" of the future, and that they are time traveling back to our time and NOT from a kazillion, million light years away...they are humanoid "grays" because we went through some kind of catastrophe, maybe nuclear, maybe a big asteroid hit, that blocked the sun out or forced us to live underground for thousands of years and this is why we are smaller, with big big eyes, as the grays have been described....and the reason we are being abducted is that the future "us" are trying to experiment and get themselves genetically modified back to human's normal seed, before this great catastrophe.
> 
> Oh, and the governments throughout the world, KNOW THIS....they know it is the "us" of the future and this is why they have kept it from us and not been too freaked out about all the UFO's.





You got your first sale. When is it being published? I sooooo want a copy!!!!


----------



## DiveCon

Care4all said:


> I have thought often, for many many years now, that I would write a sci fi book on it....
> 
> the aliens and ufo's are really "us" of the future, and that they are time traveling back to our time and NOT from a kazillion, million light years away...they are humanoid "grays" because we went through some kind of catastrophe, maybe nuclear, maybe a big asteroid hit, that blocked the sun out or forced us to live underground for thousands of years and this is why we are smaller, with big big eyes, as the grays have been described....and the reason we are being abducted is that the future "us" are trying to experiment and get themselves genetically modified back to human's normal seed, before this great catastrophe.
> 
> Oh, and the governments throughout the world, KNOW THIS....they know it is the "us" of the future and this is why they have kept it from us and not been too freaked out about all the UFO's.


dang, i think i read that book already
LOL


----------



## Liability

Care4all said:


> I have thought often, for many many years now, that I would write a sci fi book on it....
> 
> the aliens and ufo's are really "us" of the future, and that they are time traveling back to our time and NOT from a kazillion, million light years away...they are humanoid "grays" because we went through some kind of catastrophe, maybe nuclear, maybe a big asteroid hit, that blocked the sun out or forced us to live underground for thousands of years and this is why we are smaller, with big big eyes, as the grays have been described....and the reason we are being abducted is that the future "us" are trying to experiment and get themselves genetically modified back to human's normal seed, before this great catastrophe.
> 
> Oh, and the governments throughout the world, KNOW THIS....they know it is the "us" of the future and this is why they have kept it from us and not been too freaked out about all the UFO's.



I am guessing, but I saw an episode (actually two partial episodes) of the new NBC show "The Event."  I suspect that the "aliens" with the 1% different DNA from us are actually visitors to our age from our future.

If that turns out to be a "spoiler," tough toenails.  The show kinda sucks anyway.


----------



## Care4all

DiveCon said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought often, for many many years now, that I would write a sci fi book on it....
> 
> the aliens and ufo's are really "us" of the future, and that they are time traveling back to our time and NOT from a kazillion, million light years away...they are humanoid "grays" because we went through some kind of catastrophe, maybe nuclear, maybe a big asteroid hit, that blocked the sun out or forced us to live underground for thousands of years and this is why we are smaller, with big big eyes, as the grays have been described....and the reason we are being abducted is that the future "us" are trying to experiment and get themselves genetically modified back to human's normal seed, before this great catastrophe.
> 
> Oh, and the governments throughout the world, KNOW THIS....they know it is the "us" of the future and this is why they have kept it from us and not been too freaked out about all the UFO's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dang, i think i read that book already
> LOL
Click to expand...


well, they STOLE my thoughts on it if this book was within the last couple of years, because I posted this idea several years ago, on this very site!  THIEVES they are!!!!  hahahahaha!!!


----------



## Care4all

another approach could be they come from another dimension...living in the same space or nearly the same space, and learned how to "cross over", or they could be living in that hollow moon Crusader Frank spoke about in another thread


----------



## Madeline

Care4all said:


> I have thought often, for many many years now, that I would write a sci fi book on it....
> 
> the aliens and ufo's are really "us" of the future, and that they are time traveling back to our time and NOT from a kazillion, million light years away...they are humanoid "grays" because we went through some kind of catastrophe, maybe nuclear, maybe a big asteroid hit, that blocked the sun out or forced us to live underground for thousands of years and this is why we are smaller, with big big eyes, as the grays have been described....and the reason we are being abducted is that the future "us" are trying to experiment and get themselves genetically modified back to human's normal seed, before this great catastrophe.
> 
> Oh, and the governments throughout the world, KNOW THIS....they know it is the "us" of the future and this is why they have kept it from us and not been too freaked out about all the UFO's.



That one helluva Rube Goldberg theory, Care!


----------



## THE LIGHT

DiveCon said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one makling the claim the bible says it wasnt possible
> i'm asking you to show me where it says that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you manana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmm
> i'll hold ya to it
Click to expand...

 
Thanks for being patient. 

1) In Genesis 1, G-d is very specific about what he created yet does not say that he created the "heaven and earth*s*" but rather "heaven and earth".

2) He created Adam 1 and then later says that Yashua is Adam 2 so it is kinda hard to fit another Adam in between 1 and 2.

3) Eve was the mother of ALL living (Genesis 3:20). So you would have to have them take off on rocket ships to fly to other planets. Somehow I don't see them getting very far but I could be wrong.

4) G-d has enough problems with US, why does he need any more problems? I don't think there is enough Advil in the entire universe to make up for the problems we cause him let alone another several planets full of us.

5) If we are the only planet that went sour then why not just destroy us and keep the good planet?

6) If all the planets went sour then why did G-d choose to send his Son to our planet and not theirs?

And it wouldn't make sense to crucify him multiple times so that rules that out.

7) If Satan was cast down to us on *our* earth how unfair??? 

I'm sure there are more but those are the ones I can list off the top of my head right now.


----------



## DiveCon

THE LIGHT said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you manana.
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm
> i'll hold ya to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for being patient.
> 
> 1) In Genesis 1, G-d is very specific about what he created yet does not say that he created the "heaven and earth*s*" but rather "heaven and earth".
> 
> 2) He created Adam 1 and then later says that Yashua is Adam 2 so it is kinda hard to fit another Adam in between 1 and 2.
> 
> 3) Eve was the mother of ALL living (Genesis 3:20). So you would have to have them take off on rocket ships to fly to other planets. Somehow I don't see them getting very far but I could be wrong.
> 
> 4) G-d has enough problems with US, why does he need any more problems? I don't think there is enough Advil in the entire universe to make up for the problems we cause him let alone another several planets full of us.
> 
> 5) If we are the only planet that went sour then why not just destroy us and keep the good planet?
> 
> 6) If all the planets went sour then why did G-d choose to send his Son to our planet and not theirs?
> 
> And it wouldn't make sense to crucify him multiple times so that rules that out.
> 
> 7) If Satan was cast down to us on *our* earth how unfair???
> 
> I'm sure there are more but those are the ones I can list off the top of my head right now.
Click to expand...

sorry, thats a fail, none of those preclude him creating other worlds after us
and since Satan was already cast down here, he wouldnt have access to those other world so no need to the salvation


----------



## THE LIGHT

DiveCon said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm
> i'll hold ya to it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for being patient.
> 
> 1) In Genesis 1, G-d is very specific about what he created yet does not say that he created the "heaven and earth*s*" but rather "heaven and earth".
> 
> 2) He created Adam 1 and then later says that Yashua is Adam 2 so it is kinda hard to fit another Adam in between 1 and 2.
> 
> 3) Eve was the mother of ALL living (Genesis 3:20). So you would have to have them take off on rocket ships to fly to other planets. Somehow I don't see them getting very far but I could be wrong.
> 
> 4) G-d has enough problems with US, why does he need any more problems? I don't think there is enough Advil in the entire universe to make up for the problems we cause him let alone another several planets full of us.
> 
> 5) If we are the only planet that went sour then why not just destroy us and keep the good planet?
> 
> 6) If all the planets went sour then why did G-d choose to send his Son to our planet and not theirs?
> 
> And it wouldn't make sense to crucify him multiple times so that rules that out.
> 
> 7) If Satan was cast down to us on *our* earth how unfair???
> 
> I'm sure there are more but those are the ones I can list off the top of my head right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry, thats a fail, none of those preclude him creating other worlds after us
> and since Satan was already cast down here, he wouldnt have access to those other world so no need to the salvation
Click to expand...

 
Answer each point or your argument is a failure.


----------



## DiveCon

THE LIGHT said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for being patient.
> 
> 1) In Genesis 1, G-d is very specific about what he created yet does not say that he created the "heaven and earth*s*" but rather "heaven and earth".
> 
> 2) He created Adam 1 and then later says that Yashua is Adam 2 so it is kinda hard to fit another Adam in between 1 and 2.
> 
> 3) Eve was the mother of ALL living (Genesis 3:20). So you would have to have them take off on rocket ships to fly to other planets. Somehow I don't see them getting very far but I could be wrong.
> 
> 4) G-d has enough problems with US, why does he need any more problems? I don't think there is enough Advil in the entire universe to make up for the problems we cause him let alone another several planets full of us.
> 
> 5) If we are the only planet that went sour then why not just destroy us and keep the good planet?
> 
> 6) If all the planets went sour then why did G-d choose to send his Son to our planet and not theirs?
> 
> And it wouldn't make sense to crucify him multiple times so that rules that out.
> 
> 7) If Satan was cast down to us on *our* earth how unfair???
> 
> I'm sure there are more but those are the ones I can list off the top of my head right now.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, thats a fail, none of those preclude him creating other worlds after us
> and since Satan was already cast down here, he wouldnt have access to those other world so no need to the salvation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer each point or your argument is a failure.
Click to expand...

my answer covered every point
not one of them preclude the possibility that God continued to be a creative being after creating us


----------



## Rat in the Hat

hjmick said:


> It's hard to believe that, in a universe so vast, there is not intelligent life out there somewhere...
> 
> Then again, I am left wondering...
> 
> If this life is so intelligent, and if they have, as some people claim, visited our planet, why do they always seem to abduct the cream of the trailer parks?



I've always had a problem with this very issue.

Let's say you're the captain of an interstellar ship from an alien race. You've put an assload of time and money into building a space ship capable of traveling dozens of light years to Earth to see what lifeform is here.

Given the choice, would you land in Central Park or Red Square and talk to the citizens of those areas, or in a swamp outside of Little Rock Arkansas and anal probe a couple of frog farmers?


----------



## loosecannon

Primitive animal Man invented God in his own image explicitly to neutralize these kinds of questions.

Because the answers are unknowable for primitive human animals. And primitive animal man HATES that shit!!


----------



## loosecannon

Rat in the Hat said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe that, in a universe so vast, there is not intelligent life out there somewhere...
> 
> Then again, I am left wondering...
> 
> If this life is so intelligent, and if they have, as some people claim, visited our planet, why do they always seem to abduct the cream of the trailer parks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a problem with this very issue.
> 
> Let's say you're the captain of an interstellar ship from an alien race. You've put an assload of time and money into building a space ship capable of traveling dozens of light years to Earth to see what lifeform is here.
> 
> Given the choice, would you land in Central Park or Red Square and talk to the citizens of those areas, or in a swamp outside of Little Rock Arkansas and anal probe a couple of frog farmers?
Click to expand...


What was the name of the Star Trek movie in which advanced aliens did land on earth and they were indifferent toward the human infestation but immediately sought out great whales to make contact?


----------



## Rat in the Hat

loosecannon said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe that, in a universe so vast, there is not intelligent life out there somewhere...
> 
> Then again, I am left wondering...
> 
> If this life is so intelligent, and if they have, as some people claim, visited our planet, why do they always seem to abduct the cream of the trailer parks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a problem with this very issue.
> 
> Let's say you're the captain of an interstellar ship from an alien race. You've put an assload of time and money into building a space ship capable of traveling dozens of light years to Earth to see what lifeform is here.
> 
> Given the choice, would you land in Central Park or Red Square and talk to the citizens of those areas, or in a swamp outside of Little Rock Arkansas and anal probe a couple of frog farmers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the name of the Star Trek movie in which advanced aliens did land on earth and they were indifferent toward the human infestation but immediately sought out great whales to make contact?
Click to expand...


You're thinking about Star Trek IV, the Voyage Home. The aliens didn't land, but were trying to make contact with what they thought was the dominant species on Earth.

Kirk & Co. brought back a couple of humpbacks who had as much of a clue of the current reality as Christophera does on his best day. But all's well as ends well, and the alien probe went away happy, as if the only 2 whales in the solar system gave them  tomorrow's winning lottery numbers.


----------



## G.T.

I think inter-dimensional travel is more likely than backward time travel. 

I think that time travel to the future is the only direction we can go, I don't think the past continues to sit where it is for you to "visit."


----------



## zzzz

G.T. said:


> I think inter-dimensional travel is more likely than backward time travel.
> 
> I think that time travel to the future is the only direction we can go, I don't think the past continues to sit where it is for you to "visit."



The problem with any scenerio dealing with a close encounter is why have they not made contact. All the UFO sightings, are they real aliens or visitors from another dimension? 

As to dimensional travel, we do not know if there are other dimensions and if there are, they would not be replicas of this dimension unless new dimensions are created every second mirroring our dimension and then it becomes paradoxial. So could aliens be crossing over? It is possible thye are here and we cannot see them, in a different phase, and they are observing us but then again to what purpose. 

Time travel, although theoretically possible, is an interesting concept. Can you go back and change the past? I think not. What has past is past and is set in stone (except for revisionist historians.)  The future has not been written yet, although some events are ordained by the Bible. But if you go into the future you will not be able to get back because coming back would be in the past. A one way street so to speak. 

I believe there is life out there. The universe is too vast not to contain other lifeforms. But we can only speculate since we are limited by our scientific laws. I think a question we do have to face is what would happen if we did come face to face with aliens. Would we react out of fear and strike back or extend a hand of peace.


----------



## G.T.

Well, think about it this way. Our species is only so old, and look at how advanced we are. 

In 100 years they'll be able to do brain transplants into cloned bodies, and so if your old body has a bad heart your mind could be swapped into a new one. (freshy fresh). 

They imagined invisibility one day a hundred or more years ago. Now, they've got the cloak about perfected. 

Cell phones? Consider that your invisible voice travels here to space and back, you don't hear it "along the way," but it goes to the other person as if you're talking next to them. 




So, as far as technological advancements, we can do some freaky shit. 

Now, consider the age of the Universe. There are perhaps thousands of civilizations out there that are MILLIONS(NOT JUST HUNDREDS) of years more advanced than us. 





So, if they were here.........why hide it from us? You'd have to be a million years smarter to perhaps figure that one out. I'm guessing to avoid a war for whatever resource they may be harvesting here. 



Trailer park jokes aside, there are lots of Oceanic sightings. Consider that we can't go as deep as the Ocean floor at its deepest points. I can imagine that if something were down there, we _DON'T KNOW. _/wouldn't know.


----------



## Madeline

True, the deep ocean is freaky.


----------



## Care4all

Madeline said:


> True, the deep ocean is freaky.



It's the abyss!  and where Apollyon/Abaddon (the destruction or the destroyer) is released from, according to the Bible.  



on a secular note....

How do you suppose people in the Abyss could survive the water pressure down there?


----------



## G.T.

By not being people, Care, and by being inside of vessels.


----------



## ekrem

Tom Clancy said:


> Yes, and Yes.



It's a short answer, but, I second the above quote.
More I can not say because search for extra-terrestrial life is science involving many areas which I do not know about. There are others out there, I believe in that.


----------



## THE LIGHT

DiveCon said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, thats a fail, none of those preclude him creating other worlds after us
> and since Satan was already cast down here, he wouldnt have access to those other world so no need to the salvation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer each point or your argument is a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my answer covered every point
> not one of them preclude the possibility that God continued to be a creative being after creating us
Click to expand...


No, answer them specifically or you fail. You made the accusation against me that I was arrogant yet have failed to back up your allogation.


----------



## DiveCon

THE LIGHT said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer each point or your argument is a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> my answer covered every point
> not one of them preclude the possibility that God continued to be a creative being after creating us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, answer them specifically or you fail. You made the accusation against me that I was arrogant yet have failed to back up your allogation.
Click to expand...

you have yet to prove your claim

and it IS arrogant to assume that God stopped being a creative being just because he created us

"God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow"


----------



## Madeline

OOOooooOOO...check this out guys.

'Goldilocks' Planet's Temperature Just Right For Life : NPR


----------



## THE LIGHT

DiveCon said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> my answer covered every point
> not one of them preclude the possibility that God continued to be a creative being after creating us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, answer them specifically or you fail. You made the accusation against me that I was arrogant yet have failed to back up your allogation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have yet to prove your claim
> 
> and it IS arrogant to assume that God stopped being a creative being just because he created us
Click to expand...

 
I proved my claim. As of yet, you have neither been able to rebut my claim nor prove your own.

The only one here that is arrogant is you not being able to admit that you are wrong.



> "God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow"


 
That is such a fail.

If you are trying to apply that to creating universes then you run into a bunch of problems because he wasn't the same on day one as he was on day two as he was on day seven.

Interesting enough if you read the next scripture following the one you quoted out of context you will find the following:

"Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein." -Hebrews 13:9

you have almost done just that; made up a strange doctrine by taking one scripture completely out of context and basing it on your ASSumption that G-d is just creating universes day in and day out.


----------



## Mad Scientist

There *are* super intelligent space aliens but there couldn't possibly be a God. Nope, no way.


----------



## Madeline

Mad Scientist said:


> There *are* super intelligent space aliens but there couldn't possibly be a God. Nope, no way.



Why not?


----------



## THE LIGHT

Madeline said:


> OOOooooOOO...check this out guys.
> 
> 'Goldilocks' Planet's Temperature Just Right For Life : NPR


 
Those morons are just looking for funding.

Anyone rember the quest for life on Mars??? I coulda told those morons there wasn't any. Of course, that would have ruined their oportunity to play with our money.


----------



## Madeline

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> OOOooooOOO...check this out guys.
> 
> 'Goldilocks' Planet's Temperature Just Right For Life : NPR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those morons are just looking for funding.
> 
> Anyone rember the quest for life on Mars??? I coulda told those morons there wasn't any. Of course, that would have ruined their oportunity to play with our money.
Click to expand...


O, I know The Light but I love space.  Look at this gorgeous photo of another galaxy, taken with a telescope....






I suppose little of this serves any useful purpose, but after all the nonsense we waste money on, I don't resent some spending for space exploration.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Madeline said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There *are* super intelligent space aliens but there couldn't possibly be a God. Nope, no way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...

Hey, of course I can imagine an alien life form coming from another galaxy but an alien life form that created the entire universe? No fuckin' way!

It's beyond my ability to even comprehend that so therefore it couldn't possibly exist.


----------



## Madeline

Mad Scientist said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There *are* super intelligent space aliens but there couldn't possibly be a God. Nope, no way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, of course I can imagine an alien life form coming from another galaxy but an alien life form that created the entire universe? No fuckin' way!
> 
> It's beyond my ability to even comprehend that so therefore it couldn't possibly exist.
Click to expand...


Hey, I cannot even imagine left and right, Mad Scientist, but I accept that my pea brain is not some sort of governor on reality.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> OOOooooOOO...check this out guys.
> 
> 'Goldilocks' Planet's Temperature Just Right For Life : NPR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those morons are just looking for funding.
> 
> Anyone rember the quest for life on Mars??? I coulda told those morons there wasn't any. Of course, that would have ruined their oportunity to play with our money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O, I know The Light but I love space. Look at this gorgeous photo of another galaxy, taken with a telescope....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose little of this serves any useful purpose, but after all the nonsense we waste money on, I don't resent some spending for space exploration.
Click to expand...

 
One of my favorite space pictures is the horse head nebula.


----------



## marksinvirginia

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?



******************************

Let's see.   Some say that life comes from rocks but not from fetuses.  

You qualify your question by saying "intelligent life."

Intelligence is relative to it's surroundings.  

So...if life comes from non-life (such as rocks)  there are rocks on other worlds, for sure. 

If you consider earthlings to be the criteria for intelligence, LMAO,  then there has to be   bona fide intelligent life elsewhere.

But how far away does  'elsewhere'  have to be before it becomes outside of the realm.   
_
I really don't expect this to sink in._


~Mark


----------



## Sheldon

Pillars of Creation is my favorite Hubble image.


----------



## Madeline

Sensational images, guys.


----------



## AllieBaba

I think it's hilarious that people will swear there are aliens, yet deny that there could be a God.

What a joke.

BTW, the  image of pi,  that is the result of graphing it to 2 billion places) looks like the mountains of the middle east. And the men responsible for deciphering pi to 2 billion places and making it possible to map the human genome...they believe in God.

I'll go with them. They are closer to having their finger on the pulse of the universe than any of the lunatics here.


----------



## Madeline

AllieBaba said:


> I think it's hilarious that people will swear there are aliens, yet deny that there could be a God.
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> BTW, the  image of pi,  that is the result of graphing it to 2 billion places) looks like the mountains of the middle east. And the men responsible for deciphering pi to 2 billion places and making it possible to map the human genome...they believe in God.
> 
> I'll go with them. They are closer to having their finger on the pulse of the universe than any of the lunatics here.



I believe in God too, Allie.  I admit, atheists amaze me...how could anyone be so certain?


----------



## Dr Grump

THE LIGHT said:


> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.




That is untrue - there was the Wow in 1977

SPACE.com -- Interstellar Signal from the 70s Continues to Puzzle Researchers

..and we're not talking biblically, we're talking reality...


----------



## THE LIGHT

Dr Grump said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue - there was the Wow in 1977
> 
> SPACE.com -- Interstellar Signal from the 70s Continues to Puzzle Researchers
> 
> ..and we're not talking biblically, we're talking reality...
Click to expand...

 
...and talking in reality terms you are an idot for not reading your own article.



> So was the Wow signal our first detection of extraterrestrials? It might have been, *but no scientist would make such a claim*. Scientific experiment is inherently, and rightly, skeptical. This isnt just a sour attitude; its the only way to avoid routinely fooling yourself. So until and unless the cosmic beep measured in Ohio is found again, *the Wow signal will remain a What signal*.


 
It was absolutely nothing but a cosmic burp. Burps for funding program right this way folks ====>>>


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue - there was the Wow in 1977
> 
> SPACE.com -- Interstellar Signal from the 70s Continues to Puzzle Researchers
> 
> ..and we're not talking biblically, we're talking reality...
Click to expand...


the bible is the best trove of archaeological evidence we have. Which means...it is real.


----------



## Madeline

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue - there was the Wow in 1977
> 
> SPACE.com -- Interstellar Signal from the 70s Continues to Puzzle Researchers
> 
> ..and we're not talking biblically, we're talking reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the bible is the best trove of archaeological evidence we have. Which means...it is real.
Click to expand...


Unless one is looking for remnants of the ancient Greeks or dinosaur bones, Allie.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Madeline said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue - there was the Wow in 1977
> 
> SPACE.com -- Interstellar Signal from the 70s Continues to Puzzle Researchers
> 
> ..and we're not talking biblically, we're talking reality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the best trove of archaeological evidence we have. Which means...it is real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless one is looking for remnants of the ancient Greeks or dinosaur bones, Allie.
Click to expand...

 
Not sure about ancient greeks, but it is correct on dinosaur bones.


----------



## Madeline

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bible is the best trove of archaeological evidence we have. Which means...it is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless one is looking for remnants of the ancient Greeks or dinosaur bones, Allie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure about ancient greeks, but it is correct on dinosaur bones.
Click to expand...


*Puzzled look*


----------



## MikeK

DiveCon said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i absolutely believe in the possibility of intelligent on other planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> BTW, is it true SETI broadcasts an analog signal?  Should we be funding this?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe SETI is LISTENING, not broadcasting
Click to expand...

Every time some senator proposes defunding SETI, someone at SETI says, "I think I just heard something!"  

I think there probably is life elsewhere in the Universe.  But if it is intelligent life I'm sure they are keeping quiet so we don't hear them.


----------



## Chris

UFOs have visited earth many times.

There are tons of photographs, radar, eye witnesses, video, etc...


----------



## Madeline

Chris said:


> UFOs have visited earth many times.
> 
> There are tons of photographs, radar, eye witnesses, video, etc...



Okay, I'll bite.  Where have they come from, Chris?


----------



## JW Frogen

Chris's cataracts need to phone home.


----------



## konradv

I don't believe we've been visited.  No one can even point to conclusive evidence to a close encounter of the second kind, never mind the third.


----------



## Dr Grump

THE LIGHT said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue - there was the Wow in 1977
> 
> SPACE.com -- Interstellar Signal from the 70s Continues to Puzzle Researchers
> 
> ..and we're not talking biblically, we're talking reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and talking in reality terms you are an idot for not reading your own article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So was the Wow signal our first detection of extraterrestrials? It might have been, *but no scientist would make such a claim*. Scientific experiment is inherently, and rightly, skeptical. This isnt just a sour attitude; its the only way to avoid routinely fooling yourself. So until and unless the cosmic beep measured in Ohio is found again, *the Wow signal will remain a What signal*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was absolutely nothing but a cosmic burp. Burps for funding program right this way folks ====>>>
Click to expand...


YOU have no idea what it was. The fact that scientists thought it was worth noting is the only thing of import.

They did it for funding? Yeah, sent a radio signal from possibly 100s of billions of miles away to get funding. Gee, how did they get to send the signal when it is thought to have come from somewhere no known human has been..


----------



## Dr Grump

Chris said:


> UFOs have visited earth many times.
> 
> There are tons of photographs, radar, eye witnesses, video, etc...



I don't believe that for a second...


----------



## Chris

Madeline said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> UFOs have visited earth many times.
> 
> There are tons of photographs, radar, eye witnesses, video, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll bite.  Where have they come from, Chris?
Click to expand...


Probably from other solar systems, possibly from our own future.

Who knows?


----------



## Chris

konradv said:


> I don't believe we've been visited.  No one can even point to conclusive evidence to a close encounter of the second kind, never mind the third.



There is an enormous amount of evidence.


----------



## Chris

Here's a photo from the Los Angeles Times Feb. 26, 1942....


----------



## Madeline

Chris said:


> Here's a photo from the Los Angeles Times Feb. 26, 1942....



Seriously?


----------



## fyrenza

I can't see your OP 'cuz you're on Iggy,

and I seem to have managed to bypass all the posts TO your OP,

but, THIS:

I'm still waiting to Make Contact with the intelligent animals in our seas.

Once I can hear a dolphin tell me about Life, God, and etc.

I'll be more able to understand what so-called foreign life-forms think about being carnate.

It's hard for me to believe He created ALL of this, just for us, and I'm just stoned and alchie enough to entertain the idea that we AREN'T alone,

but that ALL of the cosmos know Him.

(ALRIGHT, already!  I started EARLY on my celebrations ~ I'm sort of hoping Dear will allow me to celebrate my big, fat ARRIVAL,

*TWICE*!!! 

Wish me luck!  )


----------



## Chris

Madeline said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a photo from the Los Angeles Times Feb. 26, 1942....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.

Click on the link for more info...

Battle of Los Angeles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Charles_Main

Chris said:


> UFOs have visited earth many times.
> 
> There are tons of photographs, radar, eye witnesses, video, etc...



There is not one photograph that can not be logically explained away as something other than visitors from another planet. 

Same with the Radar, and video.

Clearly you want to believe so much you are biased. Nothing new with you.


----------



## Charles_Main

Chris said:


> Here's a photo from the Los Angeles Times Feb. 26, 1942....



That image could be anything Chris. I thought you were all about science. how in gods name do you call that Photo Conclusive proof?


----------



## Chris

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4JsPSKYypk]YouTube - Belgium UFO Triangle Sightings Pt 1[/ame]


----------



## Chris

Here is what the people of Belgium saw...


----------



## Charles_Main

Chris said:


> YouTube - Belgium UFO Triangle Sightings Pt 1



Might want to note, that the EU version of Area 51 where they test prototype Aircraft. just so happens to be in the so called Belgium Triangle


----------



## Charles_Main

Chris said:


> Here is what the people of Belgium saw...



Could easily be some new Military craft. 

Sorry bud, Not conclusive. Compelling sure, not Conclusive.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the people of Belgium saw...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could easily be some new Military craft.
> 
> Sorry bud, Not conclusive. Compelling sure, not Conclusive.
Click to expand...


I am not trying to convince you.


----------



## Charles_Main

Chris said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the people of Belgium saw...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could easily be some new Military craft.
> 
> Sorry bud, Not conclusive. Compelling sure, not Conclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not trying to convince you.
Click to expand...


Yet clearly you have allowed inconclusive Photos like this convince you.

I want to believe just as much as you, But I require something conclusive. Not a blurred photo that could be Anything. In today's world with a Camera in ever damn phone. You would think we would have something a little more convincing by now.


----------



## Chris

This Nellis UFO is also interesting....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldm7Px3HELA]YouTube - 1994 Nellis super secret UFO sighting[/ame]


----------



## Charles_Main

Chris said:


> This Nellis UFO is also interesting....
> 
> YouTube - 1994 Nellis super secret UFO sighting



Dude I would bet my right arm that is an early version of the Stealth Bomber. Looks like its bomb doors are open. 

To funny LOOK AT IT.


----------



## fyrenza

I'm a Conspiracy enthusiast,

but I think that if alien spacecraft are flying our friendly skies?

We OWN the air/space-craft, and are probably just trying to figure it all out.

I think we WERE visited, and that Area 51 DOES conceal the evidence of extra-terrestrial technology.

I also believe that we are being PROTECTED from that knowledge,

bogus as that is.

Look what happened with Orson Wells' radio broadcast of War of the Worlds.

You fuktards that can't see beyond the ends of your noses,

to something MORE,

that could incorporate thoughts and/or ideas that have NOTHING to do with your existance

are what made the Smart Folks think that we're ALL foolish.

Thank you.  NOT.

But be SURE to FREAK OUT over every little difference of opinion, 

over every different Point Of View,

over every semi-weird happening.

We have Y'ALL to thank for US being considered ...

mang.

whatever.

You don't get it.

You have NO IDEA of what an Open Mind even IS, 

let alone any thoughts that could HAPPEN in an open mind...

I'm fucking back in 3rd grade, which is where I started school,

and where I was promptly drug into a think tank

pretty much never to be heard from, again.

It's hard to relate, when you know this shit isn't what any of it is about, you know?


----------



## saveliberty

Chris said:


> Here is what the people of Belgium saw...



Nice kite with lights in it.  I'll trade you a tornado driven flying cow and a whistle for it.


----------



## Chris

Washington Post front page July 1952...


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Nellis UFO is also interesting....
> 
> YouTube - 1994 Nellis super secret UFO sighting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I would bet my right arm that is an early version of the Stealth Bomber. Looks like its bomb doors are open.
> 
> To funny LOOK AT IT.
Click to expand...


You didn't even watch the video.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Dr Grump said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue - there was the Wow in 1977
> 
> SPACE.com -- Interstellar Signal from the 70s Continues to Puzzle Researchers
> 
> ..and we're not talking biblically, we're talking reality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and talking in reality terms you are an idot for not reading your own article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So was the Wow signal our first detection of extraterrestrials? It might have been, *but no scientist would make such a claim*. Scientific experiment is inherently, and rightly, skeptical. This isnt just a sour attitude; its the only way to avoid routinely fooling yourself. So until and unless the cosmic beep measured in Ohio is found again, *the Wow signal will remain a What signal*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was absolutely nothing but a cosmic burp. Burps for funding program right this way folks ====>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU have no idea what it was. The fact that scientists thought it was worth noting is the only thing of import.
> 
> They did it for funding? Yeah, sent a radio signal from possibly 100s of billions of miles away to get funding. Gee, how did they get to send the signal when it is thought to have come from somewhere no known human has been..
Click to expand...

 
No, they said it was possibly just a cosmic burp.


----------



## fyrenza

THE LIGHT said:


> No, they said it was possibly just a cosmic burp.



You know...

sometimes i just have to wEnder if it's a Cosmic Burp

or FART...

I mean, our world is sort of GASEOUS, eh?


----------



## konradv

I've had enough of fuzzy photos and videos.  I want concrete evidence.


----------



## saveliberty

Seems very unlikely that in the vastness of the universe we are the only beings who can move about the solar system.  Thing is, I wouldn't go a thousand light years and spend my time trying to communicate with ants.  My guess is, when we are smart enough, somebody will stop in and say hi.

P.S.  God forbid they start by looking at USMB.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Moral of the story with UFO the siting crowd. If you don't understand something then it must be from another planet.


----------



## saveliberty

THE LIGHT said:


> Moral of the story with UFO the siting crowd. If you don't understand something then it must be from another planet.



They usually run in here and mention the term is unidentified flying object about now.

Must be an alien abduction going on.  Maybe later.


----------



## Chris

konradv said:


> I've had enough of fuzzy photos and videos.  I want concrete evidence.



I don't think you will have to wait very long.


----------



## Chris




----------



## Care4all

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpy7seH5Hc8]YouTube - (15)THE WALL: Pink Floyd - Is There Anybody Out There?[/ame]


----------



## saveliberty

I  have the album.  Said the brick in the wall.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

MikeK said:


> Every time some senator proposes defunding SETI, someone at SETI says, "I think I just heard something!"
> 
> I think there probably is life elsewhere in the Universe.  But if it is intelligent life I'm sure they are keeping quiet so we don't hear them.



SETI's budget is about 4 million dollars or so.  Its not even a drop in the bucket of the Federal Budget.  Its barely a water molecule in the bucket.  I'd much rather have those guys listening than just ignore the heavens entirely.

Sure, they may find nothing, but if they do, who knows?


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> UFOs have visited earth many times.
> 
> There are tons of photographs, radar, eye witnesses, video, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one photograph that can not be logically explained away as something other than visitors from another planet.
> 
> Same with the Radar, and video.
> 
> Clearly you want to believe so much you are biased. Nothing new with you.
Click to expand...


Its a matter of definition.  If you can't explain it, its a UFO in the strictest sense.  And there are plenty of atmospheric phenomenon that we can't explain.  

Does it come from an extra terrestial origin?  That's up in the air.


----------



## DiveCon

Dr.Traveler said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time some senator proposes defunding SETI, someone at SETI says, "I think I just heard something!"
> 
> I think there probably is life elsewhere in the Universe.  But if it is intelligent life I'm sure they are keeping quiet so we don't hear them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SETI's budget is about 4 million dollars or so.  Its not even a drop in the bucket of the Federal Budget.  Its barely a water molecule in the bucket.  I'd much rather have those guys listening than just ignore the heavens entirely.
> 
> Sure, they may find nothing, but if they do, who knows?
Click to expand...

i looked it up, but didnt save the link, SETI used to get federal funding, but not anymore
its all private


----------



## Dr.Traveler

DiveCon said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time some senator proposes defunding SETI, someone at SETI says, "I think I just heard something!"
> 
> I think there probably is life elsewhere in the Universe.  But if it is intelligent life I'm sure they are keeping quiet so we don't hear them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SETI's budget is about 4 million dollars or so.  Its not even a drop in the bucket of the Federal Budget.  Its barely a water molecule in the bucket.  I'd much rather have those guys listening than just ignore the heavens entirely.
> 
> Sure, they may find nothing, but if they do, who knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i looked it up, but didnt save the link, SETI used to get federal funding, but not anymore
> its all private
Click to expand...


Wouldn't surprise me.  NASA's budget is so small that its probably time for them to solicit private money.

I view SETI as a longshot that may pay off.  Even if they don't find signs of extra terrestial life they may one day find some amazing stellar occurance that leads to new theories.


----------



## DiveCon

Dr.Traveler said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> SETI's budget is about 4 million dollars or so.  Its not even a drop in the bucket of the Federal Budget.  Its barely a water molecule in the bucket.  I'd much rather have those guys listening than just ignore the heavens entirely.
> 
> Sure, they may find nothing, but if they do, who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> i looked it up, but didnt save the link, SETI used to get federal funding, but not anymore
> its all private
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't surprise me.  NASA's budget is so small that its probably time for them to solicit private money.
> 
> I view SETI as a longshot that may pay off.  Even if they don't find signs of extra terrestial life they may one day find some amazing stellar occurance that leads to new theories.
Click to expand...

exactly, i used to have SETI@home on my old desktop
havent reinstalled it on the new one yet
but i figure if they use a few spare cycles of my CPU to sort through all the data, and maybe i'll be the one that actually finds it


----------



## westwall

Chris said:


> This Nellis UFO is also interesting....
> 
> YouTube - 1994 Nellis super secret UFO sighting






That video (a complete waste of 7 minutes of my shortening life!) is totally useless for anything but humor.  There are a very few credible UFO reports (please note I am using UFO in the correct way-they are unidentified) but the vast majority of the photo's and videos are easily explained.  I well remember the "Phoenix Lights" hysteria of a few years ago and the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the video was "hey those are USAF IR defeating flares".  Which is what the Gov said and which the UFO enthusiasts ignored.

There was however a photo taken several years ago by a weather camera that recorded an object in the atmosphere that was calculated to be travelling at 1/6th C.  That is pretty close to the average speed of a meteorite but not within the atmosphere.  This had no contrail, or perceptible shockwave etc.  An interesting anomoly.


----------



## saveliberty

Psst...NASA.

Get a bunch of people to start reporting aliens landing.  Peer review their reports and conclude we are going to get killed by alien invasions soon.  The money will just pour in from the government.  For faster service, recruit Al Gore.

If you get a spare million, don't forget me.


----------



## Old Rocks

AllieBaba said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is untrue - there was the Wow in 1977
> 
> SPACE.com -- Interstellar Signal from the 70s Continues to Puzzle Researchers
> 
> ..and we're not talking biblically, we're talking reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the bible is the best trove of archaeological evidence we have. Which means...it is real.
Click to expand...


Not hardly. The walls of Jericho came tumbling down long before the Isrealites. 

Archaeological Sites

Perhaps the best known and most accurate information from the Jericho site comes form yet another excavation under Kathleen Kenyan from 1952-1958. Her techniques were far superior to Garstang's and involved rigorous examination of the soil and very careful recording of its stratification. Kenyan was able to obtain a cross section of the city through its entire history by digging a narrow deep trench while maintaining clean and squared off edges. When presented with an area that would require wider areas to be excavated- the floor plan of a house for example- she carefully dug in measured squares while leaving an untouched strip between each section to allow the stratification to remain visible. Kenyan's main objective during her excavations at Jericho was to trace the history of the site back to it's earliest settlement. While trenching downward through the site she uncovered the first walled city along with a number of houses and courtyards that had been constructed over 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic. Kenyan was able to learn something about the city's early inhabitants from a tomb located near the deepest layers of the city. Inside the tomb were a number of skulls covered with clay. The skulls were dated at about the seventh millenium BC and were beautifully decorated with paint. Upon further excavation Kenyan maintained that the walls of Jericho had been repaired and rebuilt at least seventeen times. The damage may have been caused by earthquakes. The most recent of these walls (already dated to around 1400 BC by Garstang) was dated by Kenyan at 2300BC. Kenyan found no evidence of defensive structures that could confirm Garstang's previous claims that Jericho had been destroyed by the Israelites in the 15th century BC. In fact, she concluded that Jericho had lay in ruins for centuries before the Israelites even arrived. In short, there was nothing for Joshua to destroy.


----------



## antagon

there could well be life.  there's less of a chance that there's intelligent life.  there's even less of a chance that some extraterrestrial intelligent life regularly visits us here.


----------



## Old Rocks

Some thoughts here.

Any planet that we find in the Goldilocks Zone that has an Oxygen atmosphere will have life, that is to only way that such a planet can develop such an atmosphere. 

Now consider the complexity of life as we know it here on Earth. Every breath that we breath contains pollens, spores, microbial life. All composed of thousands of differant proteins.

Now were we to develop a trans-C drive, and found a planet that looked like the Garden of Eden, with a perfect atmosphere, our heroic Intersteller explorer land, steps onto this new planet, draws a deep breath, and goes into instant massive anaphylatic shock. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the proteans on a world with a totally differant evolutionary history would be the same as the ones that we evolved with.

What are the ethics of interfereing with a planet that is developing, or has the possibility of developing, intelligent life? 

And what about life not as we know it? Silicon based. Living in an environment that is much hotter or colder, or even under much higher pressure, or no pressure at all.

I cannot remember whether it was Clarke or Asimov that stated that the universe is not stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

SETI. A wonderful idea, that has already been involved in some discoveries of new things, to us, in the universe. Consider a primitive tribe on a sea surrounded island. Assuming that there are other people somewhere out there, and that they communicate with each other, he faithfully sends up every day one of his subjects with the best hearing, and another with the sharpest sight, to listen for drums and look for smoke signals. Even as the island is bombarded by the electromagnetic signals from geosychronious satellites, as well as other sources.

Moved out to, say, the orbit of Pluto, a much quieter neighborhood, and with a much improved technology, SETI might someday discover a distant civiliazation at about the same stage of development as we are. A civilization with a million years of technological and evolutionary advancement on us? I doubt that we have the faintest idea of how they communicate.


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> Some thoughts here.
> 
> Any planet that we find in the Goldilocks Zone that has an Oxygen atmosphere will have life, that is to only way that such a planet can develop such an atmosphere.
> ....


didnt read beyond there

why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?


----------



## westwall

DiveCon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some thoughts here.
> 
> Any planet that we find in the Goldilocks Zone that has an Oxygen atmosphere will have life, that is to only way that such a planet can develop such an atmosphere.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> didnt read beyond there
> 
> why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
> who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?
Click to expand...





Absolutely.  We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth.  The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis.  They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.

What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water.  That is the significant factor.  O2 is not the important factor.


----------



## Chris

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Nellis UFO is also interesting....
> 
> YouTube - 1994 Nellis super secret UFO sighting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That video (a complete waste of 7 minutes of my shortening life!) is totally useless for anything but humor.  There are a very few credible UFO reports (please note I am using UFO in the correct way-they are unidentified) but the vast majority of the photo's and videos are easily explained.  I well remember the "Phoenix Lights" hysteria of a few years ago and the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw the video was "hey those are USAF IR defeating flares".  Which is what the Gov said and which the UFO enthusiasts ignored.
> 
> There was however a photo taken several years ago by a weather camera that recorded an object in the atmosphere that was calculated to be travelling at 1/6th C.  That is pretty close to the average speed of a meteorite but not within the atmosphere.  This had no contrail, or perceptible shockwave etc.  An interesting anomoly.
Click to expand...



The Phoenix lights were not explained. The flares filmed at 1030 pm were not what people were reporting all over Phoenix at 830 pm. Hundreds of people, including the governor of Arizona, saw an enormous ship fly over at 830 pm. Some friends of mine saw it as well. You really should do a little more reading on the subject.

And the Nellis video was amazing when it was shown on television. You can't tell much from the internet video, however.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Old Rocks said:


> Some thoughts here.
> 
> Any planet that we find in the Goldilocks Zone that has an Oxygen atmosphere will have life, that is to only way that such a planet can develop such an atmosphere.
> 
> Now consider the complexity of life as we know it here on Earth. Every breath that we breath contains pollens, spores, microbial life. All composed of thousands of differant proteins.
> 
> Now were we to develop a trans-C drive, and found a planet that looked like the Garden of Eden, with a perfect atmosphere, our heroic Intersteller explorer land, steps onto this new planet, draws a deep breath, and goes into instant massive anaphylatic shock. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the proteans on a world with a totally differant evolutionary history would be the same as the ones that we evolved with.
> 
> What are the ethics of interfereing with a planet that is developing, or has the possibility of developing, intelligent life?
> 
> And what about life not as we know it? Silicon based. Living in an environment that is much hotter or colder, or even under much higher pressure, or no pressure at all.
> 
> I cannot remember whether it was Clarke or Asimov that stated that the universe is not stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
> 
> SETI. A wonderful idea, that has already been involved in some discoveries of new things, to us, in the universe. Consider a primitive tribe on a sea surrounded island. Assuming that there are other people somewhere out there, and that they communicate with each other, he faithfully sends up every day one of his subjects with the best hearing, and another with the sharpest sight, to listen for drums and look for smoke signals. Even as the island is bombarded by the electromagnetic signals from geosychronious satellites, as well as other sources.
> 
> Moved out to, say, the orbit of Pluto, a much quieter neighborhood, and with a much improved technology, SETI might someday discover a distant civiliazation at about the same stage of development as we are. A civilization with a million years of technological and evolutionary advancement on us? I doubt that we have the faintest idea of how they communicate.


----------



## Chris

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvPR8T1o3Dc&feature=related]YouTube - Astronaut Gordon Cooper Talks About UFOs[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks

DiveCon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some thoughts here.
> 
> Any planet that we find in the Goldilocks Zone that has an Oxygen atmosphere will have life, that is to only way that such a planet can develop such an atmosphere.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> didnt read beyond there
> 
> why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
> who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?
Click to expand...


Chemistry


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some thoughts here.
> 
> Any planet that we find in the Goldilocks Zone that has an Oxygen atmosphere will have life, that is to only way that such a planet can develop such an atmosphere.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> didnt read beyond there
> 
> why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
> who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth.  The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis.  They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.
> 
> What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water.  That is the significant factor.  O2 is not the important factor.
Click to expand...


Dive Con is pretty ignorant when it comes to science, but for someone that claims a degree in geology to not understand the importance of finding an oxygen atmosphere in a planet in the goldilocks zones is beyond comprehension.


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some thoughts here.
> 
> Any planet that we find in the Goldilocks Zone that has an Oxygen atmosphere will have life, that is to only way that such a planet can develop such an atmosphere.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> didnt read beyond there
> 
> why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
> who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chemistry
Click to expand...

bullshit


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> didnt read beyond there
> 
> why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
> who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth.  The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis.  They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.
> 
> What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water.  That is the significant factor.  O2 is not the important factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dive Con is pretty ignorant when it comes to science, but for someone that claims a degree in geology to not understand the importance of finding an oxygen atmosphere in a planet in the goldilocks zones is beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...

yiou are by far more ignorant than i ever could be you pedantic asswipe


----------



## DiveCon

btw rocks in the head,
something evolving on another world would not be limited to OUR chemistry
since they could have elements we have never seen nor heard of
and you called ME ignorant


----------



## Old Rocks

DiveCon said:


> btw rocks in the head,
> something evolving on another world would not be limited to OUR chemistry
> since they could have elements we have never seen nor heard of
> and you called ME ignorant



Lordy, lordy. Dive, honest to God, I had no idea that you were truly that ignorant. No, there will not be any elements on another planet in another stellar system that we never heard of. There may be a differant ratio of them, or even a differant ratio of isotopes reflecting an older or younger system. But no new elements.

You really need to take a basic chemistry course at the nearest community college.


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> btw rocks in the head,
> something evolving on another world would not be limited to OUR chemistry
> since they could have elements we have never seen nor heard of
> and you called ME ignorant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lordy, lordy. Dive, honest to God, I had no idea that you were truly that ignorant. No, there will not be any elements on another planet in another stellar system that we never heard of. There may be a differant ratio of them, or even a differant ratio of isotopes reflecting an older or younger system. But no new elements.
> 
> You really need to take a basic chemistry course at the nearest community college.
Click to expand...

how the hell would you know
you are a complete IDIOT

btw, we dont even know that they have identified all the elements in THIS planetary system


----------



## Old Rocks

You  poor fucking ignoramous. You really need to find out what the Periodic Table of elements means.

Each element has a distinct number of protons. Counting the elements that man has created, we are up to 111 protons in a nucleus. But the heavier elements, and especially the manmade elements, are not stable, many with a half life of a miniscule fraction of a second.

I now understand why you are such a trailer trash Conservative.


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> You  poor fucking ignoramous. You really need to find out what the Periodic Table of elements means.
> 
> Each element has a distinct number of protons. Counting the elements that man has created, we are up to 111 protons in a nucleus. But the heavier elements, and especially the manmade elements, are not stable, many with a half life of a miniscule fraction of a second.
> 
> I now understand why you are such a trailer trash Conservative.


i KNOW what it means you dipshit

that in NO WAY eliminates the possibility of additional elements on other worlds


----------



## Old Rocks

Lol


----------



## elvis

Old Rocks said:


> You  poor fucking ignoramous. You really need to find out what the Periodic Table of elements means.
> 
> Each element has a distinct number of protons. Counting the elements that man has created, we are up to 111 protons in a nucleus. But the heavier elements, and especially the manmade elements, are not stable, many with a half life of a miniscule fraction of a second.
> 
> I now understand why you are such a trailer trash Conservative.



Got a headache from Chris' headboard again, Rockhead?


----------



## Old Rocks

elvis said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You  poor fucking ignoramous. You really need to find out what the Periodic Table of elements means.
> 
> Each element has a distinct number of protons. Counting the elements that man has created, we are up to 111 protons in a nucleus. But the heavier elements, and especially the manmade elements, are not stable, many with a half life of a miniscule fraction of a second.
> 
> I now understand why you are such a trailer trash Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a headache from Chris' headboard again, Rockhead?
Click to expand...


Oh my, our Rent-A-Boy again with his fetishes.


----------



## elvis

Old Rocks said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You  poor fucking ignoramous. You really need to find out what the Periodic Table of elements means.
> 
> Each element has a distinct number of protons. Counting the elements that man has created, we are up to 111 protons in a nucleus. But the heavier elements, and especially the manmade elements, are not stable, many with a half life of a miniscule fraction of a second.
> 
> I now understand why you are such a trailer trash Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got a headache from Chris' headboard again, Rockhead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my, our Rent-A-Boy again with his fetishes.
Click to expand...


No. Just trying to figure out why you're throwing tantrums on here like a four-year old in the cereal aisle.  Chris give you a um hard time again?


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> Lol


you are way too narrow minded for science


----------



## elvis

DiveCon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> you are way too narrow minded for science
Click to expand...


Yeah.  If the data doesn't match up with socialist ideals, Rocks-in-the-head doesn't believe in it.


----------



## THE LIGHT

westwall said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some thoughts here.
> 
> Any planet that we find in the Goldilocks Zone that has an Oxygen atmosphere will have life, that is to only way that such a planet can develop such an atmosphere.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> didnt read beyond there
> 
> why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
> who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth. The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis. They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.
> 
> What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water. That is the significant factor. O2 is not the important factor.
Click to expand...

 
Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> didnt read beyond there
> 
> why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
> who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth.  The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis.  They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.
> 
> What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water.  That is the significant factor.  O2 is not the important factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dive Con is pretty ignorant when it comes to science, but for someone that claims a degree in geology to not understand the importance of finding an oxygen atmosphere in a planet in the goldilocks zones is beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...




As any finishing first year geology student knows (thus confirming that you in fact never took those geology classes you claim) Earth had an anaerobic atmosphere.  Oxygen first shows up as a trace element about 2.5 billion years ago and didn't become free in the atmosphere until 1.7 billion years ago and this was due to the life that was blooming all over the planet.  Free oxygen in the atmosphere exists because of life, not the other way around.  Liquid water is the critical factor in a goldilocks planet.

Feel free to look it up.


----------



## westwall

THE LIGHT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> didnt read beyond there
> 
> why would the evolution on another world be dependent on Oxygen?
> who's to say they couldn't evolve a life that breathed nitrogen more so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth. The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis. They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.
> 
> What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water. That is the significant factor. O2 is not the important factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.
Click to expand...





That is certainly one possibility.  I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic.  There is no proof for or against the existence of God.  I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.


----------



## DiveCon

westwall said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth. The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis. They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.
> 
> What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water. That is the significant factor. O2 is not the important factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one possibility.  I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic.  There is no proof for or against the existence of God.  I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.
Click to expand...

my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen

any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility


----------



## westwall

DiveCon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one possibility.  I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic.  There is no proof for or against the existence of God.  I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen
> 
> any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility
Click to expand...




Absolutely, you didn't hear me arguing against you!  Your observation is completely valid.


----------



## uscitizen

If you earthlings cannot get along any better than this I will just go home.


----------



## DiveCon

westwall said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one possibility.  I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic.  There is no proof for or against the existence of God.  I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen
> 
> any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, you didn't hear me arguing against you!  Your observation is completely valid.
Click to expand...

yes, i know
but old rocks in the head claims to be a true scientist


----------



## konradv

DiveCon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You  poor fucking ignoramous. You really need to find out what the Periodic Table of elements means.
> 
> Each element has a distinct number of protons. Counting the elements that man has created, we are up to 111 protons in a nucleus. But the heavier elements, and especially the manmade elements, are not stable, many with a half life of a miniscule fraction of a second.
> 
> I now understand why you are such a trailer trash Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> i KNOW what it means you dipshit
> 
> that in NO WAY eliminates the possibility of additional elements on other worlds
Click to expand...


Yes it does eliminate the possibility, unless you think the laws of nature change when you leave our solar system.  There are no other natural elements to be found.  They're inherently unstable.


----------



## konradv

DiveCon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen
> 
> any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, you didn't hear me arguing against you!  Your observation is completely valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, i know
> but old rocks in the head claims to be a true scientist
Click to expand...


LOL!!!  No wonder you guys can't understand the GW debate.  You don't have the vaguest notion of real science.  No true scientist would agree with either of you, they'd be ROTFL.


----------



## saveliberty

konradv said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You  poor fucking ignoramous. You really need to find out what the Periodic Table of elements means.
> 
> Each element has a distinct number of protons. Counting the elements that man has created, we are up to 111 protons in a nucleus. But the heavier elements, and especially the manmade elements, are not stable, many with a half life of a miniscule fraction of a second.
> 
> I now understand why you are such a trailer trash Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> i KNOW what it means you dipshit
> 
> that in NO WAY eliminates the possibility of additional elements on other worlds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does eliminate the possibility, unless you think the laws of nature change when you leave our solar system.  There are no other natural elements to be found.  They're inherently unstable.
Click to expand...


You sound like the guys who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe.


----------



## DiveCon

konradv said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, you didn't hear me arguing against you!  Your observation is completely valid.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, i know
> but old rocks in the head claims to be a true scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!  No wonder you guys can't understand the GW debate.  You don't have the vaguest notion of real science.  No true scientist would agree with either of you, they'd be ROTFL.
Click to expand...

you two morons are too narrow minded to be true scientists


----------



## DiveCon

konradv said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You  poor fucking ignoramous. You really need to find out what the Periodic Table of elements means.
> 
> Each element has a distinct number of protons. Counting the elements that man has created, we are up to 111 protons in a nucleus. But the heavier elements, and especially the manmade elements, are not stable, many with a half life of a miniscule fraction of a second.
> 
> I now understand why you are such a trailer trash Conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> i KNOW what it means you dipshit
> 
> that in NO WAY eliminates the possibility of additional elements on other worlds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does eliminate the possibility, unless you think the laws of nature change when you leave our solar system.  There are no other natural elements to be found.  They're inherently unstable.
Click to expand...

so, you are claiming there are no other natural elements to be found

do you even know there are places on THIS world people have never been?


----------



## HUGGY

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?



Odds are that there is life out there.  Odds are that we wouldn't want to know them or have them know about us.

They would certainly not be at OUR level.  Either they are hopelessly undeveloped like cave men or worse..like NewGOPers..or far more advanced than us and would see us as a commodity.  Almost all life on earth is predatory.  There are very few examples that are not.  To think we are going to find some benevolent super race of beings that will share 411 with us is far beyond foolish.  It is suicidal.

Those thay think we are special or god will protect us will be our demise....and it won't be pretty.  At best we can hope that when they come they will kill us outright before they consume us.  The thought of watching humans getting eaten alive like a praying mantis's eating cocaroaches would be a gruesome sight.


----------



## konradv

DiveCon said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i KNOW what it means you dipshit
> 
> that in NO WAY eliminates the possibility of additional elements on other worlds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does eliminate the possibility, unless you think the laws of nature change when you leave our solar system.  There are no other natural elements to be found.  They're inherently unstable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you are claiming there are no other natural elements to be found
> 
> do you even know there are places on THIS world people have never been?
Click to expand...


YES, that's ABSOLUTELY true.  Go ask a chemist.  I'm sorry but Unobtainium will NEVER be found.  All stable elements have been either found or synthesized.  All other heavier elements are inherently unstable.  You can search from the bottom of the sea to the most faraway galaxy and you WILL NOT find another naturally occuring element.


----------



## konradv

saveliberty said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i KNOW what it means you dipshit
> 
> that in NO WAY eliminates the possibility of additional elements on other worlds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does eliminate the possibility, unless you think the laws of nature change when you leave our solar system.  There are no other natural elements to be found.  They're inherently unstable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like the guys who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe.
Click to expand...


NO, we sound like guys who know chemistry.


----------



## konradv

DiveCon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one possibility.  I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic.  There is no proof for or against the existence of God.  I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen
> 
> any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility
Click to expand...


A true scientist would know that Argon is an inert element, a fact that's true here and on the furthest galaxy.  Sulfide has been mentioned as an alternate source and that's true, but look at the periodic table, it's right below Oxygen, so it's a no-brainer.  Argon, on the other hand is all the way to the right with Helium, Neon, Krypton, Xenon and Radon, the other inert gases.


----------



## saveliberty

konradv said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does eliminate the possibility, unless you think the laws of nature change when you leave our solar system.  There are no other natural elements to be found.  They're inherently unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> so, you are claiming there are no other natural elements to be found
> 
> do you even know there are places on THIS world people have never been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES, that's ABSOLUTELY true.  Go ask a chemist.  I'm sorry but Unobtainium will NEVER be found.  All stable elements have been either found or synthesized.  All other heavier elements are inherently unstable.  You can search from the bottom of the sea to the most faraway galaxy and you WILL NOT find another naturally occuring element.
Click to expand...


I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry.  Oops!  More elements.  There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states.  We don't even know what the universe looks like completely.  A bit premature to call it settled science.


----------



## westwall

konradv said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one possibility.  I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic.  There is no proof for or against the existence of God.  I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen
> 
> any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A true scientist would know that Argon is an inert element, a fact that's true here and on the furthest galaxy.  Sulfide has been mentioned as an alternate source and that's true, but look at the periodic table, it's right below Oxygen, so it's a no-brainer.  Argon, on the other hand is all the way to the right with Helium, Neon, Krypton, Xenon and Radon, the other inert gases.
Click to expand...






So let me get this straight.  You think that because a gas is inert it has no function?  Correct?  A Noble gas being inert can do nothing?  Correct?  Can't be a part of a living thing, can't help influence evolution etc.?  Correct?


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, for sure you are not going to be able to power biological energy exchanges with an inert element.


----------



## THE LIGHT

westwall said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. We have completely alien ecosystems here on Earth. The black smokers have tube worms and a whole host of other creatures that exist independant of the sun and photosynthesis. They have a completely foreign system that operates via chemosynthesis and they derive their nutrients fom sulfides.
> 
> What makes the Goldilocks region so important is the availability of liquid water. That is the significant factor. O2 is not the important factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one possibility. *I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic*. There is no proof for or against the existence of God. I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.
Click to expand...

 
Sorry, but the definition of "true scientist" does not include agnostic. A "true scientist" is one who observes, hypothesizes and confirms through repeatable experiments. It is one who follows the facts regardless of the religious implications. That would mean that just because ID points to the existence of a god, doesn't mean that it isn't science.


----------



## westwall

THE LIGHT said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course then you need some rocks and lightning that way it can rain and rain on the rocks with a few shocks here and there. That will create life or at least so we are told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly one possibility. *I am a true scientist however so I am an agnostic*. There is no proof for or against the existence of God. I respect all views and enjoy speaking with religious people about their beliefs as much as I do scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the definition of "true scientist" does not include agnostic. A "true scientist" is one who observes, hypothesizes and confirms through repeatable experiments. It is one who follows the facts regardless of the religious implications. That would mean that just because ID points to the existence of a god, doesn't mean that it isn't science.
Click to expand...





ID is a THEORY.  It doesn't point to anything.  PEOPLE have made a point of figuring out how amazing intelligent life is on this planet and that is very, very true.  But it all comes down to numbers.  Could life originate on any one of a few trillion possible planets in the universe?  The odds presented by the ID proponents say yes they can.  1 in a 100 billion I believe is the number that has been derived?  So yes in fact it _could_ be a random event.

And a scientist has three systems he/she can follow.  Religious, Atheist, Agnostic.  There is no evidence supporting God, nor is there evidence against.  So a scientist who believes in the scientific method and simple logic, has but one choice and that is agnosticism.  I value spirituality but I dislike those who would impose on me morals and ethics based purely on religion.  I believe that mans social contract with one another can be just as strong and relevant without religion being involved.  I view atheists as just as religious as their opponents just in a different way.  They too want to impose their systems on me and I don't appreciate that either.


----------



## Sallow

Would be kind of a kicker if we were..alone. That would mean that this is the beginning of life..


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Well, for sure you are not going to be able to power biological energy exchanges with an inert element.






Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that olfraud, not at all.  This study has found that both helium and xenon enhance biological magnetic resonance which aids nuclear magnetic resonance experiments.

Enhancement of surface and biological magnetic resonance using laser-polarized noble gases - Brunner - 1999 - Concepts in Magnetic Resonance - Wiley Online Library

There have also been experiments back in the 1960's dealing with bioelectronics that used nitrogen.


----------



## Old Rocks

Now that is certainly a reach. 

No, bluntly, no biological energy system is going to be based on an inert gas. Are there other gases that could possibly be used? Maybe. There are other gases that have valences that allow an energy exchange. Unlike the inert gases.


----------



## uscitizen

One thing, if man never develops a faster than light travel then life elsewhere is totally irrelevant.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Now that is certainly a reach.
> 
> No, bluntly, no biological energy system is going to be based on an inert gas. Are there other gases that could possibly be used? Maybe. There are other gases that have valences that allow an energy exchange. Unlike the inert gases.






Way back in 1932 they were looking at the exchange of energy between helium and a solid.  You need to get out more.  One should not get in the habit of saying never.  They are usually proven wrong.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

They've also figured out that by using Argon they make a more powerful metal based rocket fuel.

High energy fuel gel slurries - US 5597947


----------



## konradv

westwall said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> my npoint being, on another world where argon gas was aprox 20% of the atmosphere and oxygen only a trace element, why wouldnt any life that was evolving breath Argon more than Oxygen
> 
> any true scientist wouldnt discount that as a possibility
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A true scientist would know that Argon is an inert element, a fact that's true here and on the furthest galaxy.  Sulfide has been mentioned as an alternate source and that's true, but look at the periodic table, it's right below Oxygen, so it's a no-brainer.  Argon, on the other hand is all the way to the right with Helium, Neon, Krypton, Xenon and Radon, the other inert gases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  You think that because a gas is inert it has no function?  Correct?  A Noble gas being inert can do nothing?  Correct?  Can't be a part of a living thing, can't help influence evolution etc.?  Correct?
Click to expand...


I say they can't be used as a gas to support life.  They're non-reactive in normal chemical processes.  They can be used in things like flourecscent bulbs, but they do not change.  For a gas to be usable the way we use oxygen, there has to be the possibility of a chemical change.  The few compounds that have been made with the nobvle gases are inherently unstable and curiosities in the chemical world, nothing more.


----------



## konradv

saveliberty said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, you are claiming there are no other natural elements to be found
> 
> do you even know there are places on THIS world people have never been?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's ABSOLUTELY true.  Go ask a chemist.  I'm sorry but Unobtainium will NEVER be found.  All stable elements have been either found or synthesized.  All other heavier elements are inherently unstable.  You can search from the bottom of the sea to the most faraway galaxy and you WILL NOT find another naturally occuring element.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry.  Oops!  More elements.  There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states.  We don't even know what the universe looks like completely.  A bit premature to call it settled science.
Click to expand...


I think you need to take a chem course.  Got a cite for your "40 times"?  If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe.  All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second.  No chemical theory  I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.


----------



## konradv

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for sure you are not going to be able to power biological energy exchanges with an inert element.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that olfraud, not at all.  This study has found that both helium and xenon enhance biological magnetic resonance which aids nuclear magnetic resonance experiments.
> 
> Enhancement of surface and biological magnetic resonance using laser-polarized noble gases - Brunner - 1999 - Concepts in Magnetic Resonance - Wiley Online Library
> 
> There have also been experiments back in the 1960's dealing with bioelectronics that used nitrogen.
Click to expand...



Magnetic resonance uses aren't life.  They don't depend on chemical changes, but electron valence changes, that return to rest state after the power is switched off.  You can't build a biological system on that.


----------



## saveliberty

konradv said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's ABSOLUTELY true.  Go ask a chemist.  I'm sorry but Unobtainium will NEVER be found.  All stable elements have been either found or synthesized.  All other heavier elements are inherently unstable.  You can search from the bottom of the sea to the most faraway galaxy and you WILL NOT find another naturally occuring element.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry.  Oops!  More elements.  There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states.  We don't even know what the universe looks like completely.  A bit premature to call it settled science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to take a chem course.  Got a cite for your "40 times"?  If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe.  All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second.  No chemical theory  I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.
Click to expand...


I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?


----------



## Dr.Traveler

uscitizen said:


> One thing, if man never develops a faster than light travel then life elsewhere is totally irrelevant.



Not really.  Time dilation actually works in our factor for colonization of the universe.  The closer to _c_ you get, the more time slows.  While it means that meaningful communication with our own colonies could take generations, it does mean that a person could reach distant planets in their own lifetime if they can get up to a meaningful percentage of _c_.  The greater the distance, the bigger the percentage.

By that same argument, they could theoretically reach us.  It would just be a lot of effort.

I suggest you read some of Alastair Reynold's fantastic _Revelation Space_ trilogy.  Reynolds is a sci-fi author that worked for the EU space agency and doesn't believe that we'll find a way to break _c_.  That doesn't stop him from laying out an amazing interstellar opera.


----------



## konradv

saveliberty said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry.  Oops!  More elements.  There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states.  We don't even know what the universe looks like completely.  A bit premature to call it settled science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take a chem course.  Got a cite for your "40 times"?  If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe.  All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second.  No chemical theory  I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
Click to expand...


Why are you dodging the question I asked?   I never said anything about there being a "chemical theory".  I said there was NO such theory.  Yes, unless you have some theory of your own, the fact that there are no more naturally occuring elements to be found IS settled science.


----------



## saveliberty

konradv said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take a chem course.  Got a cite for your "40 times"?  If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe.  All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second.  *No chemical theory  I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you dodging the question I asked?   *I never said anything about there being a "chemical theory".  I said there was NO such theory*.  Yes, unless you have some theory of your own, the fact that there are no more naturally occuring elements to be found IS settled science.
Click to expand...


Seriously?  Thanks for making it easy.


----------



## konradv

saveliberty said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you dodging the question I asked?   *I never said anything about there being a "chemical theory".  I said there was NO such theory*.  Yes, unless you have some theory of your own, the fact that there are no more naturally occuring elements to be found IS settled science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Thanks for making it easy.
Click to expand...


You really ARE clueless on this subject, aren't you?  Why haven't you answered my question?  The only thing I've made easy is everybody's realization that you don't understand chemistry or that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe.


----------



## saveliberty

konradv said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you dodging the question I asked?   *I never said anything about there being a "chemical theory".  I said there was NO such theory*.  Yes, unless you have some theory of your own, the fact that there are no more naturally occuring elements to be found IS settled science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Thanks for making it easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really ARE clueless on this subject, aren't you?  Why haven't you answered my question?  The only thing I've made easy is everybody's realization that you don't understand chemistry or that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe.
Click to expand...


The laws of nature maybe consistent throughout the universe.  On the other hand, somethings we think are laws may not be.  The laws of gravity are seen equally here and inside a black hole?  Is the universe equal in its distribution of asteroids, quasars or space?  All I'm saying is, there may be regions of space where gravity, energy and other factors change things to such an extent you are wrong.  That those factors are normal for that region.


----------



## antagon

saveliberty said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think has been said about 40 times in the history of chemistry.  Oops!  More elements.  There are many areas of the universe that gravity, radiation, and other influences are in what we would consider unnatural states.  We don't even know what the universe looks like completely.  A bit premature to call it settled science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take a chem course.  Got a cite for your "40 times"?  If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe.  All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second.  No chemical theory  I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
Click to expand...


this has to do with the definition of theory.  holding that there aren't any further elements to be discovered relies on konrad's 'stable' qualifier.  i would think we could be afforded more certainty from getting up close to a supernova or with better spectral analysis than we have.


----------



## konradv

saveliberty said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Thanks for making it easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really ARE clueless on this subject, aren't you?  Why haven't you answered my question?  The only thing I've made easy is everybody's realization that you don't understand chemistry or that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws of nature maybe consistent throughout the universe.  On the other hand, somethings we think are laws may not be.  The laws of gravity are seen equally here and inside a black hole?  Is the universe equal in its distribution of asteroids, quasars or space?  All I'm saying is, there may be regions of space where gravity, energy and other factors change things to such an extent you are wrong.  That those factors are normal for that region.
Click to expand...


You still haven't answered the question.  What chemical theory do you espouse that would allow for there to be, as yet, undiscovered elements?  This isn't about gravity or equal distribution of matter, but the contention that there's a possibility of normal matter (we'll leave out "dark matter" for the moment) that doesn't conform to the chemistry of all the other matter we know.  You're dancing around the issue.  Please, take it head on.


----------



## konradv

antagon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take a chem course.  Got a cite for your "40 times"?  If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe.  All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second.  No chemical theory  I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this has to do with the definition of theory.  holding that there aren't any further elements to be discovered relies on konrad's 'stable' qualifier.  i would think we could be afforded more certainty from getting up close to a supernova or with better spectral analysis than we have.
Click to expand...


We're talking natural elements here.  All the new elements created in labs have decreasingly small half-lives, so even if something totally new were created in a supernova, they'd be gone before we'd even detect them.  That's about the only opening I see, but it's hardly relevant in the real world.


----------



## saveliberty

antagon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take a chem course.  Got a cite for your "40 times"?  If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe.  All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second.  No chemical theory  I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this has to do with the definition of theory.  holding that there aren't any further elements to be discovered relies on konrad's 'stable' qualifier.  i would think we could be afforded more certainty from getting up close to a supernova or with better spectral analysis than we have.
Click to expand...


That is the most likely case in my mind too antagon.  Although I will not rule out that in a particular environment, those conditions can be met on a continued basis and be sustainable/natural.  Expanding konrad's mind has proven a task.


----------



## Care4all

If one is at the beginning, the moment of the big Bang, I wonder if looking at the whole picture outward... the beginning and the end, if it only took 6 days viewing it from this perspective, to create the Earth, and all that evolved and lived on it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

There are literally tens of thousands of UFO sighting all throughout history

Adhara Observatory UFO Lunar Transit

Col. Philip J. Corso - The Day After Roswell 1/2 Video

Sure, you can "explain" them all away to your satisfaction, but why fight so hard against the obvious?  We've been visited countless times. 

The government knows it and needs to keep it secret because they believe people would not be able to handle the truth, well two truths. One is that we're not alone and the second is that the US Government is NOT the most powerful organization in the Universe.

It's the Ego, specifically it's the Ego of the Roman Catholic Church, which ruled Western civilization for 1,000 years, doing the thinking for you. The RCC wanted people to believe that it was the most powerful organization in the Universe suppressing everything to the contrary and we picked up where they left off.


----------



## saveliberty

konradv said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really ARE clueless on this subject, aren't you?  Why haven't you answered my question?  The only thing I've made easy is everybody's realization that you don't understand chemistry or that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of nature maybe consistent throughout the universe.  On the other hand, somethings we think are laws may not be.  The laws of gravity are seen equally here and inside a black hole?  Is the universe equal in its distribution of asteroids, quasars or space?  All I'm saying is, there may be regions of space where gravity, energy and other factors change things to such an extent you are wrong.  That those factors are normal for that region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered the question.  What chemical theory do you espouse that would allow for there to be, as yet, undiscovered elements?  This isn't about gravity or equal distribution of matter, but the contention that there's a possibility of normal matter (we'll leave out "dark matter" for the moment) that doesn't conform to the chemistry of all the other matter we know.  You're dancing around the issue.  Please, take it head on.
Click to expand...


I am trying to get you to think differently here.  I don't want to limit you by what I think.


----------



## Care4all

CrusaderFrank said:


> There are literally tens of thousands of UFO sighting all throughout history
> 
> Adhara Observatory UFO Lunar Transit
> 
> Col. Philip J. Corso - The Day After Roswell 1/2 Video
> 
> Sure, you can "explain" them all away to your satisfaction, but why fight so hard against the obvious?  We've been visited countless times.
> 
> The government knows it and needs to keep it secret because they believe people would not be able to handle the truth, well two truths. One is that we're not alone and the second is that the US Government is NOT the most powerful organization in the Universe.
> 
> It's the Ego, specifically it's the Ego of the Roman Catholic Church, which ruled Western civilization for 1,000 years, doing the thinking for you. The RCC wanted people to believe that it was the most powerful organization in the Universe suppressing everything to the contrary and we picked up where they left off.



hmmm, you do know that the Roman Catholic church came out in 2008 I think, and said that believing in aliens is not against the church, does not negate God and Christ, don't you?

that's a shocker for me....makes me think that they know or have information that extra terrestrials are visiting us.



> Jesuit Father Jose Funes, director of the Vatican's astronomical observatory, said in an interview published Tuesday that believing in alien life doesn't contradict faith in God.
> 
> "Just as we consider earthly life as 'a brother' and 'sister,' why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother?' It would still be part of creation," he said.http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/may/14/catholic-church-faith-in-god-alien-life-ok/


----------



## saveliberty

Men in Black: The Documentary.


----------



## konradv

saveliberty said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this has to do with the definition of theory.  holding that there aren't any further elements to be discovered relies on konrad's 'stable' qualifier.  i would think we could be afforded more certainty from getting up close to a supernova or with better spectral analysis than we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the most likely case in my mind too antagon.  Although I will not rule out that in a particular environment, those conditions can be met on a continued basis and be sustainable/natural.  Expanding konrad's mind has proven a task.
Click to expand...


How about expanding your own mind?  You're hanging your hat on something nuclear physicists would reject out of hand.   How would such a new element survive?  The kind of environment you envision would of necessity have to be one of temendous pressures to hold something so unstable together.  We know of examples of those extreme pressures and they lead not to new elements, but to a situation where all the protons and electrons are fused to beome neutrons, i.e. the neutron star.


----------



## konradv

saveliberty said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of nature maybe consistent throughout the universe.  On the other hand, somethings we think are laws may not be.  The laws of gravity are seen equally here and inside a black hole?  Is the universe equal in its distribution of asteroids, quasars or space?  All I'm saying is, there may be regions of space where gravity, energy and other factors change things to such an extent you are wrong.  That those factors are normal for that region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered the question.  What chemical theory do you espouse that would allow for there to be, as yet, undiscovered elements?  This isn't about gravity or equal distribution of matter, but the contention that there's a possibility of normal matter (we'll leave out "dark matter" for the moment) that doesn't conform to the chemistry of all the other matter we know.  You're dancing around the issue.  Please, take it head on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am trying to get you to think differently here.  I don't want to limit you by what I think.
Click to expand...


Thanks so much, but I think I'll stick with what my professors taught me and what I've learned since.  I still think you're dodging the question.  This isn't magic.  If there's some other possibility besides what I've stated, please articulate it.  You won't be limiting me.  I don't think that's possible.  You haven't shown the ability to present a cogent argument on the subject, so far.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Care4all said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are literally tens of thousands of UFO sighting all throughout history
> 
> Adhara Observatory UFO Lunar Transit
> 
> Col. Philip J. Corso - The Day After Roswell 1/2 Video
> 
> Sure, you can "explain" them all away to your satisfaction, but why fight so hard against the obvious?  We've been visited countless times.
> 
> The government knows it and needs to keep it secret because they believe people would not be able to handle the truth, well two truths. One is that we're not alone and the second is that the US Government is NOT the most powerful organization in the Universe.
> 
> It's the Ego, specifically it's the Ego of the Roman Catholic Church, which ruled Western civilization for 1,000 years, doing the thinking for you. The RCC wanted people to believe that it was the most powerful organization in the Universe suppressing everything to the contrary and we picked up where they left off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, you do know that the Roman Catholic church came out in 2008 I think, and said that believing in aliens is not against the church, does not negate God and Christ, don't you?
> 
> that's a shocker for me....makes me think that they know or have information that extra terrestrials are visiting us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesuit Father Jose Funes, director of the Vatican's astronomical observatory, said in an interview published Tuesday that believing in alien life doesn't contradict faith in God.
> 
> "Just as we consider earthly life as 'a brother' and 'sister,' why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother?' It would still be part of creation," he said.Catholic church: Faith in God, alien life OK  Abilene Reporter-News
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.


----------



## saveliberty

konradv said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered the question.  What chemical theory do you espouse that would allow for there to be, as yet, undiscovered elements?  This isn't about gravity or equal distribution of matter, but the contention that there's a possibility of normal matter (we'll leave out "dark matter" for the moment) that doesn't conform to the chemistry of all the other matter we know.  You're dancing around the issue.  Please, take it head on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to get you to think differently here.  I don't want to limit you by what I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much, but I think I'll stick with what my professors taught me and what I've learned since.  I still think you're dodging the question.  This isn't magic.  If there's some other possibility besides what I've stated, please articulate it.  You won't be limiting me.  I don't think that's possible.  You haven't shown the ability to present a cogent argument on the subject, so far.
Click to expand...


Self limited by choice huh konrad?  The Sun moves in the sky, so I must be the center.  We have met your kind before.  Sadly, it won't be the last time.


----------



## Care4all

CrusaderFrank said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are literally tens of thousands of UFO sighting all throughout history
> 
> Adhara Observatory UFO Lunar Transit
> 
> Col. Philip J. Corso - The Day After Roswell 1/2 Video
> 
> Sure, you can "explain" them all away to your satisfaction, but why fight so hard against the obvious?  We've been visited countless times.
> 
> The government knows it and needs to keep it secret because they believe people would not be able to handle the truth, well two truths. One is that we're not alone and the second is that the US Government is NOT the most powerful organization in the Universe.
> 
> It's the Ego, specifically it's the Ego of the Roman Catholic Church, which ruled Western civilization for 1,000 years, doing the thinking for you. The RCC wanted people to believe that it was the most powerful organization in the Universe suppressing everything to the contrary and we picked up where they left off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, you do know that the Roman Catholic church came out in 2008 I think, and said that believing in aliens is not against the church, does not negate God and Christ, don't you?
> 
> that's a shocker for me....makes me think that they know or have information that extra terrestrials are visiting us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesuit Father Jose Funes, director of the Vatican's astronomical observatory, said in an interview published Tuesday that believing in alien life doesn't contradict faith in God.
> 
> "Just as we consider earthly life as 'a brother' and 'sister,' why should we not talk about an 'extraterrestrial brother?' It would still be part of creation," he said.Catholic church: Faith in God, alien life OK  Abilene Reporter-News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
Click to expand...


What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?


----------



## DiveCon

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true scientist would know that Argon is an inert element, a fact that's true here and on the furthest galaxy.  Sulfide has been mentioned as an alternate source and that's true, but look at the periodic table, it's right below Oxygen, so it's a no-brainer.  Argon, on the other hand is all the way to the right with Helium, Neon, Krypton, Xenon and Radon, the other inert gases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  You think that because a gas is inert it has no function?  Correct?  A Noble gas being inert can do nothing?  Correct?  Can't be a part of a living thing, can't help influence evolution etc.?  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say they* can't be used as a gas to support life*.  They're non-reactive in normal chemical processes.  They can be used in things like flourecscent bulbs, but they do not change.  For a gas to be usable the way we use oxygen, there has to be the possibility of a chemical change.  The few compounds that have been made with the nobvle gases are inherently unstable and curiosities in the chemical world, nothing more.
Click to expand...

AS WE KNOW IT

i would agree
but there is SO much we DON'T know
look at the life on the volcanic vents, before it was discovered, they didnt believe anything could live there


----------



## DiveCon

Care4all said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, you do know that the Roman Catholic church came out in 2008 I think, and said that believing in aliens is not against the church, does not negate God and Christ, don't you?
> 
> that's a shocker for me....makes me think that they know or have information that extra terrestrials are visiting us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
Click to expand...

that the moon is hollow


----------



## THE LIGHT

*sigh*

You people...

"[In the Universe it may be that] Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare. Some would say it has yet to occur on Earth." 
 Stephen W. Hawking


----------



## THE LIGHT

DiveCon said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that the moon is hollow
Click to expand...

 
It is most certainly NOT!!!








































It is full of green cheese.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Care4all said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, you do know that the Roman Catholic church came out in 2008 I think, and said that believing in aliens is not against the church, does not negate God and Christ, don't you?
> 
> that's a shocker for me....makes me think that they know or have information that extra terrestrials are visiting us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
Click to expand...


The true history of human civilization for one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

DiveCon said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that the moon is hollow
Click to expand...


It's not just me saying it.

It's the seismometers on the Moon

It's the Moon's density and orbit.

Finally, it the daunting fact that the Moon and the Sun are just coincidentally the same apparent size in the sky.

In any event, why does it make a difference to you?


----------



## saveliberty

Life giving Manna from Heaven.


----------



## THE LIGHT

CrusaderFrank said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The true history of human civilization for one.
Click to expand...

 
What do you think this true history is?


----------



## rightwinger

Care4all said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, you do know that the Roman Catholic church came out in 2008 I think, and said that believing in aliens is not against the church, does not negate God and Christ, don't you?
> 
> that's a shocker for me....makes me think that they know or have information that extra terrestrials are visiting us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
Click to expand...


Frank is still looking for Obama's Birth Certificate


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank is still looking for Obama's Birth Certificate
Click to expand...


I would have posrepped you twice today.

Play the Lotto!


----------



## konradv

saveliberty said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to get you to think differently here.  I don't want to limit you by what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks so much, but I think I'll stick with what my professors taught me and what I've learned since.  I still think you're dodging the question.  This isn't magic.  If there's some other possibility besides what I've stated, please articulate it.  You won't be limiting me.  I don't think that's possible.  You haven't shown the ability to present a cogent argument on the subject, so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self limited by choice huh konrad?  The Sun moves in the sky, so I must be the center.  We have met your kind before.  Sadly, it won't be the last time.
Click to expand...


You're a total idiot and this is just a waste of time.  Go crack a chem book and then come back and talk.  This is becoming ludicrous.  No wonder the US is falling behind in science, if this is what passes for understanding.  You're just twisting what I say to cover your own ignorance.  This isn't about me, but your willful blindness to what we know and don't know.  It's laughable that you think I'm the one that's "sad".  You answer no questions about how these mythical new elements could possibly exist, but have the temerity to mock me.  GET REAL!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

THE LIGHT said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true history of human civilization for one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think this true history is?
Click to expand...


We aren't the brightest, best or most advanced that's ever been on the planet.  Shhhh. It's a secret.

Also, I always thought it weird that the first Gospels were only published after Jerusalem was leveled by Titus.  There was a vibrant debate on Christ and his ministry and mission for 400 years after his death until Emperors Theodosius and Constantine ended all debate.  The Vatican might have something in their archives on point.

Until the Nag Hammadi Library surfaced the RCC committed the perfect crime in the elimination of the Gnostics. It took 1,600 years for us to finally find the body.

They also collected and/or destroyed all of the writing from MesoAmerica. 






Mayan Stelae showing fleeing flooded temples






Photo of undersea structures western Cuba.

That's what I'm talking about


----------



## konradv

DiveCon said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  You think that because a gas is inert it has no function?  Correct?  A Noble gas being inert can do nothing?  Correct?  Can't be a part of a living thing, can't help influence evolution etc.?  Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say they* can't be used as a gas to support life*.  They're non-reactive in normal chemical processes.  They can be used in things like flourecscent bulbs, but they do not change.  For a gas to be usable the way we use oxygen, there has to be the possibility of a chemical change.  The few compounds that have been made with the nobvle gases are inherently unstable and curiosities in the chemical world, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AS WE KNOW IT
> 
> i would agree
> but there is SO much we DON'T know
> look at the life on the volcanic vents, before it was discovered, they didnt believe anything could live there
Click to expand...


Totally irrelevant.  Gas vents produce chemicals which permit the flow of energy to sustain life.  The inert gases have no such ability.  This ISN'T something that falls in the realm of things we don't know yet.  That's well-established basic chemistry.  While we may not know everything happening at the bottom of the ocean, we do know what's happening at the bottom of a test tube and using the noble gases as a means of life-sustaining energy transfer, certainly isn't one of them.


----------



## konradv

CrusaderFrank said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true history of human civilization for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think this true history is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't the brightest, best or most advanced that's ever been on the planet.  Shhhh. It's a secret.
> 
> Also, I always thought it weird that the first Gospels were only published after Jerusalem was leveled by Titus.  There was a vibrant debate on Christ and his ministry and mission for 400 years after his death until Emperors Theodosius and Constantine ended all debate.  The Vatican might have something in their archives on point.
> 
> Until the Nag Hammadi Library surfaced the RCC committed the perfect crime in the elimination of the Gnostics. It took 1,600 years for us to finally find the body.
> 
> They also collected and/or destroyed all of the writing from MesoAmerica.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mayan Stelae showing fleeing flooded temples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo of undersea structures western Cuba.
> 
> That's what I'm talking about
Click to expand...


LOL!!!  A grainy photo is "proof", but years of climate data is "junk science"?!?!  Get a life, Frank.  That isn't science, it's pseudo-science!!!


----------



## antagon

saveliberty said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this has to do with the definition of theory.  holding that there aren't any further elements to be discovered relies on konrad's 'stable' qualifier.  i would think we could be afforded more certainty from getting up close to a supernova or with better spectral analysis than we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the most likely case in my mind too antagon.  Although I will not rule out that in a particular environment, those conditions can be met on a continued basis and be sustainable/natural.  Expanding konrad's mind has proven a task.
Click to expand...


even harder to say that undiscovered elements might be stable under any condition at all, but there's no sense in arguing that all of the potential elements are accounted for, either.  like i was saying, if nuke chemists were able to study a supernova event with the sort of precision they're availed in a lab, i think some 8th period elements might even be plausible.  these won't be stable.  if they were, i would imagine that they would have been discovered already and that lighter elements would be more stable themselves.  the heaviest elements in the 7th period are so unstable that they last fractions of milliseconds before they decay down the line or become fissile.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

CrusaderFrank said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The true history of human civilization for one.
Click to expand...


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CrusaderFrank again."

What we don't know about ancient civilizations could fill the entire storage space of all the libraries of the world, and then some.

I know from studying the history of Mathematics that many incredible mathetmatical writings were lost.  Archimedes was on the verge of discovering Calculus.  We only know that because _The Method_ was accidentally found in the 1900's on the back of a hymn sheet in a church somewhere.  It seems every 10 years or so we find another lost document and get the shock of our lives when we realize just how much math the ancients know.  And we've barely touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lost works we know existed.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

THE LIGHT said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true history of human civilization for one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think this true history is?
Click to expand...


We don't even know the full story on Jesus.  Much less the whole world.  Who knows what's in those vaults.



			
				Book of John Chapter 21 said:
			
		

> 25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.


----------



## sealybobo

hjmick said:


> It's hard to believe that, in a universe so vast, there is not intelligent life out there somewhere...
> 
> Then again, I am left wondering...
> 
> If this life is so intelligent, and if they have, as some people claim, visited our planet, why do they always seem to abduct the cream of the trailer parks?


I heard a Neal degrass Tyson presentation I'll share what I can remember.

Everything comes from stars. The most common elements in the universe are everywhere. Carbon hydrogen helium oxygen nitrogen. So the elements for life are everywhere in the universe.

Some scientists believe there was once life on Mars and Venus. So every star probably has planets circling.

We can see a foot in front of our face and our Galaxy is like the size of Texas. More stars than grains of sands and do you realize how far the nearest star is? Mindblowingly big.

Anyways, Neal pointed out that we humans think we're special because we're so much smarter than monkeys but we are 99% just like them. It's that 1% that made cars and got us to talk and think and to Mars. Now imagine a species that is 1% smarter than us. Their babies can do quantum physics. Maybe they can get here maybe they can't. Probably too far even for them. Or maybe their planet died out 5 billion years ago or hasn't been born yet.


----------



## sealybobo

Dr.Traveler said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vatican and the Smithsonian can convinced me they're sincere as soon as they start being honest about whats in their vaults and sharing it with us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is in their vaults that they are hiding from us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The true history of human civilization for one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CrusaderFrank again."
> 
> What we don't know about ancient civilizations could fill the entire storage space of all the libraries of the world, and then some.
> 
> I know from studying the history of Mathematics that many incredible mathetmatical writings were lost.  Archimedes was on the verge of discovering Calculus.  We only know that because _The Method_ was accidentally found in the 1900's on the back of a hymn sheet in a church somewhere.  It seems every 10 years or so we find another lost document and get the shock of our lives when we realize just how much math the ancients know.  And we've barely touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lost works we know existed.
Click to expand...

Ever see the cosmos? This Arab guy gathered as much knowledge as he could and after the Alexander library was destroyed hundreds of years later this Arab guy had a lot of what we thought was lost.

These were rulers/Kings/religions that destroyed this knowledge. To keep the masses down. It's why I thing religion is bad for people


----------



## sealybobo

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?



With at least *200 billion* galaxies out there (and possibly even more), we're very likely talking about a Universe filled with around *10 to the 24 planets*, or, for those of you who like it written out, around *1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets* in our observable Universe.

You think we are the only intelligent life?  Why would other galaxies exist then?  

The distance from the Sun to Proxima Centauri is *4.22 light years* which is equal to forty trillion kilometres.


----------



## sealybobo

On how the universe works they think Pluto or Pluto’s moons might have life in them. If they do, even simple life, that would mean life is everywhere


----------



## sealybobo

This blows my mind. It takes Pluto 248 years to orbit the sun. That’s how big our solar system is. Wow.


----------



## sealybobo

It only takes mercury 88 days


----------



## sealybobo

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?


I just heard the ex Canadian minister of defense said he knows for a fact the United States government is working with 5 different species of aliens.

Sia said she heard him say it. She was doing carpool karaoke with James corden from the late late show


----------



## james bond

AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the


----------



## danielpalos

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?


sure; at least one intelligent species per galaxy.


----------



## SandSquid

konradv said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to take a chem course.  Got a cite for your "40 times"?  If you knew any chem at all, you'd realize what you're proposing is an impossibility in this universe.  All the trans-uranium elements are radioactive, many are solely man-made creations with half lives less than a second.  No chemical theory  I know of predicts any elements beyond those natural or man-made that would be stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet.  Chemical theory is settled science in your mind.  Then why is it still theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this has to do with the definition of theory.  holding that there aren't any further elements to be discovered relies on konrad's 'stable' qualifier.  i would think we could be afforded more certainty from getting up close to a supernova or with better spectral analysis than we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking natural elements here.  All the new elements created in labs have decreasingly small half-lives, so even if something totally new were created in a supernova, they'd be gone before we'd even detect them.  That's about the only opening I see, but it's hardly relevant in the real world.
Click to expand...


So kind of like how gravity works the same... Until it was discovered that only is true locally and at the speed of light it doesn't.   But since natural elements only occur the same locally there's no way that could change?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Are we alone?

Most likely no...

Is the Universe ignoring us?

Most likely yes...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SandSquid said:


> But since natural elements only occur the same locally there's no way that could change?


What would be the change?  You mentioned higher velocities in your example... what "change" would be in play here?


----------



## SandSquid

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since natural elements only occur the same locally there's no way that could change?
> 
> 
> 
> What would be the change?  You mentioned higher velocities in your example... what "change" would be in play here?
Click to expand...


Well let's see.  It took Einstein 10 years for his theory and another 10 to prove it.  Took 60 years to prove the highs boson.

I'm not that smart in those fields.  I don't know what's out there beyond our sight and ability to study.  And heck we had a physicist win a Nobel prize by coming up with the finite end to elements at Number 137, which is already being countered by physicists. 

And what we are learning is those super heavy elements aren't behaving how we expect.  That they gain mass (electrons approaching speed of light),.  That table is constantly changing and how elements work.  It's not like the science is done there.  

But we haven't done any experiments with large scale events that occur in the universe dealing with neutron stars, black holes, core collapsing supernovas, quasars, black hole mergers....   I can't tell you what comes from those... And neither can you

But scientists a lot smarter than me and you have theorized about partially charged protons and electrons and such.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SandSquid said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since natural elements only occur the same locally there's no way that could change?
> 
> 
> 
> What would be the change?  You mentioned higher velocities in your example... what "change" would be in play here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's see.  It took Einstein 10 years for his theory and another 10 to prove it.  Took 60 years to prove the highs boson.
> 
> I'm not that smart in those fields.  I don't know what's out there beyond our sight and ability to study.  And heck we had a physicist win a Nobel prize by coming up with the finite end to elements at Number 137, which is already being countered by physicists.
> 
> And what we are learning is those super heavy elements aren't behaving how we expect.  That they gain mass (electrons approaching speed of light),.  That table is constantly changing and how elements work.  It's not like the science is done there.
> 
> But we haven't done any experiments with large scale events that occur in the universe dealing with neutron stars, black holes, core collapsing supernovas, quasars, black hole mergers....   I can't tell you what comes from those... And neither can you
> 
> But scientists a lot smarter than me and you have theorized about partially charged protons and electrons and such.
Click to expand...

Yes, good stuff.


----------



## indiajo

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?



Well, it would be nice because we don't have any here on earth.


----------



## DOTR

We are alone in the universe according to what evidence we have. Not to mention common sense. Life was a singular event.


----------



## LittleNipper

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?


Is there really "intelligent " life even here?


----------



## AveryJarhman

Hmmm. Despite being told our universe is populated by billions of galaxies and billions more planets, I'm quite certain Earth is the only home to intelligent life. 

All the rest are wannabes. 

Peace.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AveryJarhman said:


> I'm quite certain Earth is the only home to intelligent life.


You forgot to tell us how you know....


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AveryJarhman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite certain Earth is the only home to intelligent life.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to tell us how you know....
Click to expand...

It's based on what he doesn't know.  And since he knows very little he is quite certain.  LOL.


----------



## DOTR

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?



   Intelligent life? Not a chance. Some form of life? Very remote possibility  and I doubt it...with this caveat...if we ever find primitive life we will find it to be related to ours.
   Life is a unique event to all appearances and evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> Intelligent life? Not a chance.


Oops, you forgot to tell how you know this.


----------



## DOTR

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent life? Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, you forgot to tell how you know this.
Click to expand...


All scientific evidence we have points to one origin of life. 
  And higher life all passed through filters so unlikely as to be considered impossible to replicate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> All scientific evidence we have points to one origin of life.


A stupid statement in this context,since we have collected so little evidence. The scientific evidence we have only points to one common ancestor of all species on earth. And that is the extent of what it shows us.



DOTR said:


> And higher life all passed through filters so unlikely as to be considered impossible to replicate.


Also a silly statement, in this context, as the proposition is not"finding life exactly like what we currently have on earth, elsewhere."


----------



## DOTR

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> All scientific evidence we have points to one origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> A stupid statement in this context,since we have collected so little evidence. The scientific evidence we have only points to one common ancestor of all species on earth. And that is the extent of what it shows us.
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And higher life all passed through filters so unlikely as to be considered impossible to replicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also a silly statement, in this context, as the proposition is not"finding life exactly like what we currently have on earth, elsewhere."
Click to expand...



That’s what I am talking about. Finding life like here on earth. Or slightly different. Or a lot different. Not going to happen. 
I’ve slready explained to you the significance of a unique origin of life on earth. It isn’t a matter of time or statistical probabilities because life originated within a few hundred million years of earth’s cooling. It isn’t a matter of materials because all the materials are here today...even more so. You don’t need “building blocks” or “precursors”. The earth is a soup of organic molecules and has been for billions of years. 
And still only once. Life is beyond rare. It appears unique. Work from what you know not wishful thinking. 
   Maybe life got blasted into space or came from space. It’s still only one type. And if there were intelligent life then we would have seen signs in the heavens. “Where is everybody”?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> That’s what I am talking about. Finding life like here on earth. Or slightly different.


Oh. I dont know why you confine yourself.in this way. There would probably be similarities, like physical forms to match an environment, or modes of locomotion, or self replicating mecules...but otherwise, there ia nit much reason to confine ourselves this way.



DOTR said:


> And still only once.


You dont know that at all. In fact, its all but certain that more than one type of self replicating molecule formed and somewhat thrived for a length of time. But there are only finite reaources amd finite time available. So, naturally, it would make aense that one form (dna based) came to dominate. In fact, its likely other forms of life are "trying" to form right now. But they face the obstacles of the current lifeforms not only monopolizing the available organoc mass, but also competing for the available organic mass.



DOTR said:


> Life is beyond rare.


You have absolutely no idea how rare life is. And, we are talkong about the fact of existence, not the frequency of it. You can arbitrarily assign any probability you like, and you will find it still likely,in our vast universe, that life has and will form many,many times. So, even if your arbitrary, made up statistics are granted, you are still wrong.


----------



## james bond

Real science states that we are alone.  One is the impossible habitability factor besides planet Earth, i.e. fine tuning facts.  Others are that it's very harsh out in space with the solar wind and no atmospheric or magnetic field protection.  If there are microbial alien life like what NASA is searching for, then likely they wouldn't have survived.  They're willing to accept evidence of past alien life, but they ignore that conditions were harsh in the past, too.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Real science states that we are alone.  One is the impossible habitability factor besides planet Earth, i.e. fine tuning facts.  Others are that it's very harsh out in space with the solar wind and no atmospheric or magnetic field protection.  If there are microbial alien life like what NASA is searching for, then likely they wouldn't have survived.  They're willing to accept evidence of past alien life, but they ignore that conditions were harsh in the past, too.



It’s silly to suggest that fundamentalist creation ministries have any connection to real science. Our exploration of the cosmos with radio/powerful optical telescopes only began less than one hundred years ago. 

There are no “fine tuning” facts. That is a slogan most heard from the silly fundamentalist creation ministries. As they do no research and attempt to force science to meet a predefined religious view, we can dismiss such nonsense as special pleading.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> There are no “fine tuning” facts.


Right. It's a silly concept. Life has been finely tuned to the universe, not the other way around. Of course the life we see matches its environment...that's the life that survived. If consitions were different or would change, then the life we observe would be different or would change. We can obaerve this in both the fossil record and right now. We can search environments that would destroy just about any spexies we know, and find other species thriving. We can look back on hotter/colder, wetter/drier times, and see different species tuned to those environments.


----------



## DOTR

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no “fine tuning” facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It's a silly concept. Life has been finely tuned to the universe, not the other way around. Of course the life we see matches its environment...that's the life that survived. If consitions were different or would change, then the life we observe would be different or would change. We can obaerve this in both the fossil record and right now. We can search environments that would destroy just about any spexies we know, and find other species thriving. We can look back on hotter/colder, wetter/drier times, and see different species tuned to those environments.
Click to expand...


“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
G.K. Chesterton


   Your belief in aliens seems unshakable. Just don’t try to pass it off as anything more than wishful thinking.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
> G.K. Chesterton


Get your goofy voodoo chants out of here,shaman. This is a science thread. The goat sacrifices are that way ->



DOTR said:


> Your belief in aliens seems unshakable.


No, i merely argued against the wrong things you said. You make a very elementary, logical error to draw that conclusion.


----------



## DOTR

There are no aliens. And you deny that because you are terrified of where that may lead.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tom Clancy said:


> They believe when they go die, they get to inhabit another planet.




What?

Retard alert!!!!


----------



## DOTR

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent life? Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, you forgot to tell how you know this.
Click to expand...


It wasn’t asked.


----------



## DOTR

THE LIGHT said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
Click to expand...



Fermi paradox - Wikipedia


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

The Fermi paradox is why I believe that aliens are already here.  They just obey the Prime Directive and don't let us know they are studying us.


----------



## TNHarley

I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TNHarley said:


> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.


You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
Click to expand...


Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
Click to expand...

Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
Click to expand...


What else explain it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
Click to expand...

I listed 3 possibilities. And there are more.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 3 possibilities. And there are more.
Click to expand...







Uh huh.

What explains these?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 3 possibilities. And there are more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> What explains these?
Click to expand...

Intentional alteration, light effects on one or more lenses, double exposed film, poor conditions in the film developing room...there are 4. Need more?


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
Click to expand...

A buddy and I saw two, very different UFOs on two successive nights.  I don't believe either was an alien ship, but there are more things in heaven and earth...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> I don't believe either was an alien ship,


Due to reaaonable skepticism. Now,take it one step further, and consider the idea that what you remember seeing wasn't really an "object" in the sky at all. Or that it was just a mundane meteor.


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe either was an alien ship,
> 
> 
> 
> Due to reaaonable skepticism. Now,take it one step further, and consider the idea that what you remember seeing wasn't really an "object" in the sky at all. Or that it was just a mundane meteor.
Click to expand...

One was a falling object so it probably was natural but like nothing I'd ever seen before.  The other was not falling but moving horizontally.  Both were real and neither have a reasonable explanation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> The other was not falling but moving horizontally.



Ill stop you right there. Thats the problem with looking at things in the sky...they fool you. You actually could not tell that an object which appeared to move horizontally was not also moving away or toward you, or gaining or losing altitude. The sky plays tricks on your eyes and mind. 

Your memory is the only thing that you can know for sure is real. Rainbows appear "real", but they are optical illusions.


----------



## TNHarley

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
Click to expand...

There was someone with me. It hoovered above us for a few seconds and dissappeared. We have even spoke of it since then.
And no, we werent intoxicated either. We were waiting in a parking lot to be picked up to go get intoxicated. Lol


----------



## TNHarley

I will also add it wasnt but maybe 100ft above us and was surrounded in multi colored lights


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 3 possibilities. And there are more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> What explains these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intentional alteration, light effects on one or more lenses, double exposed film, poor conditions in the film developing room...there are 4. Need more?
Click to expand...


You don't really believe any of that crap do you?


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other was not falling but moving horizontally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ill stop you right there. Thats the problem with looking at things in the sky...they fool you. You actually could not tell that an object which appeared to move horizontally was not also moving away or toward you, or gaining or losing altitude. The sky plays tricks on your eyes and mind.
> 
> Your memory is the only thing that you can know for sure is real. Rainbows appear "real", but they are optical illusions.
Click to expand...

My memory is the last thing I'd trust, however I've retold this story many times so the memory is fresh.  If you have a basic understanding of physics you can tell a lot about objects in the sky. 

The second UFO was a flaming mass that fell through a low, continuous cloud layer.  Simple to understand.  The second was more complicated, it was large, same apparent diameter as the moon (1/2 degree?) and moved horizontally at a fairly reasonable height.  The sun had set where I was but the UFO was still in sunlight.  I watched it fade into the distance.  It was not a plane, maybe a large balloon but unlike any balloon I've ever seen.


----------



## DOTR

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
Click to expand...



Somethings going on. But it’s not aliens.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

DOTR said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the chance of life outside our planet is very possible. Intelligent life? IDK
> What if we are the first intelligent life in the universe?
> I will say i have seen a UFO. Idk if it was aliens or not. But idk of any human aircraft rectangle in shape and can fly so fast it disappears almost immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Somethings going on. But it’s not aliens.
Click to expand...


Why not?


----------



## OldLady

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?


Of course.  Somewhere.


----------



## OldLady

TNHarley said:


> I will also add it wasnt but maybe 100ft above us and was surrounded in multi colored lights


Cool beans!  A friend of mine and a companion saw one in broad daylight hovering in a field.  They never told anyone about it for years--they knew everyone would think they were cracked.  This is not a friend who makes stuff up.  If she said she saw it, she did.   So I believe you.


----------



## DOTR

CrusaderFrank said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right to be skeptical that it was a human aircraft. Now, take it one step further, and be skeptical that it was an aircraft at all, and instead was an optical illusion , or a hallucination, or a false memory, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Somethings going on. But it’s not aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...


Because aliens don’t exist. BUT I will agree there is something going on. I don’t have an explanation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

DOTR said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Somethings going on. But it’s not aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because aliens don’t exist. BUT I will agree there is something going on. I don’t have an explanation.
Click to expand...


They don't? Why not?


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Somethings going on. But it’s not aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because aliens don’t exist. BUT I will agree there is something going on. I don’t have an explanation.
Click to expand...



Aliens do not exist because the fine tuning facts, the harshness of other planets atmosphere and space being irradiated by solar wind.  Dorothy said, There is no place like home" and she was right.  There is no other place like planet Earth.

Fine tuning is what Stephen Hawking and the secular (atheist) scientists discovered.  However, once they discovered it then they stopped using it because it goes against evolutionary ideas.  It explains why Hawking became so obsessed with God and disproving him.  He ended up divorcing his believer wife and went on to multiverses.  He seemed to be admitting, albeit he didn't say so, that there may be only one Earth and intelligent "aliens" only exist here.  We are the best this universe has to offer.  Thus, he started believing in the multiverse theory in that with multiverses, there would be other universes like planet Earth.  More truth is coming out now that Hawking was wrong.  Prior to his death, scientists kept an open mind to his theories such as the theory of everything because they did not know where he would go and what he would find.  In the end, he ended up like other atheist and agnostic scientists in being wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> You don't really believe any of that crap do you?


I believe all of it is possible, all are simpler explanations, and all are much more likely than whatever crackpot explanation you have in hand.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> My memory is the last thing I'd trust, however I've retold this story many times so the memory is fresh.


False memories seem as real as real memories. Optical illusions also seem real...thus the name. Delusions and hallucinations all seem real as well.



alang1216 said:


> If you have a basic understanding of physics you can tell a lot about objects in the sky.


You could be Albert Einstein, and you could not tell with any certainty if an object that appears to be moving horizontally across the sky was moving toward or away from you, or gaining or losing altitude.  Add in the fact that you are both beguiled and surprised, and you simply could not draw any conclusion on this.



alang1216 said:


> The second UFO was a flaming mass that fell through a low, continuous cloud layer. Simple to understand.


And yet you just called it unidentified. Not so simple, it appears. And a flaming mass falling through the sky is likely a meteor. Depending on its angle of attack, a meteor can appear to move slowly, then speed up. Or vice versa. It can appear to be moving toward you, when it is actually moving away. And vice versa. It can even appear to have passed through a cloud layer, when it has not done so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OldLady said:


> They never told anyone about it for years--they knew everyone would think they were cracked.


They would only appear to be "cracked" if they refused even to consider that their brains just may have been fooled, and there was no alien craft. People get fooled all the time...being fooled doesn't make one crazy. It makes one human.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Does anyone here remember the "chinese missile off the coast of California" a few years back? Even experienced pilots claimed to see a missile launch.

As it turns out, it was just a contrail. Now how would experienced pilots, who have seen many contrails, be fooled into thinking it was the trail of a missile launch?

Because the sky plays tricks on your eyes. To them, the contrail appeared to be vertical and terminating on the ground . In reality, it simply tapered to the horizon, and was, in fact, tracking almost directly at them and was at a much higher altitude than their own aircraft. Not only do you not have a good frame of reference when looking at sky objects, we have brains that "fill in the gaps" when we look at things. Also, certain atmospheric conditions can cause odd lensing effects, further distorting what we see and further fooling our senses and the brain that processes input from those senses.

Objects in the sky can appear to be distorted in size, shape, distance, speed, and trajectory. Beginner pilots are taught this. Yet these experienced pilots insisted they saw a missile launch. That demonstrates the power over reason that perception can have.

Once your brain has imprinted a memory, that memory is as real to you as the sunrise. To this day, one of those pilots still insists he saw a missile launch. This despite the fact that the contrail was at the position of a daily, transpacific flight. Photos were taken of this same flight's contrail on ensuing days, in the same place. The pilot has seen these photos and heard the explanation. And still he insists he saw a missile launch.

Because, in effect, he did. He isn't lying. He was just fooled.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Also:

People have been reporting sightings of strange things in the sky since antiquity. But only after the idea of aliens had become entrenched in the popular culture did people start reporting these sightings as alien craft.

When we believed in flying chariots, then we saw flying chariots. When we believed in flying serpents, we saw flying serpents. When we believed in angels, we saw angels.

Now we have aliens entrenched in our popular culture. So, we see aliens.

Surely everyone here can understand how everything i have said all comes together to demonstrate that all of these sightings likely have a simpler, more mundane origin than flying chariots, angels, or aliens.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Somethings going on. But it’s not aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because aliens don’t exist. BUT I will agree there is something going on. I don’t have an explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Aliens do not exist because the fine tuning facts, the harshness of other planets atmosphere and space being irradiated by solar wind.  Dorothy said, There is no place like home" and she was right.  There is no other place like planet Earth.
> 
> Fine tuning is what Stephen Hawking and the secular (atheist) scientists discovered.  However, once they discovered it then they stopped using it because it goes against evolutionary ideas.  It explains why Hawking became so obsessed with God and disproving him.  He ended up divorcing his believer wife and went on to multiverses.  He seemed to be admitting, albeit he didn't say so, that there may be only one Earth and intelligent "aliens" only exist here.  We are the best this universe has to offer.  Thus, he started believing in the multiverse theory in that with multiverses, there would be other universes like planet Earth.  More truth is coming out now that Hawking was wrong.  Prior to his death, scientists kept an open mind to his theories such as the theory of everything because they did not know where he would go and what he would find.  In the end, he ended up like other atheist and agnostic scientists in being wrong.
Click to expand...


There was no discovery of “fine tuning”. 

That’s a nonsense religious slogan.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets? Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've spent lots of money on SETI but have found nothing yet.
> 
> A common formula for the likely possibility of live on other planets is the Green Bank Formula
> 
> *[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Green Bank Formula: *[/FONT]N = R * fp * ne * fl * fc * L
> 
> When you play around with it you realize how improbable it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as Biblically speaking goes, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Fermi paradox is why I believe that aliens are already here.  They just obey the Prime Directive and don't let us know they are studying us.
Click to expand...


So then, how many angles CAN dance on the head of a pen?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I believe all of it is possible, all are simpler explanations, and all are much more likely than whatever crackpot explanation you have in hand.



What a liar!  I just caught you lying in front of all these people.  You need to have your tongue cut out and thumbs removed .  You do not believe in God as a possibility.  God is Occam's Razor.  OTOH, you believe in crackpot explanations like abiogenesis for aliens.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe all of it is possible, all are simpler explanations, and all are much more likely than whatever crackpot explanation you have in hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a liar!  I just caught you lying in front of all these people.  You need to have your tongue cut out and thumbs removed .  You do not believe in God as a possibility.  God is Occam's Razor.  OTOH, you believe in crackpot explanations like abiogenesis for aliens.
Click to expand...

Hey dummy, I was talking about the specific things I said about the photo Francis posted. But yes, gods are possible. So are unicorns. And fairies.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe all of it is possible, all are simpler explanations, and all are much more likely than whatever crackpot explanation you have in hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a liar!  I just caught you lying in front of all these people.  You need to have your tongue cut out and thumbs removed .  You do not believe in God as a possibility.  God is Occam's Razor.  OTOH, you believe in crackpot explanations like abiogenesis for aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy, I was talking about the specific things I said about the photo Francis posted. But yes, gods are possible. So are unicorns. And fairies.
Click to expand...


LOL, it's not I but you who is the dummy.  There are:  No unicorns.  No fairies.  No aliens.  No abiogenesis.  No multiverses.  They only exist in your imagination.  However, there are UFOs.  They aren't aliens, but it may have been reflections off a plane, some object on the ground, just lights across the sky from something or some weather or natural phenomena.  It's just we can't explain what it is at the moment or may never be able to explain.  OTOH God is not only possible but real.  How else do you explain the universe and all that is in it?  That is what is possible.  How do you explain the Resurrection?  There were hundreds of witnesses who saw the same thing.  That is Occam's Razor.  Yours is the crackpot explanation or else we would see it happening now or have seen it happen already.  You do not even have witnesses.  Just a bunch of people making up a lot of hooey philosophy that they call cosmology.  Can I help it if you are such a dummy to fall for such nonsense ?


----------



## OldLady

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> They never told anyone about it for years--they knew everyone would think they were cracked.
> 
> 
> 
> They would only appear to be "cracked" if they refused even to consider that their brains just may have been fooled, and there was no alien craft. People get fooled all the time...being fooled doesn't make one crazy. It makes one human.
Click to expand...

You're taking "fooled" too far.  Sure, a lot of the lights in the sky that people see end up having terrestrial explanations. This was a craft in broad daylight in a field.  They braked to get a better look.  This was back in the early 60's.  She described it in detail.  Her friend was identifically "fooled."  I don't know what they saw, but they saw what they said they saw.


----------



## Darkwind

Wow, I just read a post by DiveCon.  Haven't seen or heard from him in years.  

I just checked and his last visit was Apr 2011.  

It just made Me realize how long I've been coming to this forum and I'm wondering why I've wasted so much time here.


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My memory is the last thing I'd trust, however I've retold this story many times so the memory is fresh.
> 
> 
> 
> False memories seem as real as real memories. Optical illusions also seem real...thus the name. Delusions and hallucinations all seem real as well.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a basic understanding of physics you can tell a lot about objects in the sky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be Albert Einstein, and you could not tell with any certainty if an object that appears to be moving horizontally across the sky was moving toward or away from you, or gaining or losing altitude.  Add in the fact that you are both beguiled and surprised, and you simply could not draw any conclusion on this.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second UFO was a flaming mass that fell through a low, continuous cloud layer. Simple to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you just called it unidentified. Not so simple, it appears. And a flaming mass falling through the sky is likely a meteor. Depending on its angle of attack, a meteor can appear to move slowly, then speed up. Or vice versa. It can appear to be moving toward you, when it is actually moving away. And vice versa. It can even appear to have passed through a cloud layer, when it has not done so.
Click to expand...

You seem absolutely unable to accept that what I saw was real and was unlike anything I'd ever seen before so I am unable to say what they were.  There may be simple explanations for what I saw, there probably are, but I don't know what those explanations are and neither do you.  Hence they are unidentified, they were above ground, and they were objects, UFOs.  Period.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Somethings going on. But it’s not aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because aliens don’t exist. BUT I will agree there is something going on. I don’t have an explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Aliens do not exist because the fine tuning facts, the harshness of other planets atmosphere and space being irradiated by solar wind.  Dorothy said, There is no place like home" and she was right.  There is no other place like planet Earth.
> 
> Fine tuning is what Stephen Hawking and the secular (atheist) scientists discovered.  However, once they discovered it then they stopped using it because it goes against evolutionary ideas.  It explains why Hawking became so obsessed with God and disproving him.  He ended up divorcing his believer wife and went on to multiverses.  He seemed to be admitting, albeit he didn't say so, that there may be only one Earth and intelligent "aliens" only exist here.  We are the best this universe has to offer.  Thus, he started believing in the multiverse theory in that with multiverses, there would be other universes like planet Earth.  More truth is coming out now that Hawking was wrong.  Prior to his death, scientists kept an open mind to his theories such as the theory of everything because they did not know where he would go and what he would find.  In the end, he ended up like other atheist and agnostic scientists in being wrong.
Click to expand...


Any extraterrestrial life wouldn’t have to be “fine tuned” to earth. It would be fine tuned to where ever it developed. I don’t doubt that. 
   But the indications we have is that life is beyond rare. It is unique. Science has advanced beyond the “warm little pond” of Darwin. And as we push back the fossil record it becomes obvious that it does not take eons of bubbling and bumping. Life arose within a few hundred million years of the Earth cooling. And all the materials are there...still bubbling and bumping...for billions of years now. 
   Yet we have evidence of one common ancestor for all life. Yes it’s increadible. But it’s true. 
  And it isn’t the only astonishingly rare event on the road to consciousness. As rare as the beginning of life is there were several other steps just as rare (unique) on the way. Such as the acquisition of  mitochondria.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> You seem absolutely unable to accept that what I saw was real and was unlike anything I'd ever seen before


No,I would admit it is possible you saw an alien craft. And I believe you are not lying. But if you wont even consider the possibility that you were fooled or have a false memory, then you are not being rational. Surely you admit that any alternative explanation i presented is more likely than the explanation that you saw an alien craft, from my perspective, or from anyone's perspective. That being the case, it would not be rational for a person to believe you saw an alien craft,given the lack of evidence and bevy of simpler,more plausible explanations .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> But the indications we have is that life is beyond rare.


What indications are those? We have no such indications. We haven't even searched our own planet thoroughly, much less any other.


----------



## miketx

I would say the possibility of life is very probable. For most of them, if they exist, we are too far away to visit. If their are species out their that are capable of traversing the galaxy in a timely fashion, unless we have something they need I don't think they would stop by. The reasons for them coming here would probably not be good for us.


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem absolutely unable to accept that what I saw was real and was unlike anything I'd ever seen before
> 
> 
> 
> No,I would admit it is possible you saw an alien craft. And I believe you are not lying. But if you wont even consider the possibility that you were fooled or have a false memory, then you are not being rational. Surely you admit that any alternative explanation i presented is more likely than the explanation that you saw an alien craft, from my perspective, or from anyone's perspective. That being the case, it would not be rational for a person to believe you saw an alien craft,given the lack of evidence and bevy of simpler,more plausible explanations .
Click to expand...

What I saw were 2 UFO sitings.  I never said alien craft.  I'm *sure* they were *NOT* alien craft, just unidentified flying objects.  No maneuvers, no power.  Just there.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

miketx said:


> The reasons for them coming here would probably not be good for us.


Possibly. But I see that even we understand conservation of species in which we are curious. A civilization so advanced as to be able to travel that far may also have discovered these ethical and moral ideas.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> I'm *sure* they were *NOT* alien craft, just unidentified flying objects.


Gotcha. So, the fact that you couldnt even guess what the "object"was tells me that you dont even know what you saw,exactly. Right? No guesses on the materials, or size?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OldLady said:


> I don't know what they saw, but they saw what they said they saw.


Im not accusing them of lying. But your friends have no special brain immunity to being fooled or to forming false memories.


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm *sure* they were *NOT* alien craft, just unidentified flying objects.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. So, the fact that you couldnt even guess what the "object"was tells me that you dont even know what you saw,exactly. Right? No guesses on the materials, or size?
Click to expand...

You're right, I don't know what I saw.  The flaming ball might have been an meteor but I doubt it since it was pretty big and visible but never reported in the news.  As to the second, I do know what I didn't see: a plane, a helicopter, or a manned balloon.


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somethings going on. But it’s not aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because aliens don’t exist. BUT I will agree there is something going on. I don’t have an explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Aliens do not exist because the fine tuning facts, the harshness of other planets atmosphere and space being irradiated by solar wind.  Dorothy said, There is no place like home" and she was right.  There is no other place like planet Earth.
> 
> Fine tuning is what Stephen Hawking and the secular (atheist) scientists discovered.  However, once they discovered it then they stopped using it because it goes against evolutionary ideas.  It explains why Hawking became so obsessed with God and disproving him.  He ended up divorcing his believer wife and went on to multiverses.  He seemed to be admitting, albeit he didn't say so, that there may be only one Earth and intelligent "aliens" only exist here.  We are the best this universe has to offer.  Thus, he started believing in the multiverse theory in that with multiverses, there would be other universes like planet Earth.  More truth is coming out now that Hawking was wrong.  Prior to his death, scientists kept an open mind to his theories such as the theory of everything because they did not know where he would go and what he would find.  In the end, he ended up like other atheist and agnostic scientists in being wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any extraterrestrial life wouldn’t have to be “fine tuned” to earth. It would be fine tuned to where ever it developed. I don’t doubt that.
> But the indications we have is that life is beyond rare. It is unique. Science has advanced beyond the “warm little pond” of Darwin. And as we push back the fossil record it becomes obvious that it does not take eons of bubbling and bumping. Life arose within a few hundred million years of the Earth cooling. And all the materials are there...still bubbling and bumping...for billions of years now.
> Yet we have evidence of one common ancestor for all life. Yes it’s increadible. But it’s true.
> And it isn’t the only astonishingly rare event on the road to consciousness. As rare as the beginning of life is there were several other steps just as rare (unique) on the way. Such as the acquisition of  mitochondria.
Click to expand...


Fine tuning isn't just for Earth, but the entire universe.  That, and the harshness of space and solar wind without a magnetic field and ozone layer to protect it is how I know there is no abiogenesis and panspermia on other planets and moons and outer space.  It is based on an observable, testable and falsifiable experiment of Dr. Louis Pasteur showing only life begats life.  However, the new evos do not believe this because of the new spontaneous generation of "abiogenesis."  It's an old pseudoscience idea wrapped in new wrappings.  Why else would the secular (atheist) scientists go to a multiverse theory (There is video of Stephen Hawking sitting in a lecture of top secular scientists discussing it.)?  The older secular scientists such as Carl Sagan believed in intelligent life on other planets for years.  Today, we still have the belief that there is non-intelligent life out there.  Microbes and single-cell creatures, but we haven't found a single one even with all the probes sent out.  All of the atheist scientists who believed in aliens have died such as Stephen Hawking.  He died trying to demonstrate Hawking radiation, multiverses and Earth's habitability is not special.  He's another one that bit the dust trying to find alien life.  It's time to put away these ideas due to the fine tuning facts and solar wind.  NASA, who still believes in alien microbial life, think they can find microbes on Mars wants to send a human expedition by 2025 in order to search for extraterrestrial life even if they are microbes or evidence of past microbes.  It's a waste of money and likely lives as the astronauts will have to create the fuel in order to return and live in harsh conditions of no magnetic field and no ozone layer on Mars.  The new evos think advanced technology and the vastness of space will be able to give us the low down.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> The flaming ball might have been an meteor but I doubt it since it was pretty big and visible but never reported in the news.


Meteors can appear very large, especially if they are very bright.



alang1216 said:


> I do know what I didn't see: a plane, a helicopter, or a manned balloon.


Thats a bit of a dodge. Metallic? Wooden? You seem to be implying that you saw some sort of flying aircraft.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm *sure* they were *NOT* alien craft, just unidentified flying objects.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. So, the fact that you couldnt even guess what the "object"was tells me that you dont even know what you saw,exactly. Right? No guesses on the materials, or size?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I don't know what I saw.  The flaming ball might have been an meteor but I doubt it since it was pretty big and visible but never reported in the news.  As to the second, I do know what I didn't see: a plane, a helicopter, or a manned balloon.
Click to expand...


In this case, I have to go with Fort Fun Indiana but would not explain it in the way he does.  If you did see an alien or UFO near Earth, then it has to be verified by other observers.  If hundreds of people saw it in one area, then another hundreds of people saw it another area, then it probably would be evidence for an UFO. This could be enough for the military to respond and send their aircraft up there to confirm and even shoot it down if they think it is dangerous to their country.  Video recordings of the same phenomena would qualify, too, especially if more than one person records it.  The news would put footage on if it looks out of the ordinary like you described.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OldLady said:


> Her friend was identifically "fooled."


Its also a well known phenomenon that peole can influence each other's memories of an event.

When a bank is robbed, the employees are trained ahead of time not to speak to each other about the important obervations of the event until after they have been interviewed by the authorities. Law enforcement officials ask that they not do this so that they dont affect each others recollection of what they saw. If they do talk to each other, they often then all present the same, WRONG recollections of the suspect and the events. And that adversely affects the ensuing investigation.


----------



## james bond

If you enjoy this kind of ET stuff or out of the ordinary stories and investigations, then there is an AM radio show hosted by George Noory that comes on around midnight.  I used to listen to in when doing a graveyard shift patrol.  It may still be on as I just found the website -- Coast to Coast AM: The Best Paranormal News Show - Coast to Coast AM.  If you scan through it, then you'll get an idea of the stuff people have come up with and it appears to include today's technology.  It's entertainment and sci-fi in my book, but still interesting when you don't have much to do and are trying to stay alert.


----------



## miketx

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons for them coming here would probably not be good for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But I see that even we understand conservation of species in which we are curious. A civilization so advanced as to be able to travel that far may also have discovered these ethical and moral ideas.
Click to expand...

Of course that is possible. But without having any idea of what is actually out in the galaxy, we are only guessing. It would be great if super advanced aliens wanted to help us for no reason other then to help us.

But all civilized beings will have some societal structures that are common to others. Like a ruling class, a science class, etc. We do not have any idea if any advanced race exists, or if advanced races are common place and we, being unable to venture out, cannot see them.

That being said the possibilities are endless. They could  appear and help us because they want to lift us to their level to help mankind. Or, they could be involved in a galactic power struggle with two or more advanced species and when they expanded to here, because we are close to their enemies in the Davaroni sector, the Davaroni's could swoop down on us to claim our planet as a forward operation base to keep the other ones from encroaching on them.

And conscript a bunch of us as workers with all the ramifications that would have.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm *sure* they were *NOT* alien craft, just unidentified flying objects.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. So, the fact that you couldnt even guess what the "object"was tells me that you dont even know what you saw,exactly. Right? No guesses on the materials, or size?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I don't know what I saw.  The flaming ball might have been an meteor but I doubt it since it was pretty big and visible but never reported in the news.  As to the second, I do know what I didn't see: a plane, a helicopter, or a manned balloon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case, I have to go with Fort Fun Indiana but would not explain it in the way he does.  If you did see an alien or UFO near Earth, then it has to be verified by other observers.  If hundreds of people saw it in one area, then another hundreds of people saw it another area, then it probably would be evidence for an UFO. This could be enough for the military to respond and send their aircraft up there to confirm and even shoot it down if they think it is dangerous to their country.  Video recordings of the same phenomena would qualify, too, especially if more than one person records it.  The news would put footage on if it looks out of the ordinary like you described.
Click to expand...

All alien space craft are UFOs (at least until they conquer or eat us) but not all UFOs are alien space craft.  Unconnected to my UFOs, I think aliens are already here on Earth but I doubt they travel by rockets or saucers, way too slow.


----------



## alang1216

miketx said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons for them coming here would probably not be good for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But I see that even we understand conservation of species in which we are curious. A civilization so advanced as to be able to travel that far may also have discovered these ethical and moral ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is possible. But without having any idea of what is actually out in the galaxy, we are only guessing. It would be great if super advanced aliens wanted to help us for no reason other then to help us.
> 
> But all civilized beings will have some societal structures that are common to others. Like a ruling class, a science class, etc. We do not have any idea if any advanced race exists, or if advanced races are common place and we, being unable to venture out, cannot see them.
> 
> That being said the possibilities are endless. They could  appear and help us because they want to lift us to their level to help mankind. Or, they could be involved in a galactic power struggle with two or more advanced species and when they expanded to here, because we are close to their enemies in the Davaroni sector, the Davaroni's could swoop down on us to claim our planet as a forward operation base to keep the other ones from encroaching on them.
> 
> And conscript a bunch of us as workers with all the ramifications that would have.
Click to expand...

I think a race capable of space travel would not be interested in us (except maybe for scientific study or an interstellar, reality-TV show) or our planet.  If they can live in space they'd likely prefer space to our gravity well.


----------



## miketx

alang1216 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons for them coming here would probably not be good for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But I see that even we understand conservation of species in which we are curious. A civilization so advanced as to be able to travel that far may also have discovered these ethical and moral ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is possible. But without having any idea of what is actually out in the galaxy, we are only guessing. It would be great if super advanced aliens wanted to help us for no reason other then to help us.
> 
> But all civilized beings will have some societal structures that are common to others. Like a ruling class, a science class, etc. We do not have any idea if any advanced race exists, or if advanced races are common place and we, being unable to venture out, cannot see them.
> 
> That being said the possibilities are endless. They could  appear and help us because they want to lift us to their level to help mankind. Or, they could be involved in a galactic power struggle with two or more advanced species and when they expanded to here, because we are close to their enemies in the Davaroni sector, the Davaroni's could swoop down on us to claim our planet as a forward operation base to keep the other ones from encroaching on them.
> 
> And conscript a bunch of us as workers with all the ramifications that would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think a race capable of space travel would not be interested in us (except maybe for scientific study or an interstellar, reality-TV show) or our planet.  If they can live in space they'd likely prefer space to our gravity well.
Click to expand...

They would have to have some form of gravity. Continued weightlessness will be fatal.


----------



## alang1216

miketx said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons for them coming here would probably not be good for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But I see that even we understand conservation of species in which we are curious. A civilization so advanced as to be able to travel that far may also have discovered these ethical and moral ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is possible. But without having any idea of what is actually out in the galaxy, we are only guessing. It would be great if super advanced aliens wanted to help us for no reason other then to help us.
> 
> But all civilized beings will have some societal structures that are common to others. Like a ruling class, a science class, etc. We do not have any idea if any advanced race exists, or if advanced races are common place and we, being unable to venture out, cannot see them.
> 
> That being said the possibilities are endless. They could  appear and help us because they want to lift us to their level to help mankind. Or, they could be involved in a galactic power struggle with two or more advanced species and when they expanded to here, because we are close to their enemies in the Davaroni sector, the Davaroni's could swoop down on us to claim our planet as a forward operation base to keep the other ones from encroaching on them.
> 
> And conscript a bunch of us as workers with all the ramifications that would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think a race capable of space travel would not be interested in us (except maybe for scientific study or an interstellar, reality-TV show) or our planet.  If they can live in space they'd likely prefer space to our gravity well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would have to have some form of gravity. Continued weightlessness will be fatal.
Click to expand...

You mean WE would have to have some form of gravity.  They will likely be VERY different from us.


----------



## miketx

alang1216 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons for them coming here would probably not be good for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But I see that even we understand conservation of species in which we are curious. A civilization so advanced as to be able to travel that far may also have discovered these ethical and moral ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course that is possible. But without having any idea of what is actually out in the galaxy, we are only guessing. It would be great if super advanced aliens wanted to help us for no reason other then to help us.
> 
> But all civilized beings will have some societal structures that are common to others. Like a ruling class, a science class, etc. We do not have any idea if any advanced race exists, or if advanced races are common place and we, being unable to venture out, cannot see them.
> 
> That being said the possibilities are endless. They could  appear and help us because they want to lift us to their level to help mankind. Or, they could be involved in a galactic power struggle with two or more advanced species and when they expanded to here, because we are close to their enemies in the Davaroni sector, the Davaroni's could swoop down on us to claim our planet as a forward operation base to keep the other ones from encroaching on them.
> 
> And conscript a bunch of us as workers with all the ramifications that would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think a race capable of space travel would not be interested in us (except maybe for scientific study or an interstellar, reality-TV show) or our planet.  If they can live in space they'd likely prefer space to our gravity well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would have to have some form of gravity. Continued weightlessness will be fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean WE would have to have some form of gravity.  They will likely be VERY different from us.
Click to expand...

No I mean just what I said. Unless they are non corporeal then all bets are off.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm *sure* they were *NOT* alien craft, just unidentified flying objects.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. So, the fact that you couldnt even guess what the "object"was tells me that you dont even know what you saw,exactly. Right? No guesses on the materials, or size?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I don't know what I saw.  The flaming ball might have been an meteor but I doubt it since it was pretty big and visible but never reported in the news.  As to the second, I do know what I didn't see: a plane, a helicopter, or a manned balloon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case, I have to go with Fort Fun Indiana but would not explain it in the way he does.  If you did see an alien or UFO near Earth, then it has to be verified by other observers.  If hundreds of people saw it in one area, then another hundreds of people saw it another area, then it probably would be evidence for an UFO. This could be enough for the military to respond and send their aircraft up there to confirm and even shoot it down if they think it is dangerous to their country.  Video recordings of the same phenomena would qualify, too, especially if more than one person records it.  The news would put footage on if it looks out of the ordinary like you described.
Click to expand...


https://www.history.com/news/ufos-washington-dc-news-reports







You were saying?


----------



## Likkmee

I'll assume there is no "intelligent life"
Here or elsewhere.
God only knows.......that's a fact.


----------



## alang1216

miketx said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean WE would have to have some form of gravity.  They will likely be VERY different from us.
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean just what I said. Unless they are non corporeal then all bets are off.
Click to expand...

We can manipulate our DNA, we can build (semi) intelligent machines, why do you think a space faring race couldn't do much more?  They may not be biological they may not even be solid, liquid, or gas but some more exotic form of matter or energy.


----------



## miketx

alang1216 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean WE would have to have some form of gravity.  They will likely be VERY different from us.
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean just what I said. Unless they are non corporeal then all bets are off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can manipulate our DNA, we can build (semi) intelligent machines, why do you think a space faring race couldn't do much more?  They may not be biological they may not even be solid, liquid, or gas but some more exotic form of matter or energy.
Click to expand...

Then WTF would they want with us?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm *sure* they were *NOT* alien craft, just unidentified flying objects.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. So, the fact that you couldnt even guess what the "object"was tells me that you dont even know what you saw,exactly. Right? No guesses on the materials, or size?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I don't know what I saw.  The flaming ball might have been an meteor but I doubt it since it was pretty big and visible but never reported in the news.  As to the second, I do know what I didn't see: a plane, a helicopter, or a manned balloon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case, I have to go with Fort Fun Indiana but would not explain it in the way he does.  If you did see an alien or UFO near Earth, then it has to be verified by other observers.  If hundreds of people saw it in one area, then another hundreds of people saw it another area, then it probably would be evidence for an UFO. This could be enough for the military to respond and send their aircraft up there to confirm and even shoot it down if they think it is dangerous to their country.  Video recordings of the same phenomena would qualify, too, especially if more than one person records it.  The news would put footage on if it looks out of the ordinary like you described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/ufos-washington-dc-news-reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were saying?
Click to expand...

Looks fake.


----------



## miketx

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm *sure* they were *NOT* alien craft, just unidentified flying objects.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. So, the fact that you couldnt even guess what the "object"was tells me that you dont even know what you saw,exactly. Right? No guesses on the materials, or size?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, I don't know what I saw.  The flaming ball might have been an meteor but I doubt it since it was pretty big and visible but never reported in the news.  As to the second, I do know what I didn't see: a plane, a helicopter, or a manned balloon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case, I have to go with Fort Fun Indiana but would not explain it in the way he does.  If you did see an alien or UFO near Earth, then it has to be verified by other observers.  If hundreds of people saw it in one area, then another hundreds of people saw it another area, then it probably would be evidence for an UFO. This could be enough for the military to respond and send their aircraft up there to confirm and even shoot it down if they think it is dangerous to their country.  Video recordings of the same phenomena would qualify, too, especially if more than one person records it.  The news would put footage on if it looks out of the ordinary like you described.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/ufos-washington-dc-news-reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks fake.
Click to expand...


----------



## Likkmee

No proof. We don't have the technology......YET !Hell when I was a kid it was AM radio and a magnifier in front of  BLACK AND WHITE tv ( HEATED THE WHOLE HOUSE)


----------



## OldLady

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her friend was identifically "fooled."
> 
> 
> 
> Its also a well known phenomenon that peole can influence each other's memories of an event.
> 
> When a bank is robbed, the employees are trained ahead of time not to speak to each other about the important obervations of the event until after they have been interviewed by the authorities. Law enforcement officials ask that they not do this so that they dont affect each others recollection of what they saw. If they do talk to each other, they often then all present the same, WRONG recollections of the suspect and the events. And that adversely affects the ensuing investigation.
Click to expand...

You seem quite invested in convincing us that no one has actually seen a UFO.  Just say you don't think they exist and be done with it.  Leave the rest of us alone who know better.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OldLady said:


> You seem quite invested in convincing us that no one has actually seen a UFO.


Actually, I'm trying to convince you that you saw a UFO. Keep in mind what the "U" stands for...

And your personal comments can be turned back around on you and are quite irrelevant. If you dont want discussion of your claims, i suggest you dont post them on a public forum.

Furthermore: if you are a rational, mature adult, you will consider the ideas i have presented.

"People who know better"

Sure. Just like people "knew" they saw flying chariots, or flying serpents, or Jesus in a piece of toast...


----------



## miketx

This abu buttfuck is an idiot.


----------



## Muhammed

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?


I believe that the universe is infinite and eternal.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I think aliens are already here on Earth but I doubt they travel by rockets or saucers, way too slow.



Haha.  If you keep telling that to people, then they would eventually lock you up.  Here's what Carl Sagan said about UFOs.  I used to believe in them like I believed in evolution, but no more.


----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## alang1216

miketx said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean WE would have to have some form of gravity.  They will likely be VERY different from us.
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean just what I said. Unless they are non corporeal then all bets are off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can manipulate our DNA, we can build (semi) intelligent machines, why do you think a space faring race couldn't do much more?  They may not be biological they may not even be solid, liquid, or gas but some more exotic form of matter or energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then WTF would they want with us?
Click to expand...

What do we want with ants or music?  We study them and there is an entertainment component.  The new and strange always has a certain interest.  Maybe they will allow us to join with them.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think aliens are already here on Earth but I doubt they travel by rockets or saucers, way too slow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  If you keep telling that to people, then they would eventually lock you up.  Here's what Carl Sagan said about UFOs.  I used to believe in them like I believed in evolution, but no more.
Click to expand...

Aliens are like God, you can't prove they don't exist.  But I do believe there is a small but non-zero chance they are here.  Maybe they've always been here.  Maybe they are what we refer to as God and God is not supernatural.

Here's a scenario (feel free to laugh): Aliens have long ago left their biology behind and build themselves directly out of quarks or atoms.  They would be small, small enough that millions of them could live inside us.  They could document our thoughts and lives.  The ultimate reality show.  They might be inside every one of us, meaning there are far more of them than of us.  When we die they would transfer our 'soul' into their form and we become them.  If they've been doing this since man became man we'd be able to talk to every human who ever lived, Moses, Alexander the Great, etc.  Now that would be heaven.

You can lock me up but you can't prove I'm wrong.


----------



## OldLady

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem quite invested in convincing us that no one has actually seen a UFO.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm trying to convince you that you saw a UFO. Keep in mind what the "U" stands for...
> 
> And your personal comments can be turned back around on you and are quite irrelevant. If you dont want discussion of your claims, i suggest you dont post them on a public forum.
> 
> Furthermore: if you are a rational, mature adult, you will consider the ideas i have presented.
> 
> "People who know better"
> 
> Sure. Just like people "knew" they saw flying chariots, or flying serpents, or Jesus in a piece of toast...
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything.  A friend did and I believe her.  I already told you that I agree with you many mysterious things end up being identified eventually and have a logical explanation not involving aliens.

You are not entertaining the notion that not everything can be explained.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think aliens are already here on Earth but I doubt they travel by rockets or saucers, way too slow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  If you keep telling that to people, then they would eventually lock you up.  Here's what Carl Sagan said about UFOs.  I used to believe in them like I believed in evolution, but no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aliens are like God, you can't prove they don't exist.  But I do believe there is a small but non-zero chance they are here.  Maybe they've always been here.  Maybe they are what we refer to as God and God is not supernatural.
> 
> Here's a scenario (feel free to laugh): Aliens have long ago left their biology behind and build themselves directly out of quarks or atoms.  They would be small, small enough that millions of them could live inside us.  They could document our thoughts and lives.  The ultimate reality show.  They might be inside every one of us, meaning there are far more of them than of us.  When we die they would transfer our 'soul' into their form and we become them.  If they've been doing this since man became man we'd be able to talk to every human who ever lived, Moses, Alexander the Great, etc.  Now that would be heaven.
> 
> You can lock me up but you can't prove I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


We aren't talking aliens.  We are talking UFOs.  You are making the assumption they are aliens.  UFOs could be practical jokes.  They could be promotional gimmicks.  They could be drones.  They could be hobbyists.  I used to watch X-Files on TV because they had a lot of shows dedicated to them.  Use the coast-to-coast website I linked in a prior post.  It had one for an albino whale, a real moby dick, which was nice.  I believed that vid.  They have shows on UFOs.  Today, I treat UFOs like I treated them in the past.  They're just science fiction, but it's fun entertainment.  If I see what I think is an UFO, then I want to get verification and my friends or passer-by saw it, too.  This would apply to ghosts and what not, too.  God tells us to not believe in the supernatural besides he and Genesis in the Bible.

Now, since you know that life is rare (even my evolution website from Cal Berkeley sez so), then you know _aliens _are rare.  NASA, which is a reputable agency, and one that scientists like Carl Sagan believed and advised _believe_ today that they will find aliens.  They think they will find microbes on Mars and not the sci-fi aliens that we see on TV and movies by 2025. This is due to evolutionary thinking, abiogenesis, past probes to Mars and others, and their high technology.  Why not Europa or Titan (moons on Jupiter or Saturn)?  I rather they spend the money to go there than Mars.


----------



## james bond

Muhammed said:


> I believe that the universe is infinite and eternal.



With no evidence and it being demonstrated as pseudo science .


----------



## james bond

miketx said:


> This abu buttfuck is an idiot.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Now, since you know that life is rare (even my evolution website from Cal Berkeley sez so), then you know _aliens _are rare.


What does rare mean in cosmic terms?  If life can found in one solar system in a billion then there are 250 such planets in our galaxy alone.  Is that still rare


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since you know that life is rare (even my evolution website from Cal Berkeley sez so), then you know _aliens _are rare.
> 
> 
> 
> What does rare mean in cosmic terms?  If life can found in one solar system in a billion then there are 250 such planets in our galaxy alone.  Is that still rare
Click to expand...


From what I read of evolutionary thinking, the astronomers and cosmologists look at galaxies with planets that are "common" to ours or that have a star and planets surrounding its habitable zone.  They're looking for planets with plenty of water, ideally on its surface or below in the earth as underground oceans.  They also look for signs of a magnetic field and atmosphere like Earth's even with an ozone layer.  Even though they may find a planet like this (which they haven't), the secular/atheist scientists do not know how life originated.  The Anthropic Principle states that since the universe and its contents exist and we, as living, conscious observers, find ourselves in a place with conditions suitable for life.  IOW, there must be a reason that we are intelligent and able to observe these conditions.  The AP says that we are the lucky ones who hit the lottery of life.  Thus, we wonder how many other lottery winners are out there.  It turns out from the fine tuning facts, that there are likely none than having other winners.


----------



## james bond

Here's one of the articles on the progress of humans to Mars.  I didn't think it would be so hard to walk around Mars or even drive around in a terrain explorer vehicles or rovers.

"The Mars surface is covered with sharp rocks and uneven surfaces, which make transport with rovers very difficult.

The best way to examine the red planet might be from the air. If developed, each Marsbee would be roughly the size of a regular bumblebee but have wings closer to those of a cicada. The flying robots would be able to take off in a swarm from a recharging and communications base."

NASA Invests in Flying Bee-Like Robots to Help Explore Mars


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OldLady said:


> You are not entertaining the notion that not everything can be explained.


Sure I am. But you said some people "know better". What is it they know, then, if there is "no explanation"?

And what is meant by "no explanation", anyway? Wouldn't that really mean we just dont yet KNOW the explanation? That being the case, it would make sense first to rule out the explanations we DO know. Like: delusion, hallucination, false memory, etc.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> With no evidence and it being demonstrated as pseudo science


In other words, precisely like your beliefs. All of them,actually.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Even though they may find a planet like this (which they haven't), the secular/atheist scientists do not know how life originated.


Youre always fill of shit on so many levels. Yes, we have found exoplanets like that. No, you religious goobers dont know how life originated, either.


----------



## Muhammed

james bond said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the universe is infinite and eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With no evidence and it being demonstrated as pseudo science .
Click to expand...

If it is not infinite, then where does it end?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Muhammed said:


> If it is not infinite, then where does it end?


It can be both finite and boundless.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since you know that life is rare (even my evolution website from Cal Berkeley sez so), then you know _aliens _are rare.
> 
> 
> 
> What does rare mean in cosmic terms?  If life can found in one solar system in a billion then there are 250 such planets in our galaxy alone.  Is that still rare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I read of evolutionary thinking, the astronomers and cosmologists look at galaxies with planets that are "common" to ours or that have a star and planets surrounding its habitable zone.  They're looking for planets with plenty of water, ideally on its surface or below in the earth as underground oceans.  They also look for signs of a magnetic field and atmosphere like Earth's even with an ozone layer.  Even though they may find a planet like this (which they haven't), the secular/atheist scientists do not know how life originated.  The Anthropic Principle states that since the universe and its contents exist and we, as living, conscious observers, find ourselves in a place with conditions suitable for life.  IOW, there must be a reason that we are intelligent and able to observe these conditions.  The AP says that we are the lucky ones who hit the lottery of life.  Thus, we wonder how many other lottery winners are out there.  It turns out from the fine tuning facts, that there are likely none than having other winners.
Click to expand...

I find the Anthropic Principle absurd.  So far every solar system we've explored has at least one planet with intelligent life, namely us.  I'm willing to bet that every solar system has some sort of planet, they are certainly not uncommon.  It wouldn't surprise me if life was more likely than not.  Intelligent life may be very rare in any solar system but still common in the 250 billion solar systems in our galaxy alone.  Considering there may be 1 trillion galaxies out there, there may be billions of species of intelligent life.

You believe in God so I ask you, why did God create other solar systems and other galaxies if he only made one planet with intelligent life? Is he an over-achiever or an under-achiever?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> With no evidence and it being demonstrated as pseudo science
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, precisely like your beliefs. All of them,actually.
Click to expand...


Don't lie.  You don't know what you are talking about because you take what I said out of context and then make some stupid, rude remark or idiotic one.  Usually the latter.  

We know the steady state model or infinite universe has been rendered pseudoscience.  This is because the density of matter in an expanding universe does not remains the same.  We know due to changes in the CMB that it is not the same but expanding.  Even Einstein thought the universe was static, but quickly changed his tune after talking with Edwin Hubble.  Prior to that, he started being influenced by a young Father Georges Lemaitre into a finite universe with a beginning.


----------



## james bond

Muhammed said:


> If it is not infinite, then where does it end?



That's a good question.  We do not know when it will end because it continues expanding as seen by our most powerful telescopes. * We do know that the universe had a beginning and has continued to expand.  *However, we do not know if it expanding in all directions in a flat circle or expanding in two directions with boundaries like a sheet of paper.  From the big bang theory, I'm sure you've seen their graph.  We discovered the shape of the universe is flat.







Big Bang - Wikipedia

If you still believe in an infinite universe, then how do you describe it?  Is it relatively the same density?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since you know that life is rare (even my evolution website from Cal Berkeley sez so), then you know _aliens _are rare.
> 
> 
> 
> What does rare mean in cosmic terms?  If life can found in one solar system in a billion then there are 250 such planets in our galaxy alone.  Is that still rare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I read of evolutionary thinking, the astronomers and cosmologists look at galaxies with planets that are "common" to ours or that have a star and planets surrounding its habitable zone.  They're looking for planets with plenty of water, ideally on its surface or below in the earth as underground oceans.  They also look for signs of a magnetic field and atmosphere like Earth's even with an ozone layer.  Even though they may find a planet like this (which they haven't), the secular/atheist scientists do not know how life originated.  The Anthropic Principle states that since the universe and its contents exist and we, as living, conscious observers, find ourselves in a place with conditions suitable for life.  IOW, there must be a reason that we are intelligent and able to observe these conditions.  The AP says that we are the lucky ones who hit the lottery of life.  Thus, we wonder how many other lottery winners are out there.  It turns out from the fine tuning facts, that there are likely none than having other winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find the Anthropic Principle absurd.  So far every solar system we've explored has at least one planet with intelligent life, namely us.  I'm willing to bet that every solar system has some sort of planet, they are certainly not uncommon.  It wouldn't surprise me if life was more likely than not.  Intelligent life may be very rare in any solar system but still common in the 250 billion solar systems in our galaxy alone.  Considering there may be 1 trillion galaxies out there, there may be billions of species of intelligent life.
> 
> You believe in God so I ask you, why did God create other solar systems and other galaxies if he only made one planet with intelligent life? Is he an over-achiever or an under-achiever?
Click to expand...


You are arguing against evolution, so what do you believe in besides the AP?  You are already wrong about the planets we explored as being done by humans.  They were explored by probes and robots.

Anthropic Principle: Using human existence to explain the universe

As for your second part about God, I did not mention God so if I bring him into the discussion now it will just confuse you.


----------



## Muhammed

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is not infinite, then where does it end?
> 
> 
> 
> It can be both finite and boundless.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?


----------



## WheelieAddict

Can't rule it out, so maybe


----------



## Blackrook

It's interesting how many atheists claim there is no proof for God but then believe in aliens when there is no proof of aliens.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Blackrook said:


> It's interesting how many atheists claim there is no proof for God but then believe in aliens when there is no proof of aliens.


There is also Deists you know...


----------



## zaangalewa

R.C. Christian said:


> Of course we're not. Only a stupid Christian would think otherwise.



A stupid Christian like I is able to tell you a calculation a*b with a->0 (probability for life) and b->oo (possibility for life) gives a result. The problem is only to know what result. We will see. But what I believe is something else: One day a nice white spaceship will arrive and some ECs (extraterrestrian Catholics) will step out and they will tell us their smurfings about the universe. And beause of this enlightening information a new tradition will start and furthermore we will hide at Easter eggs in cringles with a snarling tendency. But never forget: All that glitters isn't a smurf.


----------



## The Purge




----------



## zaangalewa

Blackrook said:


> It's interesting how many atheists claim there is no proof for God but then believe in aliens when there is no proof of aliens.



That's indeed fascinating, specially because a concrete proof in this case is in principle possible. The people believe even in intelligent machines, altthough never anyone saw any intelligent computer or machine. "AI" means "artificial stupidity". But the "scientists" in the past believed also for example in perpetuum mobiles. Strange forms of belief are nothing new. In general the belief in science, the  belief in materialism - or with other words a religion science or the religion atheism - have not a lot to do with real science and the real world all around and within us.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though they may find a planet like this (which they haven't), the secular/atheist scientists do not know how life originated.
> 
> 
> 
> Youre always fill of shit on so many levels. Yes, we have found exoplanets like that. No, you religious goobers dont know how life originated, either.
Click to expand...


You remember me to the boy who found the dress and beard of Santa Claus in the loft. _"Now I know Santa is only a myth!" _he said to his father._ "And I found the color for the Easter eggs in Moms drawer too. Everything written there: You hide them on your own!_ _And I also do not believe in the children bringing storch any longer!! In school I heard children are born! And now I will go back to the loft and will search for the borer, until I will find it!"
_
_

_


----------



## MaryAnne11

Madeline said:


> Creepy story, guys.
> 
> Former Air Force Officers: UFOs Tampered With Nuclear Missiles


Yes, there is life on other planets.

When the many books of the Bible were written most of them believed there was nothing across the oceans,either.


----------



## MaryAnne11

hjmick said:


> The more I think about it...
> 
> I'd be happy if they could find intelligent life on this planet...


You and me both, Brother!


----------



## MaryAnne11

Madeline said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> OOOooooOOO...check this out guys.
> 
> 'Goldilocks' Planet's Temperature Just Right For Life : NPR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those morons are just looking for funding.
> 
> Anyone rember the quest for life on Mars??? I coulda told those morons there wasn't any. Of course, that would have ruined their oportunity to play with our money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O, I know The Light but I love space.  Look at this gorgeous photo of another galaxy, taken with a telescope....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose little of this serves any useful purpose, but after all the nonsense we waste money on, I don't resent some spending for space exploration.
Click to expand...


I wish they would just spend some money here repairing what is falling apart.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Muhammed said:


> Sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?


Sure...

You can go in any direction forever and never find the edge. But there is a finite amount of space. Like the surface of a sphere.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...
> 
> You can go in any direction forever and never find the edge. But there is a finite amount of space. Like the surface of a sphere.
Click to expand...


As far as I am able to imagine this is wrong. The universe exands from all points into all directions. This means not the universe exists within a 4 dimensional structure in analogy to a 2 dimensional structure, which exists in a 3 dimensional world. It is a geometric structure, where always every point is in the middle and never any point is at any border - in whatever kind of dimension. Looks like "around" the universe is just simple nothing at all, even if within this nothing would exist (or not exist, what's perhaps the same in such a case) a Hilbert space with the dimension aleph-zero.

One problem in this context is for example that we live in a flat world (Euclidian universe). A flat space shows the universe is not closed and not open too - perhaps it is endless? But the universe began and expands.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> It is a geometric structure, where always every point is in the middle and never any point is at any border in whatever kind of dimension.


Exactly like any point on the surface of a sphere. As I said.


----------



## OldLady

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since you know that life is rare (even my evolution website from Cal Berkeley sez so), then you know _aliens _are rare.
> 
> 
> 
> What does rare mean in cosmic terms?  If life can found in one solar system in a billion then there are 250 such planets in our galaxy alone.  Is that still rare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I read of evolutionary thinking, the astronomers and cosmologists look at galaxies with planets that are "common" to ours or that have a star and planets surrounding its habitable zone.  They're looking for planets with plenty of water, ideally on its surface or below in the earth as underground oceans.  They also look for signs of a magnetic field and atmosphere like Earth's even with an ozone layer.  Even though they may find a planet like this (which they haven't), the secular/atheist scientists do not know how life originated.  The Anthropic Principle states that since the universe and its contents exist and we, as living, conscious observers, find ourselves in a place with conditions suitable for life.  IOW, there must be a reason that we are intelligent and able to observe these conditions.  The AP says that we are the lucky ones who hit the lottery of life.  Thus, we wonder how many other lottery winners are out there.  It turns out from the fine tuning facts, that there are likely none than having other winners.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a bit egocentric to base all this logical thinking on OUR existence alone?  Who says life could not have evolved without water?  WE could not have evolved without water.  It does not mean that OUR evolution of life forms is the only game in the cosmos.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

OldLady said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, since you know that life is rare (even my evolution website from Cal Berkeley sez so), then you know _aliens _are rare.
> 
> 
> 
> What does rare mean in cosmic terms?  If life can found in one solar system in a billion then there are 250 such planets in our galaxy alone.  Is that still rare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I read of evolutionary thinking, the astronomers and cosmologists look at galaxies with planets that are "common" to ours or that have a star and planets surrounding its habitable zone.  They're looking for planets with plenty of water, ideally on its surface or below in the earth as underground oceans.  They also look for signs of a magnetic field and atmosphere like Earth's even with an ozone layer.  Even though they may find a planet like this (which they haven't), the secular/atheist scientists do not know how life originated.  The Anthropic Principle states that since the universe and its contents exist and we, as living, conscious observers, find ourselves in a place with conditions suitable for life.  IOW, there must be a reason that we are intelligent and able to observe these conditions.  The AP says that we are the lucky ones who hit the lottery of life.  Thus, we wonder how many other lottery winners are out there.  It turns out from the fine tuning facts, that there are likely none than having other winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it a bit egocentric to base all this logical thinking on OUR existence alone?  Who says life could not have evolved without water?  WE could not have evolved without water.  It does not mean that OUR evolution of life forms is the only game in the cosmos.
Click to expand...

All correct. But, given our limited time and resources and the vastness of the universe, it only makes sense that scientists would first focus their efforts onthe type of life we somewhat understand and would recognize, should we find it.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a geometric structure, where always every point is in the middle and never any point is at any border in whatever kind of dimension.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly like any point on the surface of a sphere. As I said.
Click to expand...


Okay - you found the borer in  the loft. Now you are born.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a geometric structure, where always every point is in the middle and never any point is at any border in whatever kind of dimension.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly like any point on the surface of a sphere. As I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay - you found the the borer in  the loft. Now you are born.
Click to expand...

I don't think that foreign language colloquialism translates into American English very well.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a geometric structure, where always every point is in the middle and never any point is at any border in whatever kind of dimension.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly like any point on the surface of a sphere. As I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay - you found the the borer in  the loft. Now you are born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think
Click to expand...


I know.



> that foreign language colloquialism translates into American English very well.



Take your time and learn another German language or Latin - then you will be able to understand the European language, which you are using, in a much better way.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Take your time and learn another German language or Latin - then you will be able to understand the European language, which you are using, in a much better way.


Irrelevant snark...the colloquialism did not translate well for cultural reasons, not linguistic reasons.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your time and learn another German language or Latin - then you will be able to understand the European language, which you are using, in a much better way.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant snark...the colloquialism did not translate well for cultural reasons, not linguistic reasons. Stop your incessant, irrelvant whining .
Click to expand...


Why? Do you explode, because you expand?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your time and learn another German language or Latin - then you will be able to understand the European language, which you are using, in a much better way.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant snark...the colloquialism did not translate well for cultural reasons, not linguistic reasons. Stop your incessant, irrelvant whining .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Do you explode, because you expand?
Click to expand...

Uh...put up the crack pipe...


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your time and learn another German language or Latin - then you will be able to understand the European language, which you are using, in a much better way.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant snark...the colloquialism did not translate well for cultural reasons, not linguistic reasons. Stop your incessant, irrelvant whining .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Do you explode, because you expand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...put up the crack pipe...
Click to expand...


When 75% of all life forms had died out 65 million years ago, because a comet crushed down - why caused this the death of 100% of all dinosauri?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> why caused this the death of 100% of all dinosauri?


It didn't. Not all dinosaurs died. In fact, they still exist today. They are birds.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your time and learn another German language or Latin - then you will be able to understand the European language, which you are using, in a much better way.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant snark...the colloquialism did not translate well for cultural reasons, not linguistic reasons. Stop your incessant, irrelvant whining .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Do you explode, because you expand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...put up the crack pipe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When 75% of all life forms had died out 65 million years ago, because a comet crushed down - why caused this the death of 100% of all dinosauri?
Click to expand...

Do you plan to acknowledge your error?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> the belief in materialism - or with other words a religion science or the religion atheism - have not a lot to do with real science


100% backwards wrong. Science is purely materialistic.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> why caused this the death of 100% of all dinosauri?
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't. Not all dinosaurs died. In fact, they still exist today. They are birds.
Click to expand...


Tirili, tirili, tirila, master of the runaround.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your time and learn another German language or Latin - then you will be able to understand the European language, which you are using, in a much better way.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant snark...the colloquialism did not translate well for cultural reasons, not linguistic reasons. Stop your incessant, irrelvant whining .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Do you explode, because you expand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...put up the crack pipe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When 75% of all life forms had died out 65 million years ago, because a comet crushed down - why caused this the death of 100% of all dinosauri?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you plan to acknowledge your error?
Click to expand...


If you try to drive a car with nearly lightspeed then you will perhaps -  I doubt about, because you have mass on your own - not meet any edge, but you also will not be able to cross the universe - not by driving around nor in any form of shortcut through any point which is in the middle - because you are in the middle - ah sorry:  I am in the middle - ah sorry again: the Andromeda galaxy is in the middle ... damn: everything what we are able to see - and much more than only this - is in the middle of the universe ... independent from any number of dimensions.Wherever you will drive, you will always be in the middle of the universe. And you will never be able to come back to the point, where you had started once your travel around the universe, because the universe expands.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> the belief in materialism - or with other words a religion science or the religion atheism - have not a lot to do with real science
> 
> 
> 
> 100% backwards wrong. Science is purely materialistic.
Click to expand...


I call the spirituality of physics "mathematics" and the godly attribute, the truth, of physics "the experiment"; and the people "lost", who like to force everyone to serve their own vanity fair. My bad luck of this "philosophy" is it, that you are in the middle of the love of god too. This makes it difficult for me to scalp you. On the other side you try continously to seperate god from his children. But such idiocies have nothing to do with natural science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Tirili, tirili, tirila, master of the runaround.


Excuse you. What you said was incorrect.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tirili, tirili, tirila, master of the runaround.
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. What you said was incorrect.
Click to expand...


no comment


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You are arguing against evolution, so what do you believe in besides the AP?  You are already wrong about the planets we explored as being done by humans.  They were explored by probes and robots.
> 
> Anthropic Principle: Using human existence to explain the universe
> 
> As for your second part about God, I did not mention God so if I bring him into the discussion now it will just confuse you.


Evolution really has no role to play here since life must exist BEFORE it comes into play.  And they were our probes and robots.

As for what I believe?  My eyes and Occam's Razor.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing against evolution, so what do you believe in besides the AP?  You are already wrong about the planets we explored as being done by humans.  They were explored by probes and robots.
> 
> Anthropic Principle: Using human existence to explain the universe
> 
> As for your second part about God, I did not mention God so if I bring him into the discussion now it will just confuse you.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution really has no role to play here since life must exist BEFORE it comes into play.  And they were our probes and robots.
> 
> As for what I believe?  My eyes and Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...


What you are referring to is ToE by dumb Darwin.  Before that there was evolutionary thinking and history.  Your scientific knowledge is very lacking.

The probes and robots were unmanned.  So you are still WRONG.

Your eyes is not good enough.  There has to be objective verification.  It goes to show you did not watch and learn from the Carl Sagan video and you probably do not know enough to explain Occam's Razor.  Why don't I put you down as LCD internet atheist and move on?


----------



## james bond

MaryAnne11 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creepy story, guys.
> 
> Former Air Force Officers: UFOs Tampered With Nuclear Missiles
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is life on other planets.
> 
> When the many books of the Bible were written most of them believed there was nothing across the oceans,either.
Click to expand...


No evidence for it whatsoever.  Not even one microbe.


----------



## james bond

Blackrook said:


> It's interesting how many atheists claim there is no proof for God but then believe in aliens when there is no proof of aliens.



It's their "faith-based" religion or science BS as they call it.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution really has no role to play here since life must exist BEFORE it comes into play.  And they were our probes and robots.
> 
> As for what I believe?  My eyes and Occam's Razor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are referring to is ToE by dumb Darwin.  Before that there was evolutionary thinking and history.  Your scientific knowledge is very lacking.
Click to expand...

First off, Darwin wasn't dumb, he saw things that other missed.  When Charles Darwin published _The Origin of Species_ 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life.  He had his own speculations but they were not part of his writing on the ToE.  Can you show otherwise with your vast scientific knowledge or are you just blowing smoke?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution really has no role to play here since life must exist BEFORE it comes into play.  And they were our probes and robots.
> 
> As for what I believe?  My eyes and Occam's Razor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are referring to is ToE by dumb Darwin.  Before that there was evolutionary thinking and history.  Your scientific knowledge is very lacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off, Darwin wasn't dumb, he saw things that other missed.  When Charles Darwin published _The Origin of Species_ 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life.  He had his own speculations but they were not part of his writing on the ToE.  Can you show otherwise with your vast scientific knowledge or are you just blowing smoke?
Click to expand...


Darwin was a follower and pupil of Charles Lyell who was influenced by atheist James Hutton who went against the establishment of creation and creation science.  Just what did he see that other's missed???!!!???!!!  Lyell and Hutton first established uniformitarianism before Darwin came along with ToE.  Before that was evolutionary thinking and history such as comparative anatomy, observation and natural theology, fossils and birth of paleontology and more -- History of Evolutionary Thought.  You really thought it started with Darwin didn't you and that's all there is.

If you want more, then I can provide another paper on evolutionary thinking in ancient times.


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak

I know that you are not Muslim but an US-American tick simulator. What I did not find out was whether you are a human being or only a PC-program which simulates artificial stupidity. What about to try to read a book - and to make comments with a pencil there? Then you have enough time later to think about your own thoughts and concepts and how this fits to the thoughts and concepts of the author of the book. After a while you will perhaps be able to speak with other people about your own thoughts too and you have not to demonstrate others how to be a brainwashed propagandistic ideologist without any own cognitive existence.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Darwin was a follower and pupil of Charles Lyell who was influenced by atheist James Hutton who went against the establishment of creation and creation science.  Just what did he see that other's missed???!!!???!!!  Lyell and Hutton first established uniformitarianism before Darwin came along with ToE.  Before that was evolutionary thinking and history such as comparative anatomy, observation and natural theology, fossils and birth of paleontology and more -- History of Evolutionary Thought.  You really thought it started with Darwin didn't you and that's all there is.
> 
> If you want more, then I can provide another paper on evolutionary thinking in ancient times.


Every great scientist stands on the shoulders of those that came before him.  Darwin's insight was to bring together the science of his day, his observations on the Beagle, and Malthus (the *Malthusian Theory* of Population is a *theory* of exponential population growth and arithmetic food supply growth).  Many people believed in evolution from the fossil record (dinosaurs showed that life was different in the past) and biology (racism) but Darwin supplied the missing piece, a *mechanism* for ToE.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution really has no role to play here since life must exist BEFORE it comes into play.  And they were our probes and robots.
> 
> As for what I believe?  My eyes and Occam's Razor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are referring to is ToE by dumb Darwin.  Before that there was evolutionary thinking and history.  Your scientific knowledge is very lacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First off, Darwin wasn't dumb, he saw things that other missed.  When Charles Darwin published _The Origin of Species_ 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life.  He had his own speculations but they were not part of his writing on the ToE.  Can you show otherwise with your vast scientific knowledge or are you just blowing smoke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin was a follower and pupil of Charles Lyell who was influenced by atheist James Hutton who went against the establishment of creation and creation science.  Just what did he see that other's missed???!!!???!!!  Lyell and Hutton first established uniformitarianism before Darwin came along with ToE.  Before that was evolutionary thinking and history such as comparative anatomy, observation and natural theology, fossils and birth of paleontology and more -- History of Evolutionary Thought.  You really thought it started with Darwin didn't you and that's all there is.
> 
> If you want more, then I can provide another paper on evolutionary thinking in ancient times.
Click to expand...


What you choose to ignore is that science has progressed since the 1850's. There are honest Christians who have the intellectual integrity to not take the bible literally on scientific matters. I think the ones "bashing" the reputation of all Christians are the ID'iot creationists. They do more harm to Christianity than anything science can do. 

While ID'iot creationists will splatter the the term "creation scientists" in their posts, that's really dishonest. ID'iot creationism consists of out-of-context quotation, distortion or avoidance of evidence, predetermined conclusions, and some flat-out lies, all masquerading in the guise of science. People deserve better than to have pseudoscience and lies passed off as real science.

Science, as opposed to religious dogma,  is a method of discovering the way the natural world works. If the evidence indicates that the world works differently than we had hoped, the scientific method cannot ignore the evidence. Sometimes, the process of science uncovers information that is uncomfortable and / or contrary to our view of humans as somehow separated from the natural world. ID'iot Creationism represents an attempt at resisting knowledge and learning. 

ID'iot Creationism attempts to protect a specific religious dogma by attacking science while offering nothing more than appeals to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Every great scientist stands on the shoulders of those that came before him.  Darwin's insight was to bring together the science of his day, his observations on the Beagle, and Malthus (the *Malthusian Theory* of Population is a *theory* of exponential population growth and arithmetic food supply growth).  Many people believed in evolution from the fossil record (dinosaurs showed that life was different in the past) and biology (racism) but Darwin supplied the missing piece, a *mechanism* for ToE.



Yes, but Hutton and Lyell were wrong.  Wrongness led to today Darwin and ToE.  I have the preponderance of evidence as most of Darwin's theories have been shown to be wrong.  Even his "survival of the fittest" (technically Spencer) has not stood the test of time.  Malthus just backs my evolutionary thought and history argument; It includes Malthus -- The Ecology of Human Populations: Thomas Malthus.  I hope you now know that you can't just stand on ToE and ignore origins.  It includes origins.

If many people believed in evo, then it wasn't due to Darwin.  What he did best was create Hitler, social Darwinism, WW II and Planned Parenthood.  His theories still needed long time in order to make it un-observable.  We didn't get that until 1956 -- Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson.

What exactly was this mechanism for ToE?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 100% backwards wrong. Science is purely materialistic.



Only because creation science was eliminated.  Just studying the material world means you are led to wrong conclusions .  Thus, it is you, you, you and atheist science that is 100% backward wrong.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There are honest Christians who have the intellectual integrity to not take the bible literally on scientific matters.



They've bought into naturalism philosophy, too.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% backwards wrong. Science is purely materialistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because creation science was eliminated.  Just studying the material world means you are led to wrong conclusions .  Thus, it is you, you, you and atheist science that is 100% backward wrong.
Click to expand...

No goober, there is no room for magic in science...not your magocal incantations or anyone else's....


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are honest Christians who have the intellectual integrity to not take the bible literally on scientific matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've bought into naturalism philosophy, too.
Click to expand...


I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No goober, there is no room for magic in science...not your magocal incantations or anyone else's....



To the contrary, you are the _goober_ who believes in magic in science.  You're the one with _magical _aliens, multiverses, dark matter, dark energy, infinite temperature and infinite density, boundless universes, humans from monkeys, birds from dinosaurs, abiogenesis and more wackiness because of believing in lies.  You cannot explain why we are alone.  I can explain by fine tuning facts, solar wind and Earth's habitability.  Thus, you have been been made to look foolish once again .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.



If I were you, then I would not be secure because nothing is backed up by the scientific method.  Otherwise, countless others and I would be on your side.  My hero, Blaise Pascal, came up with the idea of Pascal's wager.  This should be the default position and not the atheist or agnostic position of I don't believe in God or gods nor I don't know.


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak

This is funny:


This is not funny:


----------



## zaangalewa

Idiot


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were you, then I would not be secure because nothing is backed up by the scientific method.  Otherwise, countless others and I would be on your side.  My hero, Blaise Pascal, came up with the idea of Pascal's wager.  This should be the default position and not the atheist or agnostic position of I don't believe in God or gods nor I don't know.
Click to expand...


Correct. Nothing is backed up by the scientific method. It’s all one grand conspiracy. How clever of you to make that discovery. Have your doctors advised when you will emerge from your coma?

Do you realize you are utterly confused about Pascal’s wager? It’s another of the rather simple concepts you don’t understand.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are honest Christians who have the intellectual integrity to not take the bible literally on scientific matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've bought into naturalism philosophy, too.
Click to expand...


Is “naturalism philosophy” a slogan you cut and paste from the charlatans at AIG?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were you, then I would not be secure because nothing is backed up by the scientific method.  Otherwise, countless others and I would be on your side.  My hero, Blaise Pascal, came up with the idea of Pascal's wager.  This should be the default position and not the atheist or agnostic position of I don't believe in God or gods nor I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. Nothing is backed up by the scientific method. It’s all one grand conspiracy. How clever of you to make that discovery. Have your doctors advised when you will emerge from your coma?
> 
> Do you realize you are utterly confused about Pascal’s wager? It’s another of the rather simple concepts you don’t understand.
Click to expand...


God's work is backed up by the evidence like proteins can only be made from free amino acids INSIDE a cell, not outside.  Or we can find no aliens anywhere.  Or Earth has a lot going for it.  Your evolutionary flat earthers have no clue.  Evo does not even have monkeys that walk.  We do not see life begin from a geyser at Yellowstone.

Yup.  Pascal's wager should be the default position, but the majority will stick to their old, tired  they believe.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were you, then I would not be secure because nothing is backed up by the scientific method.  Otherwise, countless others and I would be on your side.  My hero, Blaise Pascal, came up with the idea of Pascal's wager.  This should be the default position and not the atheist or agnostic position of I don't believe in God or gods nor I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct. Nothing is backed up by the scientific method. It’s all one grand conspiracy. How clever of you to make that discovery. Have your doctors advised when you will emerge from your coma?
> 
> Do you realize you are utterly confused about Pascal’s wager? It’s another of the rather simple concepts you don’t understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's work is backed up by the evidence like proteins can only be made from free amino acids INSIDE a cell, not outside.  Or we can find no aliens anywhere.  Or Earth has a lot going for it.  Your evolutionary flat earthers have no clue.  Evo does not even have monkeys that walk.  We do not see life begin from a geyser at Yellowstone.
> 
> Yup.  Pascal's wager should be the default position, but the majority will stick to their old, tired  they believe.
Click to expand...


It's odd that you would claim the work of alleged gods is backed up by evidence when there is no evidence of gods as a prerequisite.

I'd be careful about attempting to use a reference to science in your screeching tirades as that would tend to conflict with your assessment that science is a conspiracy.

There is no requirement for life to begin at a Yellowstone geyser so why use that nonsense claim to support a failed argument.

Primates do walk so again, your claims self refute. 

You're using dark, conspiracies to support your argument for magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> It's odd that you would claim the work of alleged gods is backed up by evidence when there is no evidence of gods as a prerequisite.



We have to have faith for God to reveal himself.  Once you believe, then you will see the evidence.  The proteins can only be made inside a cell is fact.  It is observable, testable and falsifiable science.  You are ridiculous and not very scientific.



Hollie said:


> Primates do walk so again, your claims self refute.



This is just circular reasoning which is the basis of evolution.  You just proved it and gave yourself away haha.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's odd that you would claim the work of alleged gods is backed up by evidence when there is no evidence of gods as a prerequisite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to have faith for God to reveal himself.  Once you believe, then you will see the evidence.  The proteins can only be made inside a cell is fact.  It is observable, testable and falsifiable science.  You are ridiculous and not very scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Primates do walk so again, your claims self refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just circular reasoning which is the basis of evolution.  You just proved it and gave yourself away haha.
Click to expand...


It's actually comical that you attempt to use the very science you despise to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism. Cell proteins do nothing to support your various gods so why use that line of argumentation?

There is no circular reasoning in that apes can walk erect. You're getting rather frantic and lashing out with emotional tirades.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> It's actually comical that you attempt to use the very science you despise to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism. Cell proteins do nothing to support your various gods so why use that line of argumentation?
> 
> There is no circular reasoning in that apes can walk erect. You're getting rather frantic and lashing out with emotional tirades.



What tirade haha?  I'm enjoying myself watching you make a fool out of yourself.  You provide no science.  If one cannot make proteins, then one cannot make life.  There would be no building blocks of life.  Abiogenesis is pseudoscience like spontaneous generation (both disproved by Dr. Louis Pasteur).  See how God and real science works?

Not only do today's apes are not able to walk, they do not turn into ape-humans.  We do not even see tailed to tailless monkeys.  What happened to the present is the key to the past concept?  It's a total fail and goes to show you have faith in evolutionary bullsh*t.  I already demonstrated this, but it doesn't penetrate the thich and heavy Hollie skull haha.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 3 possibilities. And there are more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> What explains these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intentional alteration, light effects on one or more lenses, double exposed film, poor conditions in the film developing room...there are 4. Need more?
Click to expand...


I was meaning what would explain them to someone who was sane and rational


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually comical that you attempt to use the very science you despise to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism. Cell proteins do nothing to support your various gods so why use that line of argumentation?
> 
> There is no circular reasoning in that apes can walk erect. You're getting rather frantic and lashing out with emotional tirades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tirade haha?  I'm enjoying myself watching you make a fool out of yourself.  You provide no science.  If one cannot make proteins, then one cannot make life.  There would be no building blocks of life.  Abiogenesis is pseudoscience like spontaneous generation (both disproved by Dr. Louis Pasteur).  See how God and real science works?
> 
> Not only do today's apes are not able to walk, they do not turn into ape-humans.  We do not even see tailed to tailless monkeys.  What happened to the present is the key to the past concept?  It's a total fail and goes to show you have faith in evolutionary bullsh*t.  I already demonstrated this, but it doesn't penetrate the thich and heavy Hollie skull haha.
Click to expand...


The Pasteur reference is another of the frauds you cut and pasted from your ID'iot creation ministries. I debunked it earlier. Another indication that your frantic tirades are getting quite desperate. 

Odd that you woukd rattle on about proteins when it was science that gave us the knowledge of proteins, DNA, etc. Not surprisingly, nothing in the study of the biological sciences suggests that magic or supernaturalism plays a role in biology.

Otherwise, your frantic tirades how now been reduced to emotional outbursts of juvenile name-calling. 

That's pretty desperate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> I was meaning what would explain them to someone who was sane and rational


Which is exactly what I did, nutball.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was meaning what would explain them to someone who was sane and rational
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what I did, nutball.
Click to expand...


No, not at all. Your "explanations" are kind of chimp at a typewriter funny; they make no sense and don't explain anything. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the 1952 event.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was meaning what would explain them to someone who was sane and rational
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what I did, nutball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all. Your "explanations" are kind of chimp at a typewriter funny; they make no sense and don't explain anything. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the 1952 event.
Click to expand...

Yet you can't say why they dont make sense or why they don't explain anything. Because you are an anti intellectual moron, Francis


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What else explain it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I listed 3 possibilities. And there are more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> What explains these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intentional alteration, light effects on one or more lenses, double exposed film, poor conditions in the film developing room...there are 4. Need more?
Click to expand...


There were hundreds of eye witnesses on the ground including USAF.  You think they were all fooled by a bad picture?

That's what I meant when I said your "Explanations" were chimp at a typewriter


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> There were hundreds of eye witnesses on the ground including USAF


Sure there were.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were hundreds of eye witnesses on the ground including USAF
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there were.
Click to expand...


You didn't read the article I posted with it so of course your "Explanations" were laughable






"I sure explained that one away, eh, Crusader.  Excuse me, I have to go back to my day job, advising AOC on economic matters"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> You didn't read the article I posted


Correct, i didn't. Your posts and articles are generally worthless, steaming piles of shit.

But the 1952 incident was explained 60 years ago. And you have zero other evidence, so no rational person would accept your crackpot claims of aliens.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article I posted
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, i didn't. Your posts and articles are generally worthless, steaming piles of shit.
> 
> But the 1952 incident was explained 60 years ago. And you have zero other evidence, so no rational person would accept your crackpot claims of aliens.
Click to expand...


LOL. Then you wonder why I laugh at your "explanations"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article I posted
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, i didn't. Your posts and articles are generally worthless, steaming piles of shit.
> 
> But the 1952 incident was explained 60 years ago. And you have zero other evidence, so no rational person would accept your crackpot claims of aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Then you wonder why I laugh at your "explanations"
Click to expand...

All you presented was a picture. Was i supposed to swoon at the sight of it? And no, i wont read any article you post. You can just sum up the points yourself. Use your big boy words.

And no, it's not aliens. It was an optical illusion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article I posted
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, i didn't. Your posts and articles are generally worthless, steaming piles of shit.
> 
> But the 1952 incident was explained 60 years ago. And you have zero other evidence, so no rational person would accept your crackpot claims of aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Then you wonder why I laugh at your "explanations"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you presented was a picture. Was i supposed to swoon at the sight of it? And no, i wont read any article you post. You can just sum up the points yourself. Use your big boy words.
> 
> And no, it's not aliens. It was an optical illusion.
Click to expand...

Stop when you're way behind.


----------



## Death Angel

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?


No we are not alone. God is watching us along with countless BILLIONS of angels


----------



## Aponi

There may be other intelegent life. Probably are but due to just the greats distances in just our milky way let alone the universe we may never know.
Also our civilization is just developing the posiblity exists that we have been visited in the past by a long gone civilization.again we may never know


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The Pasteur reference is another of the frauds you cut and pasted from your ID'iot creation ministries. I debunked it earlier. Another indication that your frantic tirades are getting quite desperate.
> 
> Odd that you woukd rattle on about proteins when it was science that gave us the knowledge of proteins, DNA, etc. Not surprisingly, nothing in the study of the biological sciences suggests that magic or supernaturalism plays a role in biology.



Dr. Louis Pasteur is famous.  You're just jealous and green because he's a real scientist and a creationist.  You could not debunk any real science with your fake science.  That is hilarious.  Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You do not know much about proteins either.  Why is protein important?  How many amino acids does it consist of?  Explain chilarity.

As I've said many times, the supernatural only pertains to God, i.e. the Trinity, and what is explained in Genesis.  ToE came much later as one theory is that it was created by Satan and his demons at the Tower of Babel and handed down to King Nimrod.  Can you explain what Nirod did with it?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article I posted
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, i didn't. Your posts and articles are generally worthless, steaming piles of shit.
> 
> But the 1952 incident was explained 60 years ago. And you have zero other evidence, so no rational person would accept your crackpot claims of aliens.
Click to expand...



Lol, you mean covered up 60 years ago and your the one with zero evidence except poop coming out your ass.


----------



## abu afak

westwall said:


> *
> ID is a THEORY.  It doesn't point to anything. * PEOPLE have made a point of figuring out how amazing intelligent life is on this planet and that is very, very true.  But it all comes down to numbers.  Could life originate on any one of a few trillion possible planets in the universe?  The odds presented by the ID proponents say yes they can.  1 in a 100 billion I believe is the number that has been derived?  So yes in fact it _could_ be a random event.
> 
> And a scientist has three systems he/she can follow.  Religious, Atheist, Agnostic.  There is no evidence supporting God, nor is there evidence against.  So a scientist who believes in the scientific method and simple logic, has but one choice and that is agnosticism.  I value spirituality but I dislike those who would impose on me morals and ethics based purely on religion.  I believe that mans social contract with one another can be just as strong and relevant without religion being involved.  I view atheists as just as religious as their opponents just in a different way.  They too want to impose their systems on me and I don't appreciate that either.


Like everything you post, that's TOTAL and Stupid BS!

Intelligent Design Necessarily has an Intelligent DesignER, aka 'god.'

ID is Not a 'scientific theory,' it's stealth creationism used in most contexts to avoid Court losses on the topic.

You're such an unscientific asshole, who has both wrong premises AND faulty logic even if your wrong premises are accepted for arguments sake.
`
`


----------



## abu afak

SAVELIBERTY said:
			
		

> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet. Chemical theory is settled science in your mind. *Then why is it still theory?*


Another Clown.
Science does not have proofs.
Only Math has proofs.
Scientific theories get Affirmed over time.
ie, Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
As is Atomic theory, etc.
A 'Scientific Theory' (not to be confused with daily usage of 'theory') is the strongest statement science can make about the universe.
`

`


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak

To have to call an idiot idiot, because this idiot is dangerous, is not funny. You are wasting time and energy. Some people climb high with their own power - others try to press others down. As I said yet: It's easy to kill Archimedes - but it's difficult to be Archimedes.  Nevertheless it's much better to  try to go this way or a similiar way. But I'm tired now to try to  speak with you. The Roman who killed once his Greek enemy Archimedes ("Do not disturb my circles") had been by the way executed from his own people.


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak said:


> SAVELIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your throwing evolution at the frontiers of the universe out as a possibility, though you hold on to that theory on one little planet. Chemical theory is settled science in your mind. *Then why is it still theory?*
> 
> 
> 
> Another Clown.
Click to expand...


You call other people "clown"?



> Science does not have proofs.



Pasture is green. Take a look.



> Only Math has proofs.



¿Gödel's incompleteness theorems?



> Scientific theories get Affirmed over time.
> ie, Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.



Nearly nothing what someone says today about the theory of evolution is the same as the people said 50 years ago about the theory of evolution. Not to forget the Nazis and other darwinists and racists too, who try to make out of the biological theory of evolution an ideology for politics in societies. Specially how the environment activates and deactivates genes became for example more and more a mystery. Whatever. Better not to believe in anything what has to do with the theory of evolution instead to use the theory of evolution in wrong ways. The theory of evolution says for example _"all living forms on planet earth are sisters and brothers"_ - but who ever heard a darwinist say so? Saint Francis said so! For him not only all living forms even the sun and the moon were his sisters and brothers. Better to believe this, than to believe in any racism.



> A 'Scientific Theory' (not to be confused with daily usage of 'theory') is the strongest statement science can make about the universe.



But what today is true in science is able to be wrong tomorrow. But okay: On a higher level of truth and on a higher level of proof. But this is nothing, what has to do with evolution - this has to do with the human spirit and our traditions.


----------



## zaangalewa

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the article I posted
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, i didn't. Your posts and articles are generally worthless, steaming piles of shit.
> 
> But the 1952 incident was explained 60 years ago. And you have zero other evidence, so no rational person would accept your crackpot claims of aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, you mean covered up 60 years ago and your the one with zero evidence except poop coming out your ass.
Click to expand...


Only to make this clear: Norma Jean was an unbelievable intelligent and also an unbelievable beautiful woman. Very talented. She never did do suicide.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pasteur reference is another of the frauds you cut and pasted from your ID'iot creation ministries. I debunked it earlier. Another indication that your frantic tirades are getting quite desperate.
> 
> Odd that you woukd rattle on about proteins when it was science that gave us the knowledge of proteins, DNA, etc. Not surprisingly, nothing in the study of the biological sciences suggests that magic or supernaturalism plays a role in biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Louis Pasteur is famous.  You're just jealous and green because he's a real scientist and a creationist.  You could not debunk any real science with your fake science.  That is hilarious.  Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
> 
> You do not know much about proteins either.  Why is protein important?  How many amino acids does it consist of?  Explain chilarity.
> 
> As I've said many times, the supernatural only pertains to God, i.e. the Trinity, and what is explained in Genesis.  ToE came much later as one theory is that it was created by Satan and his demons at the Tower of Babel and handed down to King Nimrod.  Can you explain what Nirod did with it?
Click to expand...


Such childish nonsense. There is no reason to believe Dr. Pasteur was an ID’iot creationist. Why do you feel the need to force your extremist beliefs on others? 

It is concerning that you are unable to discern the difference between fantastical, supernatural realms you believe exist and contingent reality. In the alternate reality you dwell in, supernaturalism pertains to much more than you gods as you seem to have an inability to separate fantasy from reality. 

Your latest conspiracy theory has something to do with science and “the devil”. 

You need professional help.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the


Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Lol, you mean covered up 60 years ago


No, thats you being a crackpot.



bear513 said:


> and your the one with zero evidence


Of what? I'm not the crazy fool on the street corner with a bullhorn making insane claims. You are.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pasteur reference is another of the frauds you cut and pasted from your ID'iot creation ministries. I debunked it earlier. Another indication that your frantic tirades are getting quite desperate.
> 
> Odd that you woukd rattle on about proteins when it was science that gave us the knowledge of proteins, DNA, etc. Not surprisingly, nothing in the study of the biological sciences suggests that magic or supernaturalism plays a role in biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Louis Pasteur is famous.  You're just jealous and green because he's a real scientist and a creationist.  You could not debunk any real science with your fake science.  That is hilarious.  Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
> 
> You do not know much about proteins either.  Why is protein important?  How many amino acids does it consist of?  Explain chilarity.
> 
> As I've said many times, the supernatural only pertains to God, i.e. the Trinity, and what is explained in Genesis.  ToE came much later as one theory is that it was created by Satan and his demons at the Tower of Babel and handed down to King Nimrod.  Can you explain what Nirod did with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such childish nonsense. There is no reason to believe Dr. Pasteur was an ID’iot creationist. Why do you feel the need to force your extremist beliefs on others?
> 
> It is concerning that you are unable to discern the difference between fantastical, supernatural realms you believe exist and contingent reality. In the alternate reality you dwell in, supernaturalism pertains to much more than you gods as you seem to have an inability to separate fantasy from reality.
> 
> Your latest conspiracy theory has something to do with science and “the devil”.
> 
> You need professional help.
Click to expand...


Like I deduced months ago, you are looney tunes.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
Click to expand...


Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.

The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World

Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Pasteur reference is another of the frauds you cut and pasted from your ID'iot creation ministries. I debunked it earlier. Another indication that your frantic tirades are getting quite desperate.
> 
> Odd that you woukd rattle on about proteins when it was science that gave us the knowledge of proteins, DNA, etc. Not surprisingly, nothing in the study of the biological sciences suggests that magic or supernaturalism plays a role in biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Louis Pasteur is famous.  You're just jealous and green because he's a real scientist and a creationist.  You could not debunk any real science with your fake science.  That is hilarious.  Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
> 
> You do not know much about proteins either.  Why is protein important?  How many amino acids does it consist of?  Explain chilarity.
> 
> As I've said many times, the supernatural only pertains to God, i.e. the Trinity, and what is explained in Genesis.  ToE came much later as one theory is that it was created by Satan and his demons at the Tower of Babel and handed down to King Nimrod.  Can you explain what Nirod did with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such childish nonsense. There is no reason to believe Dr. Pasteur was an ID’iot creationist. Why do you feel the need to force your extremist beliefs on others?
> 
> It is concerning that you are unable to discern the difference between fantastical, supernatural realms you believe exist and contingent reality. In the alternate reality you dwell in, supernaturalism pertains to much more than you gods as you seem to have an inability to separate fantasy from reality.
> 
> Your latest conspiracy theory has something to do with science and “the devil”.
> 
> You need professional help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I deduced months ago, you are looney tunes.
Click to expand...


That's an odd claim as I am not the one making appeals to magic, supernatural entities, "Devils" and all manner of conspiracy theories that haunt your world.

Your belief in magic, supernaturalism and conspiracy theories requires you to abdicate _reason_ in the face of fear. Any gods which reward fear over reason are not worthy of worship.

So, your testimony is that the natural world is governed by the supernatural. let's see the preponderance of evidence, and let's apply critical thinking to it and see if it withstands scrutiny. As a matter of course, everything that you delineate in your appeals to partisan versions of supernatural gods we must also (in order to be fair and impartial) meet a standard of proof. Obviously, when we seek to apply standards to your gods, you rattle on with endless exceptions why supernaturalism is exempt.

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation, doesn't it? No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it seems to be playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
Click to expand...


You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books


----------



## anynameyouwish

Madeline said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too big of a Universe not to say there isn't anything out there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlin', triple negatives confuse me.  Are you saying that due to the size of the universe, you feel odds are there is other intelligent life out there?
Click to expand...


the universe is 14 billion years old

our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.

if life can evolve here, in less than 5 billion years, it is quite possible that life originated elsewhere. Some of that life could be billions of years older than us.

so YES it is probable that there is life elsewhere and YES it is probable that some much older and more advanced civilization has visited us.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
Click to expand...


You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
Click to expand...


The "generation future" in Germany are today by the way often very well educated and very intelligent young people: poor, without job.


----------



## zaangalewa

anynameyouwish said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too big of a Universe not to say there isn't anything out there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darlin', triple negatives confuse me.  Are you saying that due to the size of the universe, you feel odds are there is other intelligent life out there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the universe is 14 billion years old
Click to expand...


13.8



> our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old.
> 
> if life can evolve here, in less than 5 billion years, it is quite possible that life originated elsewhere. Some of that life could be billions of years older than us.
> 
> so YES it is probable that there is life elsewhere and YES it is probable that some much older and more advanced civilization has visited us.



No.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?
Click to expand...


Actually, that is laughably inept. There are no differences in molecules. The water molecules in primates are the same molecules in all of the natural world. 

What is the chemical symbol for the water molecule?

You make yourself the biggest buffoon when you rattle off your ID’iot creation ignorance.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is laughably inept. There are no differences in molecules. The water molecules in primates are the same molecules in all of the natural world.
> 
> What is the chemical symbol for the water molecule?
Click to expand...


H2O. Nevertheless there is a possibility for example that water has a kind of memory, what could for example also explain why homeopathic agents help sometimes. I used one a short time ago - it had helped really, although I do not believe in homeopathic agents. I heard it helps also in case of animals so "placebo" is perhaps not the best explanation, why this form of medicine helps sometimes.



> You make yourself the biggest buffoon when you rattle off your ID’iot creation ignorance.



What is a buffon? A dog? ... Or has this something to do with Mr. Buffon, the founder of the Jardin de Plant and his book "histoire naturelle" where he spoke about a "moule intérieur" (an inner structure) which is common between all natural species? When I today think about what a "moule intérieur" could be, then I would say this sounds like "DNA", isn't it? Seems to me Mr Buffon, who had lived in 17xx, was a damned intelligent man, isn't it? ... ah got it now: "buffoon" not Buffon - buffoon is a synonym for a joker or a fool ...


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?
Click to expand...

You have to imagine like you do god.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> You have to imagine like you do god.



I use faith for God and the scientific method to back up the Bible, but I have to use imagination, circular reasoning, other fallacious thinking and believing in out and out bullsh*t with absolutely no evidence for evolution.  For example, people do not believe in global warming anymore because of Trump and exposing fake science and scientists.  We even have real news and fake clickbait news.  You have become sealybozo, due to de-evolution (?), from the time I met you.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to imagine like you do god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use faith for God and the scientific method to back up the Bible, but I have to use imagination, circular reasoning, other fallacious thinking and believing in out and out bullsh*t with absolutely no evidence for evolution.  For example, people do not believe in global warming anymore because of Trump and exposing fake science and scientists.  We even have real news and fake clickbait news.  You have become sealybozo, due to de-evolution (?), from the time I met you.
Click to expand...

God people are fucking dumb.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> what could for example also explain why homeopathic agents help sometimes


Homeopathic agents do not "help sometimes". Homeopathy is a steaming pile of horseshit.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> what could for example also explain why homeopathic agents help sometimes
> 
> 
> 
> Homeopathic agents do not "help sometimes". Homeopathy is a steaming pile of horseshit.
Click to expand...

a more ignorant comment has never been said,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> what could for example also explain why homeopathic agents help sometimes
> 
> 
> 
> Homeopathic agents do not "help sometimes". Homeopathy is a steaming pile of horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a more ignorant comment has never been said,,,
Click to expand...

Hey look! Its the attention-begging troll, saying stupid shit to elicit responses!


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK we are the only intelligent life and less intelligent life in the universe.  Then we have the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is laughably inept. There are no differences in molecules. The water molecules in primates are the same molecules in all of the natural world.
> 
> What is the chemical symbol for the water molecule?
> 
> You make yourself the biggest buffoon when you rattle off your ID’iot creation ignorance.
Click to expand...


I love when they say global warming and evolution have been debunked.  I watch these shows that give very detailed explanations on how they came to the conclusions they came to.  I have to admit it's over my head.  




But then I come here and I hear fucking morons telling us that it's official that evolution is debunked.  LOL.  They are complete idiots.  

Unfortunately they are winning elections.  Corporate polluters have convinced the right wing nutbags in America that global warming isn't real.

This is why I realized they use religion to dupe us.  I notice the same people who deny evolution and the same fools who deny global warming.  

What makes me thing Christianity is a con game?  Just look at the Christians.

The secret is to get to them when they are young


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> what could for example also explain why homeopathic agents help sometimes
> 
> 
> 
> Homeopathic agents do not "help sometimes". Homeopathy is a steaming pile of horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a more ignorant comment has never been said,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey look! Its the attention-begging troll, saying stupid shit to elicit responses!
Click to expand...



did you know that most modern medicines are based on homeopathic compounds????


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad if we are as smart as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is laughably inept. There are no differences in molecules. The water molecules in primates are the same molecules in all of the natural world.
> 
> What is the chemical symbol for the water molecule?
> 
> You make yourself the biggest buffoon when you rattle off your ID’iot creation ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love when they say global warming and evolution have been debunked.  I watch these shows that give very detailed explanations on how they came to the conclusions they came to.  I have to admit it's over my head.
> View attachment 255470
> 
> But then I come here and I hear fucking morons telling us that it's official that evolution is debunked.  LOL.  They are complete idiots.
> 
> Unfortunately they are winning elections.  Corporate polluters have convinced the right wing nutbags in America that global warming isn't real.
> 
> This is why I realized they use religion to dupe us.  I notice the same people who deny evolution and the same fools who deny global warming.
> 
> What makes me thing Christianity is a con game?  Just look at the Christians.
> 
> The secret is to get to them when they are young
Click to expand...



is that why they start teaching evolution in pre school???


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe for you sealybobo, but yesterday I was looking at the wonders of the world and Big Ben.
> 
> The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World
> 
> Click through some of the other ThoughtCo articles on wonders of the world and human accomplishments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is laughably inept. There are no differences in molecules. The water molecules in primates are the same molecules in all of the natural world.
> 
> What is the chemical symbol for the water molecule?
> 
> You make yourself the biggest buffoon when you rattle off your ID’iot creation ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love when they say global warming and evolution have been debunked.  I watch these shows that give very detailed explanations on how they came to the conclusions they came to.  I have to admit it's over my head.
> View attachment 255470
> 
> But then I come here and I hear fucking morons telling us that it's official that evolution is debunked.  LOL.  They are complete idiots.
> 
> Unfortunately they are winning elections.  Corporate polluters have convinced the right wing nutbags in America that global warming isn't real.
> 
> This is why I realized they use religion to dupe us.  I notice the same people who deny evolution and the same fools who deny global warming.
> 
> What makes me thing Christianity is a con game?  Just look at the Christians.
> 
> The secret is to get to them when they are young
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they start teaching evolution in pre school???
Click to expand...


In part, yes. We live in a technical world and education is critical to competing in the modern, educated economy. 

You Christian Taliban wannabes hoping to drag the US back into the grip of fear and superstition is not helpful.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what separates us from monkeys? About 1%. Imagine another creature in the universe 1% smarter than us. Their babies would play with trigonometry like you played with coloring books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is laughably inept. There are no differences in molecules. The water molecules in primates are the same molecules in all of the natural world.
> 
> What is the chemical symbol for the water molecule?
> 
> You make yourself the biggest buffoon when you rattle off your ID’iot creation ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love when they say global warming and evolution have been debunked.  I watch these shows that give very detailed explanations on how they came to the conclusions they came to.  I have to admit it's over my head.
> View attachment 255470
> 
> But then I come here and I hear fucking morons telling us that it's official that evolution is debunked.  LOL.  They are complete idiots.
> 
> Unfortunately they are winning elections.  Corporate polluters have convinced the right wing nutbags in America that global warming isn't real.
> 
> This is why I realized they use religion to dupe us.  I notice the same people who deny evolution and the same fools who deny global warming.
> 
> What makes me thing Christianity is a con game?  Just look at the Christians.
> 
> The secret is to get to them when they are young
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they start teaching evolution in pre school???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In part, yes. We live in a technical world and education is critical to competing in the modern, educated economy.
> 
> You Christian Taliban wannabes hoping to drag the US back into the grip of fear and superstition is not helpful.
Click to expand...


And I don't think they teach evolution to elementary students.  Do they?  They should.  

What Darwin knew about kids should be obvious to anyone who has one: They make good amateur scientists. "At age 3, 4, 5, 6, all they ask is, 'What's that and where did it come from?


"What's that?" It's a bird. "And where did it come from?" The correct, and interesting, answer is "from a dinosaur that was well-adapted to changing conditions millions of years ago." But in a lot of schools, kids are just as likely to hear "from the sky." "I think a lot of people believe that if we can get evolution taught well in high school, we should just be happy with that, because teaching it in middle school will bring angry parents out of the woodwork," says Purrington. "As for elementary school, that's a line almost no one wants to cross."

Even parents and teachers who have no religious objection to evolution often balk at sharing the concept with young kids. Some of them say it's too complex, to explain to kids who are still learning the basics. "I think there's a perception by teachers that evolution is horribly hard to teach," says Purrington. "There's a fear that if they don't have an advanced degree in biology, they'll get something wrong."

Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.

The Concord Consortium is already working on one way to teach evolution to kids—an interactive, technology-driven fourth-grade curriculum called Evolution Readiness. The group is testing the approach in classrooms in Massachusetts, Missouri, and Texas. It's purposely keeping things simple, but it's not talking down to its students. "When you're 10 years old, the time to your next birthday is a long time, so it's really hard to understand things that take place over millennia," says Horwitz, who leads the project. "So we're looking at adaptation over a few generations, not a few million years." The group is also keeping things at the macro level, leaving out discussions of the genetic change that drives evolution—which, of course, is how Darwin did things, too, since genetic science hadn't been worked out in his time.

Why Evolution Should Be Taught to Younger Kids


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using statistics which could be made to back anything.  Instead of DNA, look at the differences in molecules between humans and monkeys.  Hundreds of millions of differences.  It goes to show they are not the same.  Why are the DNA so similar?  It just means God reused the same parts.  As for your another creature, why don't you show us it?  Or do I have to _imagine_ it like everything that has to do with evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is laughably inept. There are no differences in molecules. The water molecules in primates are the same molecules in all of the natural world.
> 
> What is the chemical symbol for the water molecule?
> 
> You make yourself the biggest buffoon when you rattle off your ID’iot creation ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love when they say global warming and evolution have been debunked.  I watch these shows that give very detailed explanations on how they came to the conclusions they came to.  I have to admit it's over my head.
> View attachment 255470
> 
> But then I come here and I hear fucking morons telling us that it's official that evolution is debunked.  LOL.  They are complete idiots.
> 
> Unfortunately they are winning elections.  Corporate polluters have convinced the right wing nutbags in America that global warming isn't real.
> 
> This is why I realized they use religion to dupe us.  I notice the same people who deny evolution and the same fools who deny global warming.
> 
> What makes me thing Christianity is a con game?  Just look at the Christians.
> 
> The secret is to get to them when they are young
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that why they start teaching evolution in pre school???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In part, yes. We live in a technical world and education is critical to competing in the modern, educated economy.
> 
> You Christian Taliban wannabes hoping to drag the US back into the grip of fear and superstition is not helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I don't think they teach evolution to elementary students.  Do they?  They should.
> 
> What Darwin knew about kids should be obvious to anyone who has one: They make good amateur scientists. "At age 3, 4, 5, 6, all they ask is, 'What's that and where did it come from?
> 
> 
> "What's that?" It's a bird. "And where did it come from?" The correct, and interesting, answer is "from a dinosaur that was well-adapted to changing conditions millions of years ago." But in a lot of schools, kids are just as likely to hear "from the sky." "I think a lot of people believe that if we can get evolution taught well in high school, we should just be happy with that, because teaching it in middle school will bring angry parents out of the woodwork," says Purrington. "As for elementary school, that's a line almost no one wants to cross."
> 
> Even parents and teachers who have no religious objection to evolution often balk at sharing the concept with young kids. Some of them say it's too complex, to explain to kids who are still learning the basics. "I think there's a perception by teachers that evolution is horribly hard to teach," says Purrington. "There's a fear that if they don't have an advanced degree in biology, they'll get something wrong."
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> The Concord Consortium is already working on one way to teach evolution to kids—an interactive, technology-driven fourth-grade curriculum called Evolution Readiness. The group is testing the approach in classrooms in Massachusetts, Missouri, and Texas. It's purposely keeping things simple, but it's not talking down to its students. "When you're 10 years old, the time to your next birthday is a long time, so it's really hard to understand things that take place over millennia," says Horwitz, who leads the project. "So we're looking at adaptation over a few generations, not a few million years." The group is also keeping things at the macro level, leaving out discussions of the genetic change that drives evolution—which, of course, is how Darwin did things, too, since genetic science hadn't been worked out in his time.
> 
> Why Evolution Should Be Taught to Younger Kids
Click to expand...



thats called indoctrination,,,


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hey look! Its the attention-begging troll, saying stupid shit to elicit responses!



Narcissism is part of Hollywood values.  It sounds as if you are looking in the mirror and bragging about yourself -- attention-begging, troll and the rest.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.



The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.

Let's look at how they're doing Brexit.

"As a European Union member, the UK is part of about 40 trade agreements which the union has with more than 70 countries. If the UK leaves the EU in a no-deal Brexit on 29 March, it will immediately lose these deals.

Last year, the UK government said it wanted to replicate the EU's trade agreements "as far as possible" and have them ready to go immediately in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

So how much progress has the government made?

*'No deals yet'*
Being a part of the EU means the UK (or any other EU member) cannot implement its own trade deals. Trade negotiations are instead handled by the EU on behalf of its members.

These existing arrangements are designed to make trade easier between the EU and the rest of the world. This could include: relaxing certain rules, reducing taxes (tariffs) on imports and exports, or granting easier market access.

The government estimates that about 11% of UK's trade relies on the EU's agreements with other countries.

But on Thursday, International Trade Minister George Hollingbery told the Commons: "There are no deals yet that have been actually signed."

However, the minister added that he was confident "the majority of those will be in place by 29 March"."

How many trade agreements has the UK done?

Lucky for the UK, Brexit has been blocked for now.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.
Click to expand...


Well we had a fight about it decades ago and you lost.  We now teach it in school.  Are we doomed? 

Just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time. 

62 percent majority of white evangelical Protestants take the position that humans have evolved over time.

just 27 percent of black Protestants take the “creationist” position, while a 71 percent majority say humans have evolved over time.

88% of catholics believe in evolution


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> And I don't think they teach evolution to elementary students. Do they? They should.



Schools should not teach false science and lies.  It goes to show how desperate you are as more and more people question evolution.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we had a fight about it decades ago and you lost.  We now teach it in school.  Are we doomed?
> 
> Just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 62 percent majority of white evangelical Protestants take the position that humans have evolved over time.
> 
> just 27 percent of black Protestants take the “creationist” position, while a 71 percent majority say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 88% of catholics believe in evolution
Click to expand...

that just proves indoctrination works,,even with something like evolution that has absolutely no proof


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we had a fight about it decades ago and you lost.  We now teach it in school.  Are we doomed?
> 
> Just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 62 percent majority of white evangelical Protestants take the position that humans have evolved over time.
> 
> just 27 percent of black Protestants take the “creationist” position, while a 71 percent majority say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 88% of catholics believe in evolution
Click to expand...


Source?

In the US, the fight is being waged state by state.  Slowly but surely, creation science is making a comeback.  Students are questioning evolution since 2007.


----------



## sealybobo

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in Evolution

In 1982, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution to “affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement.”

While the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has not issued a definitive statement on evolution, it does contend that “God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation.”

many Hindus today do not find their beliefs to be incompatible with the theory of evolution.

While the Koran teaches that Allah created human beings as they appear today, Islamic scholars and followers are divided on the theory of evolution. Theologically conservative Muslims who ascribe to literal interpretations of the Koran generally denounce the evolutionary argument for natural selection, whereas many theologically liberal Muslims believe that while man is divinely created, evolution is not necessarily incompatible with Islamic principles.

Jewish teachings generally do not find an inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and faith.

Are you a loser Lutheran?  

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod teaches that “the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual, not merely a ‘myth’ or ‘story’ made up to explain the origin of all things.” The church rejects evolution or any theory that “denies or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture.”

In 1969, the Presbyterian Church’s governing body amended its previous position on evolution, which was originally drafted in the 19th century, to affirm that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. 

Or a loser Baptist?  In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution rejecting the theory of evolution

The United Church of Christ finds evolutionary theory and Christian faith to be compatible, embracing evolution as a means “to see our faith in a new way.”

In 2008, the church’s highest legislative body passed a resolution saying that “science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with [the church’s] theology.” Moreover, the church states that “many apparent scientific references in [the] Bible … are intended to be metaphorical [and] were included to help understand the religious principles, but not to teach science.”


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we had a fight about it decades ago and you lost.  We now teach it in school.  Are we doomed?
> 
> Just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 62 percent majority of white evangelical Protestants take the position that humans have evolved over time.
> 
> just 27 percent of black Protestants take the “creationist” position, while a 71 percent majority say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 88% of catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> In the US, the fight is being waged state by state.  Slowly but surely, creation science is making a comeback.  Students are questioning evolution since 2007.
Click to expand...


How Many Creationists Are There in America?


Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we had a fight about it decades ago and you lost.  We now teach it in school.  Are we doomed?
> 
> Just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 62 percent majority of white evangelical Protestants take the position that humans have evolved over time.
> 
> just 27 percent of black Protestants take the “creationist” position, while a 71 percent majority say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 88% of catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> In the US, the fight is being waged state by state.  Slowly but surely, creation science is making a comeback.  Students are questioning evolution since 2007.
Click to expand...


Depends on what religion you are.  If you are in a state with a bunch of Southern Baptists or Lutherans maybe.  But I bet you those states rank the lowest in education and science and math.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we had a fight about it decades ago and you lost.  We now teach it in school.  Are we doomed?
> 
> Just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 62 percent majority of white evangelical Protestants take the position that humans have evolved over time.
> 
> just 27 percent of black Protestants take the “creationist” position, while a 71 percent majority say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 88% of catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> In the US, the fight is being waged state by state.  Slowly but surely, creation science is making a comeback.  Students are questioning evolution since 2007.
Click to expand...


*14 States Use Tax Dollars to Teach Creationism in Public Schools*

*Arizona*.
*Arkansas*. ...
*Colorado*, *Wisconsin*. ...
*Florida*. ...
*Georgia*, *Oklahoma*, *Utah*. ...
*Indiana*. ...
*Louisiana*. ...
*Ohio*


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we had a fight about it decades ago and you lost.  We now teach it in school.  Are we doomed?
> 
> Just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 62 percent majority of white evangelical Protestants take the position that humans have evolved over time.
> 
> just 27 percent of black Protestants take the “creationist” position, while a 71 percent majority say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 88% of catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> In the US, the fight is being waged state by state.  Slowly but surely, creation science is making a comeback.  Students are questioning evolution since 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How Many Creationists Are There in America?
> 
> 
> Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution
Click to expand...


They believe in natural selection.  Not the rest of the BS of evolution.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UK is doomed!  It's dumb and dumber becoming true in real life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we had a fight about it decades ago and you lost.  We now teach it in school.  Are we doomed?
> 
> Just 18 percent of U.S adults say humans have always existed in their present form, while 81 percent say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 62 percent majority of white evangelical Protestants take the position that humans have evolved over time.
> 
> just 27 percent of black Protestants take the “creationist” position, while a 71 percent majority say humans have evolved over time.
> 
> 88% of catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> In the US, the fight is being waged state by state.  Slowly but surely, creation science is making a comeback.  Students are questioning evolution since 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *14 States Use Tax Dollars to Teach Creationism in Public Schools*
> 
> *Arizona*.
> *Arkansas*. ...
> *Colorado*, *Wisconsin*. ...
> *Florida*. ...
> *Georgia*, *Oklahoma*, *Utah*. ...
> *Indiana*. ...
> *Louisiana*. ...
> *Ohio*
Click to expand...


It's creation science and not religion.  Evolution is the same as atheist religion as God has been systematically eliminated.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> But I bet you those states rank the lowest in education and science and math.



What kind of science?  Atheist science?


----------



## sealybobo

I hear there are a lot of Lutherans in Missouri

*St. Louis and Kansas City rank well in education, but Missouri lands in bottom half of states*

*The state proved to be consistently below average in both major categories used to come up with the rankings:*

*Of neighboring states, those to the east, west and north finished better (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska) while the states to the south finished lower on the list (Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas).

The highest-ranked states are Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont and Colorado.


*


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I bet you those states rank the lowest in education and science and math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of science?  Atheist science?
Click to expand...

Forget science.  Lets talk about math.  Those states rank lowest in math too.  And not atheist math.  Just math.  They suck at math.  Science too.  Even the non atheist science, they suck.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't think they teach evolution to elementary students. Do they? They should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schools should not teach false science and lies.  It goes to show how desperate you are as more and more people question evolution.
Click to expand...

They are teaching the facts as we know them.  And everything we know today came from thinkers like them.    

You couldn't argue the facts that lead us to evolution.  What you do is you don't know the facts and you just blow off the conclusion.  If you knew all the facts you'd know how stupid you sound.

Prays be god.


----------



## Likkmee

Look in the yellow pages
Lawyers
Doctors
Accountants
Boards of directors.
You're likely alone.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> They are teaching the facts as we know them. And everything we know today came from thinkers like them.
> 
> You couldn't argue the facts that lead us to evolution. What you do is you don't know the facts and you just blow off the conclusion. If you knew all the facts you'd know how stupid you sound.
> 
> Prays be god.



Prays be to God, but we are alone as he created us in his image.  The evos can't stand it tho.

This is the type of facts that should be taught about evolution.  Regarding Darwin, it must be taught that his kind of "survival of the fittest" thinking led to exclusionary and elitist socialDarwinism, racist Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, genocide against blacks and Planned Parenthood.  I think it starts with changing the US Supreme Court.  Then we may get some rulings favoring real science -- creation science.  Prays be to God for that.

The only thing evolution got right was natural selection and that isn't such a big deal anymore except the evos used it to foist the genocidal, racist and other BS thinking masquerading as science upon the masses.  Not only that, there are no morals behind not having God and a creator.  Science does not deal with moral values.  With evolution, science itself has become immoral believing in lies instead of the scientific method.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I bet you those states rank the lowest in education and science and math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of science?  Atheist science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forget science.  Lets talk about math.  Those states rank lowest in math too.  And not atheist math.  Just math.  They suck at math.  Science too.  Even the non atheist science, they suck.
Click to expand...


Source?


----------



## james bond

I don't have the latest figures, but the US is ranked towards the bottom in math and science.  Is this due to atheist science or what?  The US students are mediocre or less in other subjects.

Here's The New Ranking Of Top Countries In Reading, Science, And Math

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/ranking-countries-by-the-worst-students


----------



## james bond

sealybobo just what are you atheists and atheist religion teaching the students?  NASA claims they will find aliens, i.e. microbes, by the year 2025.  There isn't any evidence of them and they do not team the fine tuning facts.  Why are these key findings in science being ignored?  Next, they will be saying GMO foods are safe.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are teaching the facts as we know them. And everything we know today came from thinkers like them.
> 
> You couldn't argue the facts that lead us to evolution. What you do is you don't know the facts and you just blow off the conclusion. If you knew all the facts you'd know how stupid you sound.
> 
> Prays be god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prays be to God, but we are alone as he created us in his image.  The evos can't stand it tho.
> 
> This is the type of facts that should be taught about evolution.  Regarding Darwin, it must be taught that his kind of "survival of the fittest" thinking led to exclusionary and elitist socialDarwinism, racist Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, genocide against blacks and Planned Parenthood.  I think it starts with changing the US Supreme Court.  Then we may get some rulings favoring real science -- creation science.  Prays be to God for that.
> 
> The only thing evolution got right was natural selection and that isn't such a big deal anymore except the evos used it to foist the genocidal, racist and other BS thinking masquerading as science upon the masses.  Not only that, there are no morals behind not having God and a creator.  Science does not deal with moral values.  With evolution, science itself has become immoral believing in lies instead of the scientific method.
Click to expand...


That was quite the Bible thumping tirade. As usual, all of it is just the ranting of the xtian Taliban. 

Your tirade attempting to link Darwinian theory is right out of the extremist xtian ministries and has been thoroughly debunked as the ranting of the more excitable zealots. 

It’s really disappointing to see the fundie zealots screeching about morals when the same zealots litter their tirades with lies, falsehoods and misrepresentation.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are teaching the facts as we know them. And everything we know today came from thinkers like them.
> 
> You couldn't argue the facts that lead us to evolution. What you do is you don't know the facts and you just blow off the conclusion. If you knew all the facts you'd know how stupid you sound.
> 
> Prays be god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prays be to God, but we are alone as he created us in his image.  The evos can't stand it tho.
> 
> This is the type of facts that should be taught about evolution.  Regarding Darwin, it must be taught that his kind of "survival of the fittest" thinking led to exclusionary and elitist socialDarwinism, racist Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, genocide against blacks and Planned Parenthood.  I think it starts with changing the US Supreme Court.  Then we may get some rulings favoring real science -- creation science.  Prays be to God for that.
> 
> The only thing evolution got right was natural selection and that isn't such a big deal anymore except the evos used it to foist the genocidal, racist and other BS thinking masquerading as science upon the masses.  Not only that, there are no morals behind not having God and a creator.  Science does not deal with moral values.  With evolution, science itself has become immoral believing in lies instead of the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was quite the Bible thumping tirade. As usual, all of it is just the ranting of the xtian Taliban.
> 
> Your tirade attempting to link Darwinian theory is right out of the extremist xtian ministries and has been thoroughly debunked as the ranting of the more excitable zealots.
> 
> It’s really disappointing to see the fundie zealots screeching about morals when the same zealots litter their tirades with lies, falsehoods and misrepresentation.
Click to expand...


I didn't use one quote from the Bible, but world history after Darwin.  It goes to show you do not know Herbert Spencer nor Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton who came up with Eugenics.  Even Darwin's father and his fellow scientists thought blacks were of a lower class.  It was part of pseudoscientific racism they believed in.  It is no mistake the black man is lower on the evolutionary scale and drawn more like an ape that the white man.  

Darwin demonstrated his racism in his second book The Descent of Man.  Darwin's writings and conceptions ended up influencing Ernst Haeckel who used them to form his own biological ideas that he wanted to do and experiment on refugees with Hitler.  Darwin also influenced Houston Chamberlain into forming anti-Semitic ideas for the Nazi racial party.  Thus, Darwin's ideas were responsible for the deaths of over nine million people in Nazi concentration camps.  Satan himself could not have done a better job sending these people to their deaths.  

Do you consider yourself _superior_ because of Darwin's ideas?  You do not even know me and yet put me is a stereotype of Christians.  Your posts are ridiculous and easily dismissed.

https://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf

You notice that I proved links to back up what I have been saying and it is all part of history.  However, we do not hear this from the atheists.  What we hear is defense of Darwin and how great of a scientist he was.  He could just as well been a mass murderer.


----------



## zaangalewa

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> what could for example also explain why homeopathic agents help sometimes
> 
> 
> 
> Homeopathic agents do not "help sometimes". Homeopathy is a steaming pile of horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a more ignorant comment has never been said,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey look! Its the attention-begging troll, saying stupid shit to elicit responses!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> did you know that most modern medicines are based on homeopathic compounds????
Click to expand...


No. But in medicine truth is a very simple thing: _"Who heals is right!"_. But not to forget prevention: no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes, no distress, weighted out and diversified food - incuding times of fastening - activity, movements of the body, soul and spirit, meditations, studies, a pet ... and not to forget: social communication with real persons and not only virtuality ... and so on.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are teaching the facts as we know them. And everything we know today came from thinkers like them.
> 
> You couldn't argue the facts that lead us to evolution. What you do is you don't know the facts and you just blow off the conclusion. If you knew all the facts you'd know how stupid you sound.
> 
> Prays be god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prays be to God, but we are alone as he created us in his image.  The evos can't stand it tho.
> 
> This is the type of facts that should be taught about evolution.  Regarding Darwin, it must be taught that his kind of "survival of the fittest" thinking led to exclusionary and elitist socialDarwinism, racist Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, genocide against blacks and Planned Parenthood.  I think it starts with changing the US Supreme Court.  Then we may get some rulings favoring real science -- creation science.  Prays be to God for that.
> 
> The only thing evolution got right was natural selection and that isn't such a big deal anymore except the evos used it to foist the genocidal, racist and other BS thinking masquerading as science upon the masses.  Not only that, there are no morals behind not having God and a creator.  Science does not deal with moral values.  With evolution, science itself has become immoral believing in lies instead of the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was quite the Bible thumping tirade. As usual, all of it is just the ranting of the xtian Taliban.
> 
> Your tirade attempting to link Darwinian theory is right out of the extremist xtian ministries and has been thoroughly debunked as the ranting of the more excitable zealots.
> 
> It’s really disappointing to see the fundie zealots screeching about morals when the same zealots litter their tirades with lies, falsehoods and misrepresentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't use one quote from the Bible, but world history after Darwin.  It goes to show you do not know Herbert Spencer nor Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton who came up with Eugenics.  Even Darwin's father and his fellow scientists thought blacks were of a lower class.  It was part of pseudoscientific racism they believed in.  It is no mistake the black man is lower on the evolutionary scale and drawn more like an ape that the white man.
> 
> Darwin demonstrated his racism in his second book The Descent of Man.  Darwin's writings and conceptions ended up influencing Ernst Haeckel who used them to form his own biological ideas that he wanted to do and experiment on refugees with Hitler.  Darwin also influenced Houston Chamberlain into forming anti-Semitic ideas for the Nazi racial party.  Thus, Darwin's ideas were responsible for the deaths of over nine million people in Nazi concentration camps.  Satan himself could not have done a better job sending these people to their deaths.
> 
> Do you consider yourself _superior_ because of Darwin's ideas?  You do not even know me and yet put me is a stereotype of Christians.  Your posts are ridiculous and easily dismissed.
> 
> https://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf
> 
> You notice that I proved links to back up what I have been saying and it is all part of history.  However, we do not hear this from the atheists.  What we hear is defense of Darwin and how great of a scientist he was.  He could just as well been a mass murderer.
Click to expand...


It’s actually pretty funny that the xtian zealot would reference Hitler in his rants. Nazi ideology was deeply rooted in Christianity. The Wehrmacht had the inscription “Got mitt uns” (god is with us), on their belt buckles.

As usual, there is not a single reference to your frantic rants where you claim racism and eugenics is tied to evolutionary biology. In fact, your rants are nothing more than nonsensical claims you steal from the worst of the worst fundie xtian ministries.

I find it not at all surprising that the most extreme bible thumpers are often the most racist. Certainly, you are in good company with the racist and mentally deficient Henry Morris and his legacy of ignorance.




*Claim CA005:*
Evolution promotes racism.


*Source:*
Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.

CA005.1:  Darwin's racism

*Response:*

When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism. 


Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite. 


Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism. 


Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries. 


Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism. 


Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples: 
George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,The poor little fellow who went to the south
  Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
  And his mind became a blank.In _The Phantom of Organic Evolution_, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85). 


During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998). 


The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery. 


Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).


None of this matters to the science of evolution.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't use one quote from the Bible, but world history after Darwin.  It goes to show you do not know Herbert Spencer nor Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton who came up with Eugenics.  Even Darwin's father and his fellow scientists thought blacks were of a lower class.  It was part of pseudoscientific racism they believed in.  It is no mistake the black man is lower on the evolutionary scale and drawn more like an ape that the white man.
> 
> Darwin demonstrated his racism in his second book The Descent of Man.  Darwin's writings and conceptions ended up influencing Ernst Haeckel who used them to form his own biological ideas that he wanted to do and experiment on refugees with Hitler.  Darwin also influenced Houston Chamberlain into forming anti-Semitic ideas for the Nazi racial party.  Thus, Darwin's ideas were responsible for the deaths of over nine million people in Nazi concentration camps.  Satan himself could not have done a better job sending these people to their deaths.
> 
> Do you consider yourself _superior_ because of Darwin's ideas?  You do not even know me and yet put me is a stereotype of Christians.  Your posts are ridiculous and easily dismissed.
> 
> https://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf
> 
> You notice that I proved links to back up what I have been saying and it is all part of history.  However, we do not hear this from the atheists.  What we hear is defense of Darwin and how great of a scientist he was.  He could just as well been a mass murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s actually pretty funny that the xtian zealot would reference Hitler in his rants. Nazi ideology was deeply rooted in Christianity. The Wehrmacht had the inscription “Got mitt uns” (god is with us), on their belt buckles.
> 
> As usual, there is not a single reference to your frantic rants where you claim racism and eugenics is tied to evolutionary biology. In fact, your rants are nothing more than nonsensical claims you steal from the worst of the worst fundie xtian ministries.
> 
> I find it not at all surprising that the most extreme bible thumpers are often the most racist. Certainly, you are in good company with the racist and mentally deficient Henry Morris and his legacy of ignorance.
> 
> *Claim CA005:*
> Evolution promotes racism.
> 
> *Source:*
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> CA005.1:  Darwin's racism
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
> 
> 
> Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
> 
> 
> Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
> 
> 
> Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.
> 
> 
> Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.
> 
> 
> Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:
> George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,The poor little fellow who went to the south
> Got lost in the forests dank;
> His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
> And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
> And his mind became a blank.In _The Phantom of Organic Evolution_, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).
> 
> 
> During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
> 
> The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.
> 
> 
> Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).
> 
> None of this matters to the science of evolution.
Click to expand...


You *hypocritically* chastise me for legitimately using copy, pasting and linking haha. 

This is an attempt at *WHITEWASH*.  No amount of this kind of fodder argument can hide the FACT that Darwin's wrong ideas led to tragedy, tragedy, tragedy, racism, racism, racism, and genocide, genocide, genocide.  We still have Planned Parenthood operating in predominantly poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods in order to kill babies of color.  You will not find one in the white and richer neighborhoods.  Darwin's dumb ideas are still with us today in the form of genocide, racism and a modern form of socialDarwinsm.  Can you deny it?  Of course you can, but you cannot *whitewash* the truth and facts from intelligent peoples.  What you have is the lowest forms of human life believing in this kind of crap.  The Westboro Baptist Church and true racists like Al Gore are Democrat and in the liberal midst.  The MSM media spares no expense when it has a chance to _*whitewash*_ and paint the conservatives as the racists.  So, all of this is tied into politics, government, science and religion.  I do not think we can separate them all.  It is unfortunate that the great USA may not be able to withstand the liberal onslaught.  Satan is indeed the "god of the Earth and prince of the power of the air."  You cannot explain why all the low brow internet atheists us God in lower case haha.

_*The atheists and libs will not hesitate to use anything in order to whitewash the masses to their fake science and atheist religion.*_

Darwin had his "white man's burden" form of racism in which blacks are deemed inferior and are given social welfare by the "stronger" (survival of the fittest) white races.  We also had the Darwinian form of racism and genocide where blacks and other races are deemed inferior and need to be exterminated.  *Which one are you, Hollie?  You have shown your true colors and are the lowest of the low.*

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin - The Descent of Man p. 156)."

Quote by Charles Darwin: “At some future period, not very distant as meas...”

Is it any wonder Darwin's science books became a best seller starting with The Origin of Species?


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are teaching the facts as we know them. And everything we know today came from thinkers like them.
> 
> You couldn't argue the facts that lead us to evolution. What you do is you don't know the facts and you just blow off the conclusion. If you knew all the facts you'd know how stupid you sound.
> 
> Prays be god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prays be to God, but we are alone as he created us in his image.  The evos can't stand it tho.
> 
> This is the type of facts that should be taught about evolution.  Regarding Darwin, it must be taught that his kind of "survival of the fittest" thinking led to exclusionary and elitist socialDarwinism, racist Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, genocide against blacks and Planned Parenthood.  I think it starts with changing the US Supreme Court.  Then we may get some rulings favoring real science -- creation science.  Prays be to God for that.
> 
> The only thing evolution got right was natural selection and that isn't such a big deal anymore except the evos used it to foist the genocidal, racist and other BS thinking masquerading as science upon the masses.  Not only that, there are no morals behind not having God and a creator.  Science does not deal with moral values.  With evolution, science itself has become immoral believing in lies instead of the scientific method.
Click to expand...

The fact Darwin inspired hitler doesn’t turn me off to Darwin


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> I don't have the latest figures, but the US is ranked towards the bottom in math and science.  Is this due to atheist science or what?  The US students are mediocre or less in other subjects.
> 
> Here's The New Ranking Of Top Countries In Reading, Science, And Math
> 
> https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/ranking-countries-by-the-worst-students


No sir. Students who learn atheist science do better. Link that shows I’m wrong


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo just what are you atheists and atheist religion teaching the students?  NASA claims they will find aliens, i.e. microbes, by the year 2025.  There isn't any evidence of them and they do not team the fine tuning facts.  Why are these key findings in science being ignored?  Next, they will be saying GMO foods are safe.


Right now they’re looking to see if life existed on Mars before life started on earth. Life probably existed on Mars at one time. It had water when we did not.

Relax reverend. We are looking now. You don’t arm chair quarterback is. Just sit there shut up and read your Bible. And pray. And when you get sick come see an atheist doctor


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't use one quote from the Bible, but world history after Darwin.  It goes to show you do not know Herbert Spencer nor Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton who came up with Eugenics.  Even Darwin's father and his fellow scientists thought blacks were of a lower class.  It was part of pseudoscientific racism they believed in.  It is no mistake the black man is lower on the evolutionary scale and drawn more like an ape that the white man.
> 
> Darwin demonstrated his racism in his second book The Descent of Man.  Darwin's writings and conceptions ended up influencing Ernst Haeckel who used them to form his own biological ideas that he wanted to do and experiment on refugees with Hitler.  Darwin also influenced Houston Chamberlain into forming anti-Semitic ideas for the Nazi racial party.  Thus, Darwin's ideas were responsible for the deaths of over nine million people in Nazi concentration camps.  Satan himself could not have done a better job sending these people to their deaths.
> 
> Do you consider yourself _superior_ because of Darwin's ideas?  You do not even know me and yet put me is a stereotype of Christians.  Your posts are ridiculous and easily dismissed.
> 
> https://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf
> 
> You notice that I proved links to back up what I have been saying and it is all part of history.  However, we do not hear this from the atheists.  What we hear is defense of Darwin and how great of a scientist he was.  He could just as well been a mass murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s actually pretty funny that the xtian zealot would reference Hitler in his rants. Nazi ideology was deeply rooted in Christianity. The Wehrmacht had the inscription “Got mitt uns” (god is with us), on their belt buckles.
> 
> As usual, there is not a single reference to your frantic rants where you claim racism and eugenics is tied to evolutionary biology. In fact, your rants are nothing more than nonsensical claims you steal from the worst of the worst fundie xtian ministries.
> 
> I find it not at all surprising that the most extreme bible thumpers are often the most racist. Certainly, you are in good company with the racist and mentally deficient Henry Morris and his legacy of ignorance.
> 
> *Claim CA005:*
> Evolution promotes racism.
> 
> *Source:*
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
> 
> CA005.1:  Darwin's racism
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
> 
> 
> Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
> 
> 
> Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
> 
> 
> Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.
> 
> 
> Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.
> 
> 
> Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:
> George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,The poor little fellow who went to the south
> Got lost in the forests dank;
> His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
> And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
> And his mind became a blank.In _The Phantom of Organic Evolution_, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).
> 
> 
> During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
> 
> 
> The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.
> 
> 
> Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).
> 
> None of this matters to the science of evolution.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You *hypocritically* chastise me for legitimately using copy, pasting and linking haha.
> 
> This is an attempt at *WHITEWASH*.  No amount of this kind of fodder argument can hide the FACT that Darwin's wrong ideas led to tragedy, tragedy, tragedy, racism, racism, racism, and genocide, genocide, genocide.  We still have Planned Parenthood operating in predominantly poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods in order to kill babies of color.  You will not find one in the white and richer neighborhoods.  Darwin's dumb ideas are still with us today in the form of genocide, racism and a modern form of socialDarwinsm.  Can you deny it?  Of course you can, but you cannot *whitewash* the truth and facts from intelligent peoples.  What you have is the lowest forms of human life believing in this kind of crap.  The Westboro Baptist Church and true racists like Al Gore are Democrat and in the liberal midst.  The MSM media spares no expense when it has a chance to _*whitewash*_ and paint the conservatives as the racists.  So, all of this is tied into politics, government, science and religion.  I do not think we can separate them all.  It is unfortunate that the great USA may not be able to withstand the liberal onslaught.  Satan is indeed the "god of the Earth and prince of the power of the air."  You cannot explain why all the low brow internet atheists us God in lower case haha.
> 
> _*The atheists and libs will not hesitate to use anything in order to whitewash the masses to their fake science and atheist religion.*_
> 
> Darwin had his "white man's burden" form of racism in which blacks are deemed inferior and are given social welfare by the "stronger" (survival of the fittest) white races.  We also had the Darwinian form of racism and genocide where blacks and other races are deemed inferior and need to be exterminated.  *Which one are you, Hollie?  You have shown your true colors and are the lowest of the low.*
> 
> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin - The Descent of Man p. 156)."
> 
> Quote by Charles Darwin: “At some future period, not very distant as meas...”
> 
> Is it any wonder Darwin's science books became a best seller starting with The Origin of Species?
Click to expand...



I thought it was typical that you sidestepped the racism that accompanies your xtian ministries. Your hero Henry Morris is among the worst. 

I found it pretty typical that your “quotes”, no doubt from your ID’iot creation ministries are fraudulent. One of the sad realities of ID’Iot creationists is their willingness to lie as a means to support their extremist views.

The cut and paste “quote” you dumped in the thread is one I’m familiar with as ID’iot creationists cut and paste it from xtian ministries. Too bad it’s a fraud. Too bad you’re an accomplice to fraud.

The full quote, in context is here. 

Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies -- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae -- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882, p. 156, which can be found at The writings of Charles Darwin on the web.)

First of all, Darwin is making a technical argument as to the "reality" of species, particularly _Homo sapiens_ in this case, and why there should still be apparently distinct species, if all the different forms of life are related by common descent through incremental small changes. His answer is that competition against those forms with some, even small, advantage tends to eliminate closely related forms, giving rise to an apparent "gap" between the remaining forms. Whether or not Darwin was right about that is irrelevant to the use of this quote mine, of course, since that is part of the context that the creationists using it have assiduously removed. For those interested in the real issue, a bit more information can be found in the response to Quote #3.1.

You dishonest fundie zealots are your own worst enemy.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> james  thbond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are teaching the facts as we know them. And everything we know today came from thinkers like them.
> 
> You couldn't argue the facts that lead us to evolution. What you do is you don't know the facts and you just blow off the conclusion. If you knew all the facts you'd know how stupid you sound.
> 
> Prays be god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prays be to God, but we are alone as he created us in his image.  The evos can't stand it tho.
> 
> This is the type of facts that should be taught about evolution.  Regarding Darwin, it must be taught that his kind of "survival of the fittest" thinking led to exclusionary and elitist socialDarwinism, racist Eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, genocide against blacks and Planned Parenthood.  I think it starts with changing the US Supreme Court.  Then we may get some rulings favoring real science -- creation science.  Prays be to God for that.
> 
> The only thing evolution got right was natural selection and that isn't such a big deal anymore except the evos used it to foist the genocidal, racist and other BS thinking masquerading as science upon the masses.  Not only that, there are no morals behind not having God and a creator.  Science does not deal with moral values.  With evolution, science itself has become immoral believing in lies instead of the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was quite the Bible thumping tirade. As usual, all of it is just the ranting of the xtian Taliban.
> 
> Your tirade attempting to link Darwinian theory is right out of the extremist xtian ministries and has been thoroughly debunked as the ranting of the more excitable zealots.
> 
> It’s really disappointing to see the fundie zealots screeching about morals when the same zealots litter their tirades with lies, falsehoods and misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

And it’s irrelevant that Hitler liked survival of the fittest. It’s still true


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... And it’s irrelevant that Hitler liked survival of the fittest. It’s still true



It is not irrelevant that as well Japan (Shintoism, Buddhism) and Germany (Christianity) were destroyed from the materialistic "science" social Darwinism = the racism of the English speaking world. An opportunistic Darwinism far from any form of reality and truth is not a natural law of human societes.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... And it’s irrelevant that Hitler liked survival of the fittest. It’s still true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant that as well Japan (Shintoism, Buddhism) and Germany (Christianity) were destroyed from the materialistic "science" social Darwinism = the racism of the English speaking world. An opportunistic Darwinism far from any form of reality and truth is not a natural law of human societes.
Click to expand...

If we ever get nuked will you bash Einstein?


----------



## MisterBeale

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?


Of course we are not, "alone."

Life?  That is something that needs to have a much broader definition.  Intelligence and consciousness need a more expansive definition too. 

. . . and yet, that understanding needs to be tempered empirical and existential logical proofs.

There are multiple dimensions as well. 

Most folks have a very limited understanding of this existence, in both their understanding of time and space.


----------



## sealybobo

MisterBeale said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are not, "alone."
> 
> Life?  That is something that needs to have a much broader definition.  Intelligence and consciousness need a more expansive definition too.
> 
> . . . and yet, that understanding needs to be tempered empirical and existential logical proofs.
> 
> There are multiple dimensions as well.
> 
> Most folks have a very limited understanding of this existence, in both their understanding of time and space.
Click to expand...

I think microbes, proteins, amino acids, fungus exist all over the universe. 

The diverse life on earth might be very rare but with so many stars planets and moons that still probably means hundreds of planets like ours. Or thousands.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... And it’s irrelevant that Hitler liked survival of the fittest. It’s still true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant that as well Japan (Shintoism, Buddhism) and Germany (Christianity) were destroyed from the materialistic "science" social Darwinism = the racism of the English speaking world. An opportunistic Darwinism far from any form of reality and truth is not a natural law of human societes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we ever get nuked will you bash Einstein?
Click to expand...


Who is "we"? And what has my good old soulmate Albert to do with people, who give the might over powerful nukes to ego-centralized idiots with a lack of wisdom, love and self-restraint?


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are not, "alone."
> 
> Life?  That is something that needs to have a much broader definition.  Intelligence and consciousness need a more expansive definition too.
> 
> . . . and yet, that understanding needs to be tempered empirical and existential logical proofs.
> 
> There are multiple dimensions as well.
> 
> Most folks have a very limited understanding of this existence, in both their understanding of time and space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think microbes, proteins, amino acids, fungus exist all over the universe.
Click to expand...


You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case) that microbes and fungi exist all over the universe.



> The diverse life on earth might be very rare but with so many stars planets and moons that still probably means hundreds of planets like ours. Or thousands.



Even on our own planet - the best of all possible places - is multi-cellular life only a few hundred million years old - and we have here big regions where to live is nearly impossible: deserts, ice-deserts, water-deserts ... and not to forget the deadly deserts in the human minds. Living structures are the most seldom and most valueable structures of the universe.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are not, "alone."
> 
> Life?  That is something that needs to have a much broader definition.  Intelligence and consciousness need a more expansive definition too.
> 
> . . . and yet, that understanding needs to be tempered empirical and existential logical proofs.
> 
> There are multiple dimensions as well.
> 
> Most folks have a very limited understanding of this existence, in both their understanding of time and space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think microbes, proteins, amino acids, fungus exist all over the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case) that microbes and fungi exist all over the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diverse life on earth might be very rare but with so many stars planets and moons that still probably means hundreds of planets like ours. Or thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even on our own planet - the best of all possible places - is multi-cellular life only a few hundred million years old - and we have here big regions, where to live is nearly impossible: deserts, ice-deserts, water-deserts ... and not to forget the deadly deserts in the human minds. Living structures are the most seldom and most valueable structures of the universe.
Click to expand...

If I had the power to look all over the universe I would be willing to bet my life we are not alone.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... And it’s irrelevant that Hitler liked survival of the fittest. It’s still true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant that as well Japan (Shintoism, Buddhism) and Germany (Christianity) were destroyed from the materialistic "science" social Darwinism = the racism of the English speaking world. An opportunistic Darwinism far from any form of reality and truth is not a natural law of human societes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we ever get nuked will you bash Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "we"? And what has my good old soulmate Albert to do with people, who give the might to nuke others to ego-centralized idiots with a lack of wisdom, love and self-restraint?
Click to expand...

So why blame Darwin for what Hitler did with the concept of survival of the fittest?


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are not, "alone."
> 
> Life?  That is something that needs to have a much broader definition.  Intelligence and consciousness need a more expansive definition too.
> 
> . . . and yet, that understanding needs to be tempered empirical and existential logical proofs.
> 
> There are multiple dimensions as well.
> 
> Most folks have a very limited understanding of this existence, in both their understanding of time and space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think microbes, proteins, amino acids, fungus exist all over the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case) that microbes and fungi exist all over the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diverse life on earth might be very rare but with so many stars planets and moons that still probably means hundreds of planets like ours. Or thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even on our own planet - the best of all possible places - is multi-cellular life only a few hundred million years old - and we have here big regions, where to live is nearly impossible: deserts, ice-deserts, water-deserts ... and not to forget the deadly deserts in the human minds. Living structures are the most seldom and most valueable structures of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I had the power to look all over the universe I would be willing to bet my life we are not alone.
Click to expand...


You bet your life? What a nonsense. We say in such cases "I bet to eat a broom if ... ". Makes more fun to have to eat a broom than to die. Here a video "how to eat a broom" for beginners - but you never have to eat this broom, because tomorrow someone could find extraterrestrian life - even if nowhere in the universe exists extraterrestrian life.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... And it’s irrelevant that Hitler liked survival of the fittest. It’s still true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not irrelevant that as well Japan (Shintoism, Buddhism) and Germany (Christianity) were destroyed from the materialistic "science" social Darwinism = the racism of the English speaking world. An opportunistic Darwinism far from any form of reality and truth is not a natural law of human societes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we ever get nuked will you bash Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "we"? And what has my good old soulmate Albert to do with people, who give the might to nuke others to ego-centralized idiots with a lack of wisdom, love and self-restraint?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why blame Darwin for what Hitler did with the concept of survival of the fittest?
Click to expand...


If you are not able to understand, what other people say to you on what kind of reason: Why for heavens sake do you try to speak with them?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)


Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
Click to expand...


Microbes and fungi with the genetic code, which comes from the sisters and brothers of the life of our own planet Earth? How plausible is this? Not plausible at all, isn't it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the genetic code, which comes from the sisters and brothers of the life of the planet Earth?
Click to expand...

Oh, well that's new information. I see.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
Click to expand...


plau·si·bil·i·ty

the quality of seeming reasonable or probable.
"he offers no support for the plausibility of his theory"
When I first began teaching big history, almost 30 years ago, most scientists seemed pretty sure that life was extraordinarily rare. And it might be that it existed only on planet earth. But science moves on, and today I suspect most astrobiologists, the scientists who study the possibility of life in the universe, would guess that the Universe is crawling with life, at least with bacteria-like life. We don’t know for sure because we have not yet identified life anywhere else. But there are really three reasons for this shift.

First, in the 1990s, astronomers learned how to detect planets around other stars and now we know that most stars have solar systems, so there may be billions of planets quite like planet Earth just in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, so there seem to be lots of places where life could possibly live. 

Second, on our own planet, Earth, life appeared quite soon after the planet formed. And that seems to suggest that where there exist the right “Goldilocks” conditions for life it can pop up quite easily. 

Finally, we have now found bacteria existing in very harsh environments, inside scalding hot springs, or inside rocks, and we know they can even survive short journeys in space. So they are tougher than we thought.

But that’s bacteria. Big creatures like ourselves are probably much rarer. After all, on planet Earth it took just a few hundred million years to create the first bacteria, but it took almost 3 billion years to create the first large creatures, like worms or trilobites. So the chances of meeting creatures like us still seem very remote. 

And now the religious folks won't care if we find bacteria.  It will have to be complex.  Then when we find creatures like dinosaurs our mice they won't care because they'll move the goal post.  Then the creatures will have to be smart like us.

So until we find creatures as smart as us religious people will always insist we are alone.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microbes and fungi with the genetic code, which comes from the sisters and brothers of the life of our own planet Earth? How plausible is this? Not plausible at all, isn't it?
Click to expand...


The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion
Read more at The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet     | Air & Space Magazine



Instead of estimating how many civilizations are out there to communicate with today, they estimate how many civilizations have been out there since the beginning of the Universe.

At first glance this seems to be only a slight semantic difference, but it is not. A big unknown in the original Drake Equation is the average lifetime of a civilization during which they might be available to communicate with us. 

Reframing the question makes longevity a moot point. Frank and Sullivan ask: What is the chance that we are the only technological species and _always have been_? If we put the question this way, the Drake Equation boils down to A = Nast * fbt, where A is the number of technological species that have ever formed over the history of the observable universe, Nast are all the astronomical unknowns (which we now have a much better handle on than we did in 1961), and fbt are the biological unknowns, which are still many—including the fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears, the fraction of those planets on which intelligent life emerges, and the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.

Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.

And that's just this galaxy.  You religious people really are stupid AF.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microbes and fungi with the genetic code, which comes from the sisters and brothers of the life of our own planet Earth? How plausible is this? Not plausible at all, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Finding signs of alien life might be harder than we thought. Here’s why

To a distant observer peering through a telescope, even Earth would not have shown signs of life through most of its past. Despite the fact that our planet was teeming with mostly microscopic life for three billion years, levels of oxygen and methane — gases often produced by metabolizing organisms — would have been too low to be noticed from afar. This means that today's scientists on Earth might not be able to detect commonly assumed signs of extraterrestrial life, and they might give up on planets that are actually inhabited, according to a new study in the journal Astrobiology.

Scientists envision using oxygen, ozone and methane in a planet's atmosphere as key indicators of life. But there are problems with this approach. The gases are tough to detect with current technology, and their presence is suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence of living organisms. Even for an Earth-like planet, the search for life beyond our solar system turns out to be even tougher than previously thought.

at best you will just get a statistical estimate of whether there’s life

Because oxygen and methane levels were so low for so long on Earth according to Reinhard’s models, until a few hundred million years ago a distant alien astronomer would’ve had few hints that life exists here. Earthling astronomers face the same problem when searching for life-friendly planets beyond the solar system. It’s not just that our favorite worlds in the “habitable zone” around their stars might be uninhabited; we could be prematurely ruling out many other worlds that actually do host life.

Then we have Mars:  

This raises a problem on Mars. The planet today is dry and barren, with most of its water locked up in the polar ice caps. The planet's thin atmosphere allows radiation from the sun to irradiate the surface of the planet, adding to the environment's challenges. Evidence for water first showed up in 2000, when images from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor found gullies that appeared to have formed from flowing water.

But Mars wasn't always a desolate wasteland. Scientists think that, in the past, water may have flowed across the surface in rivers and streams, and that vast oceans covered the planet. Over time, the water was lost into space, but early conditions on the wetter planet could have been right for life to evolve. One estimate suggests that an ancient ocean could have covered as much as 19 percent of the planet's surface, compared to the 17 percent covered by Earth's Atlantic Ocean.

Exploration of Mars was put on hold for more than two decades. When examination of the planet resumed, scientists focused more on the search for habitable environments than for life, and specifically on the search for water. The slew of rovers, orbiters, and landers revealed evidence of water beneath the crust, hot springs — considered an excellent potential environment for life to evolve — and occasional rare precipitation. Although the Curiosity rover isn't a life-finding mission, there are hopes that it could pinpoint locations that later visitors might explore and analyze.

"Mars 2020 will gather samples for potential return to Earth in the future. 

But the hunt for Martian life may be stymied by concerns over how to prevent infecting the Red Planet with Earth life. Current international policies impose heavy financial burdens that make exploring potentially habitable regions of Mars an extra challenge.


"Bottom line is that a thorough cleaning of a spacecraft aimed to in situ search for life on a special region of Mars today would easily cost around $500 million," Dirk Schulze-Makuch told SPACE.com via email. Schulze-Makuch, a researcher at Washington State University, and his colleague Alberto Fairen of Cornell University authored a commentary article published in the journal Nature Geoscience arguing for less-strict protection measures for Mars.

"With that amount of money, you can entirely finance a 'Discovery-type' mission to Mars, similar to Pathfinder or InSight," he added. "Therefore, if we'd relax planetary protection concerns in a Viking-like mission today, we could add another low-budget mission to the space program."


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microbes and fungi with the genetic code, which comes from the sisters and brothers of the life of our own planet Earth? How plausible is this? Not plausible at all, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion
> Read more at The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet     | Air & Space Magazine
> 
> Instead of estimating how many civilizations are out there to communicate with today, they estimate how many civilizations have been out there since the beginning of the Universe.
> 
> At first glance this seems to be only a slight semantic difference, but it is not. A big unknown in the original Drake Equation is the average lifetime of a civilization during which they might be available to communicate with us.
> 
> Reframing the question makes longevity a moot point. Frank and Sullivan ask: What is the chance that we are the only technological species and _always have been_? If we put the question this way, the Drake Equation boils down to A = Nast * fbt, where A is the number of technological species that have ever formed over the history of the observable universe, Nast are all the astronomical unknowns (which we now have a much better handle on than we did in 1961), and fbt are the biological unknowns, which are still many—including the fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears, the fraction of those planets on which intelligent life emerges, and the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
> 
> Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.
> 
> And that's just this galaxy.  You religious people really are stupid AF.
Click to expand...


a=propability for life; it's nearly impossible that [multicellular] life exists
b=possibility for life; there are many places where [multicellular] life could exist

a->0
b->oo

Take two random numbers: a in the near of 0 and b in the near of oo. You will get a result between 0 and oo. The results are without any system.

a*b->?

=> We don't know, whether extraterrestrian life exists.


----------



## Votto

Madeline said:


> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?



I sure as hell hope so.

I can't imagine another power hungry "f'er" wanting to impose their universal health care on me.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microbes and fungi with the genetic code, which comes from the sisters and brothers of the life of our own planet Earth? How plausible is this? Not plausible at all, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion
> Read more at The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet     | Air & Space Magazine
> 
> Instead of estimating how many civilizations are out there to communicate with today, they estimate how many civilizations have been out there since the beginning of the Universe.
> 
> At first glance this seems to be only a slight semantic difference, but it is not. A big unknown in the original Drake Equation is the average lifetime of a civilization during which they might be available to communicate with us.
> 
> Reframing the question makes longevity a moot point. Frank and Sullivan ask: What is the chance that we are the only technological species and _always have been_? If we put the question this way, the Drake Equation boils down to A = Nast * fbt, where A is the number of technological species that have ever formed over the history of the observable universe, Nast are all the astronomical unknowns (which we now have a much better handle on than we did in 1961), and fbt are the biological unknowns, which are still many—including the fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears, the fraction of those planets on which intelligent life emerges, and the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
> 
> Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.
> 
> And that's just this galaxy.  You religious people really are stupid AF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a=propability for life; it's nearly impossible that life exists
> b=possibility for life; there are many places where life could exist
> 
> a->0
> b->oo
> 
> Take two random numbers: a in the near of 0 and b in the near of oo. You will get a result between 0 and oo. The results are without any system.
> 
> a*b->?
> 
> => We don't know, whether extraterrestrian life exists.
Click to expand...


Right but with our technology and the distance that's like you sticking your head in the ocean and not seeing any life and determining that in your best guestimation, you see no signs of life in that ocean.

Of course if you get in a submarine and went in you'd see all kinds of life.

Well our pathetic telescopes can't tell us shit.  It's like you are a monkey with a magnifying glass and you can't see life on other planets.  Sorry but you don't have the technology to determine that.


----------



## sealybobo

Votto said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as hell hope so.
> 
> I can't imagine another power hungry "f'er" wanting to impose their universal health care on me.
Click to expand...

You don't think they have socialized medicine?  Why do you assume they'd be like the USA and not every other civilized country on our planet?  I would imagine they have healthcare and poverty figured out.


----------



## Votto

sealybobo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your thought on life on other planets?  Intelligent life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure as hell hope so.
> 
> I can't imagine another power hungry "f'er" wanting to impose their universal health care on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think they have socialized medicine?  Why do you assume they'd be like the USA and not every other civilized country on our planet?  I would imagine they have healthcare and poverty figured out.
Click to expand...


Is that why Mick Jagger came all the way to the US for heart surgery?

Too bad Chavez went to Cuba for health care.  He's dead now.

In fact, could Mick Jagger be an alien?  He certainly does not look human.







Maybe we are being visited by aliens to bypass socialized medicine.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Microbes and fungi with the genetic code, which comes from the sisters and brothers of the life of our own planet Earth? How plausible is this? Not plausible at all, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion
> Read more at The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet     | Air & Space Magazine
> 
> Instead of estimating how many civilizations are out there to communicate with today, they estimate how many civilizations have been out there since the beginning of the Universe.
> 
> At first glance this seems to be only a slight semantic difference, but it is not. A big unknown in the original Drake Equation is the average lifetime of a civilization during which they might be available to communicate with us.
> 
> Reframing the question makes longevity a moot point. Frank and Sullivan ask: What is the chance that we are the only technological species and _always have been_? If we put the question this way, the Drake Equation boils down to A = Nast * fbt, where A is the number of technological species that have ever formed over the history of the observable universe, Nast are all the astronomical unknowns (which we now have a much better handle on than we did in 1961), and fbt are the biological unknowns, which are still many—including the fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears, the fraction of those planets on which intelligent life emerges, and the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
> 
> Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.
> 
> And that's just this galaxy.  You religious people really are stupid AF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a=propability for life; it's nearly impossible that life exists
> b=possibility for life; there are many places where life could exist
> 
> a->0
> b->oo
> 
> Take two random numbers: a in the near of 0 and b in the near of oo. You will get a result between 0 and oo. The results are without any system.
> 
> a*b->?
> 
> => We don't know, whether extraterrestrian life exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right but with our technology and the distance that's like you sticking your head in the ocean and not seeing any life and determining that in your best guestimation, you see no signs of life in that ocean.
> 
> Of course if you get in a submarine and went in you'd see all kinds of life.
> 
> Well our pathetic telescopes can't tell us shit.
Click to expand...


"Our" "pathetic" telescopes don't tell shit, Don Quijote.



> It's like you are a monkey with a magnifying glass and you can't see life on other planets.  Sorry but you don't have the technology to determine that.



... to determine what?

Take the technology "piece of paper" and try to find the result.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think - you believe (without any plausibility in this case)
> 
> 
> 
> Without plausibility? It seems very likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> plau·si·bil·i·ty
> 
> the quality of seeming reasonable or probable.
> "he offers no support for the plausibility of his theory"
> When I first began teaching big history, almost 30 years ago, most scientists seemed pretty sure that life was extraordinarily rare. And it might be that it existed only on planet earth. But science moves on, and today I suspect most astrobiologists, the scientists who study the possibility of life in the universe, would guess that the Universe is crawling with life, at least with bacteria-like life. We don’t know for sure because we have not yet identified life anywhere else. But there are really three reasons for this shift.
> 
> First, in the 1990s, astronomers learned how to detect planets around other stars and now we know that most stars have solar systems, so there may be billions of planets quite like planet Earth just in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, so there seem to be lots of places where life could possibly live.
> 
> Second, on our own planet, Earth, life appeared quite soon after the planet formed. And that seems to suggest that where there exist the right “Goldilocks” conditions for life it can pop up quite easily.
> 
> Finally, we have now found bacteria existing in very harsh environments, inside scalding hot springs, or inside rocks, and we know they can even survive short journeys in space. So they are tougher than we thought.
> 
> But that’s bacteria. Big creatures like ourselves are probably much rarer. After all, on planet Earth it took just a few hundred million years to create the first bacteria, but it took almost 3 billion years to create the first large creatures, like worms or trilobites. So the chances of meeting creatures like us still seem very remote.
> 
> And now the religious folks won't care if we find bacteria.  It will have to be complex.  Then when we find creatures like dinosaurs our mice they won't care because they'll move the goal post.  Then the creatures will have to be smart like us.
> 
> So until we find creatures as smart as us religious people will always insist we are alone.
Click to expand...

Yes,but he2s underthe impression you are saying the universe is teeming with dna based microbes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> I can't imagine another power hungry "f'er" wanting to impose their universal health care on me.


You dont have to imagine. You can study other countries where they actually do this and note the better health outcomes and lower per capita spending.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> =propability for life; it's nearly impossible that [multicellular] life exists


Oh bullshit,you are making stuff up.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine another power hungry "f'er" wanting to impose their universal health care on me.
> 
> 
> 
> You dont have to imagine. You can study other countries where they actually do this and note the better health outcomes and lower per capita spending.
Click to expand...


I can't believe I high jacked this thread over health care. 

Hilarious!

Let's put this another way, IF there is alien life out there with any intelligence at all, they will steer clear of the earth, or go incognito. 

We clamor about saving the planet, as if that were possible, and can't even take care of ourselves, all the while thinking how damn smart we all are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine another power hungry "f'er" wanting to impose their universal health care on me.
> 
> 
> 
> You dont have to imagine. You can study other countries where they actually do this and note the better health outcomes and lower per capita spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe I high jacked this thread over health care.
> 
> Hilarious!
> 
> Let's put this another way, IF there is alien life out there with any intelligence at all, they will steer clear of the earth, or go incognito.
> 
> We clamor about saving the planet, as if that were possible, and can't even take care of ourselves, all the while thinking how damn smart we all are.
Click to expand...

We are pretty damn smart. We're just not very wise.


----------



## Votto

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine another power hungry "f'er" wanting to impose their universal health care on me.
> 
> 
> 
> You dont have to imagine. You can study other countries where they actually do this and note the better health outcomes and lower per capita spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe I high jacked this thread over health care.
> 
> Hilarious!
> 
> Let's put this another way, IF there is alien life out there with any intelligence at all, they will steer clear of the earth, or go incognito.
> 
> We clamor about saving the planet, as if that were possible, and can't even take care of ourselves, all the while thinking how damn smart we all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are pretty damn smart. We're just not very wise.
Click to expand...


Smart compared to what exactly?

I do agree that our intelligence far out paces our wisdom.

This alone should keep them away.  There is nothing more dangerous than a race of beings who are smart but without wisdom.  That is a breeding ground for destruction.

Just look around.

But alas, all we care about is science/knowledge, right?

Religion be damned.

Speaking of which, why is God never considered to be an alien?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Smart compared to what exactly?


Smart enough to know how to take care of ourselves and our environment. Just not wise enough to get it done.

Getting rid of religion would help. I doubt an alien race smart enough to visit us will be pausing to worship a magical sky daddy 4 times a day.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> Speaking of which, why is God never considered to be an alien?


I'm sure he is,by some. To some, likw to north Koreans, he's a dead president.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> =propability for life; it's nearly impossible that [multicellular] life exists
> 
> 
> 
> Oh bullshit,you are making stuff up.
Click to expand...


I'm doing what? Do you know how many factors habe to come together so life is able to exist at the double planet system Earth-moon? The radiation of the sun would kill us without magnetic shield of the Earth - but the radiation of the sun is also a shield against the cosmic radiation, which would kill us too. And fortunatelly the solar system lives in a boring cosmic region  nevertheless this alone is a nearly impossible situation for life. And this is only one factor. To much water - to less water - we would not exist and so on and so on and so on ... . Planet Earth needed a stable situation for some billion years. Jupiter for example had moved during the early solar system over the asteroid belt and back again. In this way he fished out lots asteroids. He shields us also against comets. How should life exist under a bombardement of asteriod and/or comets? ... and so on ...

By the way: Intentional ignorance is much more dangerous than natural stupidity - the stupidity of crocodiles for example. Crocodiles exist since more than 300 million years - but who likes to live like a crocodile, although life on planet Earth needs such creatures too? It seems to me the English speaking world is "post facto" only able to survive by dying out. Perhaps you should try to think about this paradox of the theory of evolution too.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Do you know how may factors habe tocome togaterh so life is able to exist at a iart if he double planet Earth-moone?


Who cares? We're not determining the likelihood of finding life exactly as we have it on earth. You need to look up Hoyle's fallacy. You can arbitrarily pile on probabilities all night and make the likelihood of any event approach zero. Your reasoning is specious and arbitrary.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how may factors habe tocome togaterh so life is able to exist at a iart if he double planet Earth-moone?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Were not determining the likelihood of finding life exactly as we have it on earth. You need to look up Hoyle's fallacy. You can arbitrarily pile on probabilities all night and make the likelihood of any event approach zero. Your reasoning is specious and arbitrary.
Click to expand...


no comment


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how may factors habe tocome togaterh so life is able to exist at a iart if he double planet Earth-moone?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Were not determining the likelihood of finding life exactly as we have it on earth. You need to look up Hoyle's fallacy. You can arbitrarily pile on probabilities all night and make the likelihood of any event approach zero. Your reasoning is specious and arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea why US Americans speak with each other.
Click to expand...

Look up Hoyle's fallacy.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how may factors habe tocome togaterh so life is able to exist at a iart if he double planet Earth-moone?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Were not determining the likelihood of finding life exactly as we have it on earth. You need to look up Hoyle's fallacy. You can arbitrarily pile on probabilities all night and make the likelihood of any event approach zero. Your reasoning is specious and arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea why US Americans speak with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up Hoyle's fallacy.
Click to expand...


France is not alone.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... the scientists who study the possibility of life in the universe, [/qupte]
> 
> "Scientists" or "science fiction authors"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would guess that the Universe is crawling with life, at least with bacteria-like life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know only bacteriae with a terrrestrian phylogentic tree and terrestrian genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "for sure" =  We know nothing about any from of life indpendent from an origin on planet Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because we have not yet identified life anywhere else. But there are really three reasons for this shift.
> 
> First, in the 1990s, astronomers learned how to detect planets around other stars and now we know that most stars have solar systems,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> }
> 
> =a system of planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so there may be billions of planets quite like planet Earth just in our own galaxy,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In big parts of the galaxy - where exist the most stars for example - this regions are without any chance for life because of the heavy cosmic radiation there. Only the areas with not many stars are important in this context - and only the suns with nearly the same size (greater stars will not live long enough, and in the habitable zone of smaller stars is also much more radiation of the sun). And it needs also planets with nearly the same mass of our own planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Milky Way, so there seem to be lots of places where life could possibly live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse hope with knowledge. A problem of atheistst is they often believe not to believe. That's why atheists often "know" things a Christian never would know, because truth is holy for Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, on our own planet, Earth, life appeared quite soon after the planet formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unconscous cells. But multi-cellular life - which is fundamental for the expression "life" - appeared about 10% of the current lifetime of our planet ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that seems to suggest that where there exist the right “Goldilocks” conditions for life it can pop up quite easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldilocks - and much more gingers - need conditions of life, which are much more sophisticated than you seem to be able to imagine.
> 
> [Quote[Finally, we have now found bacteria existing in very harsh environments,
Click to expand...


Bacteriae are terrestrian single-cell prokaryotes.



> inside scalding hot springs, or inside rocks, and we know they can even survive short journeys in space. So they are tougher than we thought.



Sure they are tougher than you thought - but not tougher or thoughter - ah sorry: more intelligent -  than we are.



> But that’s bacteria. Big creatures like ourselves are probably much rarer. After all, on planet Earth it took just a few hundred million years to create the first bacteria, but it took almost 3 billion years to create the first large creatures, like worms or trilobites. So the chances of meeting creatures like us still seem very remote.
> 
> And now the religious folks won't care if we find bacteria.



The religious folks is responsible for the creation of all civilisations and cultures on this planet.



> It will have to be complex.  Then when we find creatures like dinosaurs our mice they won't care because they'll move the goal post.



Sure. The religious nuts are the worst. Weasels.



> Then the creatures will have to be smart like us.



That's why they speak English.



> So until we find creatures as smart as us religious people will always insist we are alone.



Religious people are not alone. God is with us. And I will have to laugh a lot, when the first spaceship full of ECs (extraterrestrian Catholics) will land in Dharamsala and will have to ask the Dalai Lama for the right way to Rome. It's by the way as well for Catholics and Buddhists not any problem to have believers with 3 1/2 legs, four rows of diamond teeth and telekinetic abilities. A human being is a human being. We don't care whether someone is born on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy. This disqualifies no one.

By the way: France needs money for the rebuilding of Notre Dame. Notre Dame will be brought back to live.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the scientists who study the possibility of life in the universe, [/qupte]
> 
> "Scientists" or "science fiction authors"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would guess that the Universe is crawling with life, at least with bacteria-like life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know only bacteriae with a terrrestrian phylogentic tree and terrestrian genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "for sure" =  We know nothing about any from of life indpendent from an origin on planet Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because we have not yet identified life anywhere else. But there are really three reasons for this shift.
> 
> First, in the 1990s, astronomers learned how to detect planets around other stars and now we know that most stars have solar systems,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> }
> 
> =a system of planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so there may be billions of planets quite like planet Earth just in our own galaxy,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In big parts of the galaxy - where exist the most stars for example - this regions are without any chance for life because of the heavy cosmic radiation there. Only the areas with not many stars are important in this context - and only the suns with nearly the same size (greater stars will not live long enough, and in the habitable zone of smaller stars is also much more radiation of the sun). And it needs also planets with nearly the same mass of our own planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Milky Way, so there seem to be lots of places where life could possibly live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse hope with knowledge. A problem of atheistst is they often believe not to believe. That's why atheists often "know" things a Christian never would know, because truth is holy for Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, on our own planet, Earth, life appeared quite soon after the planet formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unconscous cells. But multi-cellular life - which is fundamental for the expression "life" - appeared about 10% of the current lifetime of our planet ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that seems to suggest that where there exist the right “Goldilocks” conditions for life it can pop up quite easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldilocks - and much more gingers - need conditions of life, which are much more sophisticated than you seem to be able to imagine.
> 
> [Quote[Finally, we have now found bacteria existing in very harsh environments,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bacteriae are terrestrian single-cell prokaryotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inside scalding hot springs, or inside rocks, and we know they can even survive short journeys in space. So they are tougher than we thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they are tougher than you thought - but not tougher or thoughter - ah sorry: more intelligent -  than we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that’s bacteria. Big creatures like ourselves are probably much rarer. After all, on planet Earth it took just a few hundred million years to create the first bacteria, but it took almost 3 billion years to create the first large creatures, like worms or trilobites. So the chances of meeting creatures like us still seem very remote.
> 
> And now the religious folks won't care if we find bacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The religious folks is responsible for the creation of all civilisations and cultures on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will have to be complex.  Then when we find creatures like dinosaurs our mice they won't care because they'll move the goal post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. The religious nuts are the worst. Weasels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the creatures will have to be smart like us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why they speak English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So until we find creatures as smart as us religious people will always insist we are alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious people are not alone. God is with us. And I will have to laugh a lot, when the first spaceship full of ECs (extraterrestrian Catholics) will land in Dharamsala and will have to ask the Dalai Lama for the right way to Rome. It's by the way as well for Catholics and Buddhists not any problem to have believers with 3 1/2 legs, four rows of diamond teeth and telekinetic abilities. A human being is a human being. We don't care whether someone is born on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy. This disqualifies no one.
> 
> By the way: France needs money for the rebuilding of Notre Dame. Notre Dame will be brought back to live.
Click to expand...

Not true. Arabs invented math before Islam took over.

The Chinese invented gun powder and many other things.

Will you guys decide if nazi Germany was Christian or not because they invented a lot of shit. 

And the people who invent shit and challenge the status quo are usually not religious people 

Einstein and all those other great minds weren’t that religious.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the scientists who study the possibility of life in the universe, [/qupte]
> 
> "Scientists" or "science fiction authors"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would guess that the Universe is crawling with life, at least with bacteria-like life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know only bacteriae with a terrrestrian phylogentic tree and terrestrian genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "for sure" =  We know nothing about any from of life indpendent from an origin on planet Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because we have not yet identified life anywhere else. But there are really three reasons for this shift.
> 
> First, in the 1990s, astronomers learned how to detect planets around other stars and now we know that most stars have solar systems,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> }
> 
> =a system of planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so there may be billions of planets quite like planet Earth just in our own galaxy,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In big parts of the galaxy - where exist the most stars for example - this regions are without any chance for life because of the heavy cosmic radiation there. Only the areas with not many stars are important in this context - and only the suns with nearly the same size (greater stars will not live long enough, and in the habitable zone of smaller stars is also much more radiation of the sun). And it needs also planets with nearly the same mass of our own planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Milky Way, so there seem to be lots of places where life could possibly live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse hope with knowledge. A problem of atheistst is they often believe not to believe. That's why atheists often "know" things a Christian never would know, because truth is holy for Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, on our own planet, Earth, life appeared quite soon after the planet formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unconscous cells. But multi-cellular life - which is fundamental for the expression "life" - appeared about 10% of the current lifetime of our planet ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that seems to suggest that where there exist the right “Goldilocks” conditions for life it can pop up quite easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldilocks - and much more gingers - need conditions of life, which are much more sophisticated than you seem to be able to imagine.
> 
> [Quote[Finally, we have now found bacteria existing in very harsh environments,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bacteriae are terrestrian single-cell prokaryotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inside scalding hot springs, or inside rocks, and we know they can even survive short journeys in space. So they are tougher than we thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they are tougher than you thought - but not tougher or thoughter - ah sorry: more intelligent -  than we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that’s bacteria. Big creatures like ourselves are probably much rarer. After all, on planet Earth it took just a few hundred million years to create the first bacteria, but it took almost 3 billion years to create the first large creatures, like worms or trilobites. So the chances of meeting creatures like us still seem very remote.
> 
> And now the religious folks won't care if we find bacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The religious folks is responsible for the creation of all civilisations and cultures on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will have to be complex.  Then when we find creatures like dinosaurs our mice they won't care because they'll move the goal post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. The religious nuts are the worst. Weasels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the creatures will have to be smart like us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why they speak English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So until we find creatures as smart as us religious people will always insist we are alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious people are not alone. God is with us. And I will have to laugh a lot, when the first spaceship full of ECs (extraterrestrian Catholics) will land in Dharamsala and will have to ask the Dalai Lama for the right way to Rome. It's by the way as well for Catholics and Buddhists not any problem to have believers with 3 1/2 legs, four rows of diamond teeth and telekinetic abilities. A human being is a human being. We don't care whether someone is born on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy. This disqualifies no one.
> 
> By the way: France needs money for the rebuilding of Notre Dame. Notre Dame will be brought back to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Arabs invented math before Islam took over.
Click to expand...


"The Arabs" overtook mathematics from the ancient Greeks (not to forget Babylon and Egypt) and the people in India and China. And some of them are great mathematicians too.



> The Chinese invented gun powder and many other things.



I don't understand how you think. You seem to think, what you say here has to do with people, cultures and civilisations without religion.



> Will you guys decide if nazi Germany was Christian or not because they invented a lot of shit.



What for heavens sake is your problem? The convinced leading Nazis were pragmatic darwinistic atheists without scruple.



> And the people who invent shit and challenge the status quo are usually not religious people
> 
> Einstein and all those other great minds weren’t that religious.



Now I got it. You are one of the fanatics you like to fight against. Albert Einstein had not any problem to try to find out how "the old one" made it.

By the way. Can it be you are so angry because Notre Dame burned down and you are helpless now? Hundreds of years destroyed in an eye wink. Sorrow causes sometimes a totally senseless fury. But god is with us and god is with France too. Perhaps you take your chance this year and you try really to find out what we Christians are speaking about at Easter.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the scientists who study the possibility of life in the universe, [/qupte]
> 
> "Scientists" or "science fiction authors"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would guess that the Universe is crawling with life, at least with bacteria-like life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know only bacteriae with a terrrestrian phylogentic tree and terrestrian genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "for sure" =  We know nothing about any from of life indpendent from an origin on planet Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because we have not yet identified life anywhere else. But there are really three reasons for this shift.
> 
> First, in the 1990s, astronomers learned how to detect planets around other stars and now we know that most stars have solar systems,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> }
> 
> =a system of planets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so there may be billions of planets quite like planet Earth just in our own galaxy,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In big parts of the galaxy - where exist the most stars for example - this regions are without any chance for life because of the heavy cosmic radiation there. Only the areas with not many stars are important in this context - and only the suns with nearly the same size (greater stars will not live long enough, and in the habitable zone of smaller stars is also much more radiation of the sun). And it needs also planets with nearly the same mass of our own planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Milky Way, so there seem to be lots of places where life could possibly live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse hope with knowledge. A problem of atheistst is they often believe not to believe. That's why atheists often "know" things a Christian never would know, because truth is holy for Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, on our own planet, Earth, life appeared quite soon after the planet formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unconscous cells. But multi-cellular life - which is fundamental for the expression "life" - appeared about 10% of the current lifetime of our planet ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that seems to suggest that where there exist the right “Goldilocks” conditions for life it can pop up quite easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldilocks - and much more gingers - need conditions of life, which are much more sophisticated than you seem to be able to imagine.
> 
> [Quote[Finally, we have now found bacteria existing in very harsh environments,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bacteriae are terrestrian single-cell prokaryotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inside scalding hot springs, or inside rocks, and we know they can even survive short journeys in space. So they are tougher than we thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they are tougher than you thought - but not tougher or thoughter - ah sorry: more intelligent -  than we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that’s bacteria. Big creatures like ourselves are probably much rarer. After all, on planet Earth it took just a few hundred million years to create the first bacteria, but it took almost 3 billion years to create the first large creatures, like worms or trilobites. So the chances of meeting creatures like us still seem very remote.
> 
> And now the religious folks won't care if we find bacteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The religious folks is responsible for the creation of all civilisations and cultures on this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will have to be complex.  Then when we find creatures like dinosaurs our mice they won't care because they'll move the goal post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. The religious nuts are the worst. Weasels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the creatures will have to be smart like us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why they speak English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So until we find creatures as smart as us religious people will always insist we are alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious people are not alone. God is with us. And I will have to laugh a lot, when the first spaceship full of ECs (extraterrestrian Catholics) will land in Dharamsala and will have to ask the Dalai Lama for the right way to Rome. It's by the way as well for Catholics and Buddhists not any problem to have believers with 3 1/2 legs, four rows of diamond teeth and telekinetic abilities. A human being is a human being. We don't care whether someone is born on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy. This disqualifies no one.
> 
> By the way: France needs money for the rebuilding of Notre Dame. Notre Dame will be brought back to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Arabs invented math before Islam took over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Arabs" overtook mathematics from the ancient Greeks (not to forget Babylon and Egypt) and the people in India and China. And some of them are great mathematicians too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese invented gun powder and many other things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand how you think. You seem to think, what you say here has to do with people, cultures and civilisations without religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you guys decide if nazi Germany was Christian or not because they invented a lot of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What for heavens sake is your problem? The convinced leading Nazis were pragmatic darwinistic atheists without scruple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the people who invent shit and challenge the status quo are usually not religious people
> 
> Einstein and all those other great minds weren’t that religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I got it. You are one of the fanatics you like to fight against. Albert Einstein had not any problem to try to find out how "the old one" made it.
> 
> By the way. Can it be you are so angry because Notre Dame burned down and you are helpless now? Hundreds of years destroyed in an eye wink. Sorrow causes sometimes a totally senseless fury. But god is with us and god is with France too. Perhaps you take your chance this year and you try really to find out what we Christians are speaking about at Easter.
Click to expand...


The arabs were brilliant.  Then religion took over.  Christianity fought the enlightenment too don't deny it.  

The arab world invented algorithms and algebra.  What have they done since Islam?

List of Muslim Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

Only 3 Nobel laureates in science.  

The top five countries with the most Nobel laureates are all western nations - with the *United States*, the *United Kingdom*, *Germany*, *France* and Sweden topping the rankings for the best minds in peace, literature, science and economics. The *United States* has had the most Nobel Prize winners, with 336 winners overall.

Most of the winners are not very religious and even if they are, religion isn't very pro science.  They deny global warming and evolution.  No one who wins a Nobel prize denies global warming or evolution.  Laughing stock.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> ... The arabs were brilliant.  Then religion took over.  Christianity fought the enlightenment too don't deny it.
> 
> The arab world invented algorithms and algebra.  What have they done since Islam?
> 
> List of Muslim Nobel laureates - Wikipedia
> 
> Only 3 Nobel laureates in science.
> 
> [...]  The *United States* has had the most Nobel Prize winners, with 336 winners overall.
> 
> Most of the winners are not very religious and even if they are, religion isn't very pro science.  They deny global warming and evolution.  No one who wins a Nobel prize denies global warming or evolution.  Laughing stock.



I don't discuss now your weird ideas about the history of the Arabs nor do I like to discuss now with you about Nobel price winners. Your belief is atheism, your cult is pseudo-science and your church is your nationalism. What to say to your simplifying ideas except "Aha"?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Your belief is atheism, your cult is pseudo-science and your church is your nationalism.


And your cult is magical sky daddies and zombie kings. And that magical horseshit has no place in this science thread.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The arabs were brilliant.  Then religion took over.  Christianity fought the enlightenment too don't deny it.
> 
> The arab world invented algorithms and algebra.  What have they done since Islam?
> 
> List of Muslim Nobel laureates - Wikipedia
> 
> Only 3 Nobel laureates in science.
> 
> [...]  The *United States* has had the most Nobel Prize winners, with 336 winners overall.
> 
> Most of the winners are not very religious and even if they are, religion isn't very pro science.  They deny global warming and evolution.  No one who wins a Nobel prize denies global warming or evolution.  Laughing stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't discuss now your weird ideas about the history of the Arabs nor do I like to discuss now with you about Nobel price winners. Your belief is atheism, your cult is pseudo-science and your church is your nationalism. What to say to your simplifying ideas except "Aha"?
Click to expand...

You people are screwed up.

When the media, universities and scientists are the enemy somethings wrong.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your belief is atheism, your cult is pseudo-science and your church is your nationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> And your cult is magical sky daddies and zombie kings. And that magical horseshit has no place in this science thread.
Click to expand...


You sound like a pupil of the Nobel price winner Richard Dawkin, who wrote once the book "the selfish gene" and the gene, which he is, wrote in later times on busses the intellectual message: _"be happy: god is not existing"_, what was on the other side an unbelievable solace for an unknown hyothetical man, who had waited for the bus in front of the clinic, where his wife had died just some moments (psychologiclaly) and some hours (physically) ago, because all wonders of the modern medicine were not able to save her - also not the robot, which told her, she will not survive. A masterpiece of Borg economy and Borg techniques.

Make an experiment by thoughts: Take a pseudo time machine, bomb virtually down the stupid spiritual hunterers and gatherers of Göbekli Tepe - and you will see in this simulation of reality what you could be now: a nothing. By the way: "Nothing" seems to be the material god used to create all heavens and worlds. Keeps the problem: How valueable is nothing? I "know" god knows. But what do you know about? And what knows the nothing on its own about the nothing? That it also contains not a nothing?


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The arabs were brilliant.  Then religion took over.  Christianity fought the enlightenment too don't deny it.
> 
> The arab world invented algorithms and algebra.  What have they done since Islam?
> 
> List of Muslim Nobel laureates - Wikipedia
> 
> Only 3 Nobel laureates in science.
> 
> [...]  The *United States* has had the most Nobel Prize winners, with 336 winners overall.
> 
> Most of the winners are not very religious and even if they are, religion isn't very pro science.  They deny global warming and evolution.  No one who wins a Nobel prize denies global warming or evolution.  Laughing stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't discuss now your weird ideas about the history of the Arabs nor do I like to discuss now with you about Nobel price winners. Your belief is atheism, your cult is pseudo-science and your church is your nationalism. What to say to your simplifying ideas except "Aha"?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are screwed up.
> 
> When the media, universities and scientists are the enemy somethings wrong.
Click to expand...


We planted the root of all universities. We created the roots of all modern sciene. I'm a Catholic with Jewish roots, idiot. We have seen a lot of cultures and civilisations come and go. It were not always the best, who survived. Nevertheless the idea "mankind is the wolve of mankind" explains nothing, whether such idiots call this "evolution" or not.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The arabs were brilliant.  Then religion took over.  Christianity fought the enlightenment too don't deny it.
> 
> The arab world invented algorithms and algebra.  What have they done since Islam?
> 
> List of Muslim Nobel laureates - Wikipedia
> 
> Only 3 Nobel laureates in science.
> 
> [...]  The *United States* has had the most Nobel Prize winners, with 336 winners overall.
> 
> Most of the winners are not very religious and even if they are, religion isn't very pro science.  They deny global warming and evolution.  No one who wins a Nobel prize denies global warming or evolution.  Laughing stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't discuss now your weird ideas about the history of the Arabs nor do I like to discuss now with you about Nobel price winners. Your belief is atheism, your cult is pseudo-science and your church is your nationalism. What to say to your simplifying ideas except "Aha"?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are screwed up.
> 
> When the media, universities and scientists are the enemy somethings wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We planted the root of all universities. We created the roots of all modern sciene. I'm a Catholic with Jewish roots, idiot. We have seen a lot of cultures and civilisations come and go. It were not always the best, who survived. Nevertheless the idea "mankind is the wolve of mankind" explains nothing, whether such idiots call this "evolution" or not.
Click to expand...


Please don’t say “we” invented anything. Each invention was invented by one man. It was never a group of religious men who invented anything.

But there have always been groups of religious men who have slowed our progress.

A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.

Today we have religious nuts slowing stem cell research and denying science.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... The arabs were brilliant.  Then religion took over.  Christianity fought the enlightenment too don't deny it.
> 
> The arab world invented algorithms and algebra.  What have they done since Islam?
> 
> List of Muslim Nobel laureates - Wikipedia
> 
> Only 3 Nobel laureates in science.
> 
> [...]  The *United States* has had the most Nobel Prize winners, with 336 winners overall.
> 
> Most of the winners are not very religious and even if they are, religion isn't very pro science.  They deny global warming and evolution.  No one who wins a Nobel prize denies global warming or evolution.  Laughing stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't discuss now your weird ideas about the history of the Arabs nor do I like to discuss now with you about Nobel price winners. Your belief is atheism, your cult is pseudo-science and your church is your nationalism. What to say to your simplifying ideas except "Aha"?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are screwed up.
> 
> When the media, universities and scientists are the enemy somethings wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We planted the root of all universities. We created the roots of all modern sciene. I'm a Catholic with Jewish roots, idiot. We have seen a lot of cultures and civilisations come and go. It were not always the best, who survived. Nevertheless the idea "mankind is the wolve of mankind" explains nothing, whether such idiots call this "evolution" or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don’t say “we” invented anything. Each invention was invented by one man. It was never a group of religious men who invented anything.
> 
> But there have always been groups of religious men who have slowed our progress.
> 
> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.
Click to expand...


Giordano Bruno provoked everyone with this totally stupid nonsense - but this was indeed not a reason to kill him. But I guess some people lost their patience and this caused his death on reasons of a judicial error in the year 1600. I don't know wether this was a real error or an intentional murder. We will see. Judical errors can cause disasters. In 1935 for example made the Nazis the first darwinistic racial laws in Germany and nearly no one in the world protested, because the world was full of racial laws. Or last year had to die in the USA more than a million human beings a very short time before they were born, because of a judical error of the supreme court of the USA of the year 1973.



> Today we have religious nuts slowing stem cell research and denying science.



You have nothing to do with real science. You use the complexity of science only as a dark reason for idiotic ideas how societies should work. I remember for example the moment I heard the first time of this research. I was angry, because I saw not any sense in this genetical nonsense for medical research. Much more interesting were - and are -  the steem cells wich exist in every body. With this cells medicine is able to help the owners of this cells and there is no need to play "god" with human beings in petri dishes in this case. Now today exists a wide field of useful purposes for endogenous steem cells and I still do not see a big sense in the research of exogenous steem cells (=human beings in some cases) except perhaps in the research for biological weapons.

 _“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” _
*Albert Einstein 
*
Today Albert would perhaps add "_... with stick and stones from entities, which we will not be able to identify as normal human beings any longer. But this monsters will think they are super-humans while all others are for them sub-humans or worthless life._"


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak

What did you like to say? Is the only thing what you are able to do to devalue what others say by calling "funny" what's not the sense of the word funny? Funny means "funny" - and not _"this man is an idiot, because he shares not my own opinion, which I am not able to verbalize nor I am able to discuss about". 
_


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.



He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.

He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.
> 
> He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.
Click to expand...


The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.  

He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.  

Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.
> 
> He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
Click to expand...



and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.
> 
> He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
Click to expand...

Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.
> 
> He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
Click to expand...



you should direct that question to them,,,,

and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.
> 
> He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
Click to expand...


Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.

I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.
> 
> He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
Click to expand...



cows arent human you dumbass


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> cows arent human you dumbass
Click to expand...


Neither are seeds in a womb according to our laws.  And I didn't see any Republicans trying to change that when they had a chance.  Tax breaks to the rich was more important.  Trying to undo Obamacare was more of a priority than the supposed babies that were murdered in 2017.  
No cows aren't human but they are sentient beings.

Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are *sentient beings* with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> cows arent human you dumbass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are seeds in a womb according to our laws.  And I didn't see any Republicans trying to change that when they had a chance.  Tax breaks to the rich was more important.  Trying to undo Obamacare was more of a priority than the supposed babies that were murdered in 2017.
> No cows aren't human but they are sentient beings.
> 
> Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are *sentient beings* with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief
Click to expand...




your TDS is showing,,,

and there was a time you democrats didnt think blacks were human,,,and to a point you still think that,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> cows arent human you dumbass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are seeds in a womb according to our laws.  And I didn't see any Republicans trying to change that when they had a chance.  Tax breaks to the rich was more important.  Trying to undo Obamacare was more of a priority than the supposed babies that were murdered in 2017.
> No cows aren't human but they are sentient beings.
> 
> Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are *sentient beings* with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief
Click to expand...



and there are no seeds in a womb, they are called eggs and it isnt an egg that is killed, its after the egg grows to a living being that it is killed


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> cows arent human you dumbass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are seeds in a womb according to our laws.  And I didn't see any Republicans trying to change that when they had a chance.  Tax breaks to the rich was more important.  Trying to undo Obamacare was more of a priority than the supposed babies that were murdered in 2017.
> No cows aren't human but they are sentient beings.
> 
> Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are *sentient beings* with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your TDS is showing,,,
> 
> and there was a time you democrats didnt think blacks were human,,,and to a point you still think that,,,
Click to expand...

Yea but just remember those Democrats back then are Republicans today. That's why you get a hard on over Robert E Lee and the confederate flag right?


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.
> 
> He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
Click to expand...


It was lawful because he was wrong and could not defend his position.  All Giordano had to do was recant or say he was wrong.  Sounds like a stubborn fool.

ETA:  Multiverses lol.  There is absolutely no evidence for multiverses.  That should be scientific heresy, too.  We only have this one universe and the fine tuning facts.  It's a closed system the way God designed it to weed out the riff raff.

Abortion is murder, but it is legal now.  My position is to overturn it and make the father and mother responsible for its child support, i.e. not try them nor the doctor for murder.


----------



## Likkmee

hjmick said:


> It's hard to believe that, in a universe so vast, there is not intelligent life out there somewhere...
> 
> Then again, I am left wondering...
> 
> If this life is so intelligent, and if they have, as some people claim, visited our planet, why do they always seem to abduct the cream of the trailer parks?


Interesting lab experiments. like brain scanning a retarded dog


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> cows arent human you dumbass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are seeds in a womb according to our laws.  And I didn't see any Republicans trying to change that when they had a chance.  Tax breaks to the rich was more important.  Trying to undo Obamacare was more of a priority than the supposed babies that were murdered in 2017.
> No cows aren't human but they are sentient beings.
> 
> Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are *sentient beings* with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your TDS is showing,,,
> 
> and there was a time you democrats didnt think blacks were human,,,and to a point you still think that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but just remember those Democrats back then are Republicans today. That's why you get a hard on over Robert E Lee and the confederate flag right?
Click to expand...



not true,,,they only changed tactics,,,

and the confederates were traitors,,,

but I do notice how you always deflect to another subject because of your TDS


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.



Compared to abortion???!!!???!!!  

Such foolish ideas.  This is the fault of the Obama administration.  They were promoting veganism.  I would not be surprised if that was in the Communist Manifesto.


----------



## westwall

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was wrong about an infinite universe because it's a closed system of entropy.  Everything must die in the system.
> 
> He wasn't murdered.  He was found guilty of heresy during the Inquisition period of Roman law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
Click to expand...






Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.


----------



## sealybobo

westwall said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Church played a role in his death.  Please don't try to defend the Catholic church.  It's impossible.
> 
> He was murdered.  Funny you right wingers think abortion is murder but what happened to him wasn't.
> 
> Yea he was wrong.  He didn't know about multiverses.  It's unknowable right now but probably true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.
Click to expand...


If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet



*Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you call that murder but not abortion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
> 
> 11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
Click to expand...



our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
> 
> 11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,
Click to expand...


Not just Trump but all the Republicans who sat by and didn't ban the practice when they had a chance.

Remember that big vote where McCain walked in and gave a thumbs down?  That was over something more important than abortion.  Allowing the insurance companies to deny coverage for pre existing conditions.  And giving the rich more tax breaks.  These were the most important things to the GOP in 2017, not the "murdering" of thousands of innocent babies???

Do you guys even realize how fucking stupid you are?  The Republicans realize it.


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
> 
> 11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,
Click to expand...


You guys hated Obama/Clinton as much as we hate Trump.  You all certainly had HDS.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
> 
> 11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys hated Obama/Clinton as much as we hate Trump.  You all certainly had HDS.
Click to expand...



who is this you guys you refer to???

just so you know I dont like trump, its just I dont use him as an excuse for everything under the sun like you TDSers do


I did hear they have support groups for you guys,,,better hurry though cause they are filling up quick,,medication might help as well


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
> 
> 11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just Trump but all the Republicans who sat by and didn't ban the practice when they had a chance.
> 
> Remember that big vote where McCain walked in and gave a thumbs down?  That was over something more important than abortion.  Allowing the insurance companies to deny coverage for pre existing conditions.  And giving the rich more tax breaks.  These were the most important things to the GOP in 2017, not the "murdering" of thousands of innocent babies???
> 
> Do you guys even realize how fucking stupid you are?  The Republicans realize it.
Click to expand...

at least you admit abortion is the murder of innocent babies,,,thats a first step to recovery,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
> 
> 11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just Trump but all the Republicans who sat by and didn't ban the practice when they had a chance.
> 
> Remember that big vote where McCain walked in and gave a thumbs down?  That was over something more important than abortion.  Allowing the insurance companies to deny coverage for pre existing conditions.  And giving the rich more tax breaks.  These were the most important things to the GOP in 2017, not the "murdering" of thousands of innocent babies???
> 
> Do you guys even realize how fucking stupid you are?  The Republicans realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at least you admit abortion is the murder of innocent babies,,,thats a first step to recovery,,,
Click to expand...

I don’t admit that and neither do republicans. If they agreed they would have outlawed it in 2017. They didn’t. It must have been a shock for you anti choice folks.

If republicans can look at 9-11 responders dying of cancer and say fuck you die, do you really think they care about a seed in your womb?


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, you demonstrate it with many of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
> 
> 11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just Trump but all the Republicans who sat by and didn't ban the practice when they had a chance.
> 
> Remember that big vote where McCain walked in and gave a thumbs down?  That was over something more important than abortion.  Allowing the insurance companies to deny coverage for pre existing conditions.  And giving the rich more tax breaks.  These were the most important things to the GOP in 2017, not the "murdering" of thousands of innocent babies???
> 
> Do you guys even realize how fucking stupid you are?  The Republicans realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at least you admit abortion is the murder of innocent babies,,,thats a first step to recovery,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t admit that and neither do republicans. If they agreed they would have outlawed it in 2017. They didn’t. It must have been a shock for you anti choice folks.
> 
> If republicans can look at 9-11 responders dying of cancer and say fuck you die, do you really think they care about a seed in your womb?
Click to expand...



your TDS is advancing,,,

please get help quick,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Trump, Mitch and Paul Ryan outlaw abortion in 2017 if it's murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> cows arent human you dumbass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are seeds in a womb according to our laws.  And I didn't see any Republicans trying to change that when they had a chance.  Tax breaks to the rich was more important.  Trying to undo Obamacare was more of a priority than the supposed babies that were murdered in 2017.
> No cows aren't human but they are sentient beings.
> 
> Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are *sentient beings* with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and there are no seeds in a womb, they are called eggs and it isnt an egg that is killed, its after the egg grows to a living being that it is killed
Click to expand...

Yea it’s sad but it is what it is, and should be. Choice.


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump, McConnell and Ryan didn't think abortion was murder in 2017, then that means the Republican party doesn't even believe abortion is murder.  If they do believe it is murder and they didn't outlaw it then they are responsible for all those murders.  Even Trump admitted it's his fault in a 2013 tweet
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏  Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.
> 
> 11:01 AM - 8 Nov 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just Trump but all the Republicans who sat by and didn't ban the practice when they had a chance.
> 
> Remember that big vote where McCain walked in and gave a thumbs down?  That was over something more important than abortion.  Allowing the insurance companies to deny coverage for pre existing conditions.  And giving the rich more tax breaks.  These were the most important things to the GOP in 2017, not the "murdering" of thousands of innocent babies???
> 
> Do you guys even realize how fucking stupid you are?  The Republicans realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at least you admit abortion is the murder of innocent babies,,,thats a first step to recovery,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t admit that and neither do republicans. If they agreed they would have outlawed it in 2017. They didn’t. It must have been a shock for you anti choice folks.
> 
> If republicans can look at 9-11 responders dying of cancer and say fuck you die, do you really think they care about a seed in your womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your TDS is advancing,,,
> 
> please get help quick,,,
Click to expand...

It shouldn’t be cut off at 8 weeks either. What was it before 27 weeks? Maybe we compromise and make it 18 weeks.


----------



## danielpalos

...would it really matter if there is at least one intelligent life form per galaxy?


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> ...would it really matter if there is at least one intelligent life form per galaxy?


You think there’s only one? That means you admit we are all related. Whales, dolphins, crows and all the other intelligent animals on planet earth.

We are just animals.

Do you think rats think we are gods?


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should direct that question to them,,,,
> 
> and it still doesnt change my comment to you,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think killing a cow to eat it is murder.  You disagree with me, the government disagrees with me.  Much like they and I disagree with you that abortion is murder.
> 
> I can't help what you think or say.  Fringe thinking is a right here in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> cows arent human you dumbass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither are seeds in a womb according to our laws.  And I didn't see any Republicans trying to change that when they had a chance.  Tax breaks to the rich was more important.  Trying to undo Obamacare was more of a priority than the supposed babies that were murdered in 2017.
> No cows aren't human but they are sentient beings.
> 
> Pigs, chickens, and other animals raised for food are *sentient beings* with rich emotional lives. They feel everything from joy to grief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and there are no seeds in a womb, they are called eggs and it isnt an egg that is killed, its after the egg grows to a living being that it is killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea it’s sad but it is what it is, and should be. Choice.
Click to expand...



murder isnt a choice,,,

but for a bunch of baby killers its SOP


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> our world doesnt revolve around trump because we dont have  a severe case of TDS like you do,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just Trump but all the Republicans who sat by and didn't ban the practice when they had a chance.
> 
> Remember that big vote where McCain walked in and gave a thumbs down?  That was over something more important than abortion.  Allowing the insurance companies to deny coverage for pre existing conditions.  And giving the rich more tax breaks.  These were the most important things to the GOP in 2017, not the "murdering" of thousands of innocent babies???
> 
> Do you guys even realize how fucking stupid you are?  The Republicans realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at least you admit abortion is the murder of innocent babies,,,thats a first step to recovery,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t admit that and neither do republicans. If they agreed they would have outlawed it in 2017. They didn’t. It must have been a shock for you anti choice folks.
> 
> If republicans can look at 9-11 responders dying of cancer and say fuck you die, do you really think they care about a seed in your womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your TDS is advancing,,,
> 
> please get help quick,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shouldn’t be cut off at 8 weeks either. What was it before 27 weeks? Maybe we compromise and make it 18 weeks.
Click to expand...



sorry I'm not a baby killer so no compromise,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just Trump but all the Republicans who sat by and didn't ban the practice when they had a chance.
> 
> Remember that big vote where McCain walked in and gave a thumbs down?  That was over something more important than abortion.  Allowing the insurance companies to deny coverage for pre existing conditions.  And giving the rich more tax breaks.  These were the most important things to the GOP in 2017, not the "murdering" of thousands of innocent babies???
> 
> Do you guys even realize how fucking stupid you are?  The Republicans realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> at least you admit abortion is the murder of innocent babies,,,thats a first step to recovery,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t admit that and neither do republicans. If they agreed they would have outlawed it in 2017. They didn’t. It must have been a shock for you anti choice folks.
> 
> If republicans can look at 9-11 responders dying of cancer and say fuck you die, do you really think they care about a seed in your womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your TDS is advancing,,,
> 
> please get help quick,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shouldn’t be cut off at 8 weeks either. What was it before 27 weeks? Maybe we compromise and make it 18 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry I'm not a baby killer so no compromise,,,
Click to expand...

I wish republicans would say that publically and on record


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> at least you admit abortion is the murder of innocent babies,,,thats a first step to recovery,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t admit that and neither do republicans. If they agreed they would have outlawed it in 2017. They didn’t. It must have been a shock for you anti choice folks.
> 
> If republicans can look at 9-11 responders dying of cancer and say fuck you die, do you really think they care about a seed in your womb?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your TDS is advancing,,,
> 
> please get help quick,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It shouldn’t be cut off at 8 weeks either. What was it before 27 weeks? Maybe we compromise and make it 18 weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry I'm not a baby killer so no compromise,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish republicans would say that publically and on record
Click to expand...



fuck republicans,,,their as much a baby killer as democrats,,,


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Please don’t say “we” invented anything. Each invention was invented by one man. It was never a group of religious men who invented anything.
> 
> But there have always been groups of religious men who have slowed our progress.
> 
> A man Bruno giordano figured out the universe and the church murdered him for going against church doctrine.
> 
> Today we have religious nuts slowing stem cell research and denying science.



That isn't a very Collectivist view, Comrade. 

Individual effort achieving results?

What would Marx say? Or Obama?


----------

