# The big question about life on other planets:  1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe



## shockedcanadian

This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.

So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy

Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.

Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.

What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


----------



## Natural Citizen

We'd never find out about it if there were. The establishment isn't gonna be just throwing away its Earthly social control mechanisms. Pffft. Nope.

The Brookings Report was also very specific and strategic to mention the implications of telling people of any such discoveries as well as the societal structure benefits of witholding any knowledge of said discoveries.


----------



## fncceo

shockedcanadian said:


> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens



Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.  

A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.

Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.


----------



## Natural Citizen

I was reading some place where they're making plans to land on Europa.


----------



## Votto

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



Perhaps the massive and lifeless nature of the rest of the universe is there to send up a message.

Off the top of my head, I think it should humble us just how small in size and scope we are to the rest of the universe.  It should also humble us to know that life is seemingly precious in such a vast place.  In fact, it is so precious the odds of something like that occurring on its own are infinitesimally impossible, at least, that is what we learn every time we discover a lifeless world.

I know that with each successive lifeless world atheist scientists discover, it bothers them there is no other life but us.  It almost makes a mockery of the concept of a universe without divine planning.


----------



## shockedcanadian

fncceo said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
Click to expand...



Maybe.  That's based on our own solar system though and the laws that exist here.  We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.  

Of course, we also don't know what full grown "human like" species might look like or how they would function under extremely different conditions.


----------



## fncceo

shockedcanadian said:


> We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.



Actually,  we kind of do.

Our observable Universe is remarkably predictable when it comes to things like gravity and motion.

In places where it doesn't act predictably,  it was because we didn't fully understand the nature of our Universe.

Planet density and gravity are a.proportional relationship in all our observations and experiments.

However, another Universe,  which is completely possible, could operate under a completely different set of physical rules.  

However, being an alternate Universe, we couldn't observe or study it.


----------



## rightwinger

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



Most planets with life on them would have creatures of the complexity of slime


----------



## rightwinger

fncceo said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  we kind of do.
> 
> Our observable Universe is remarkably predictable when it comes to things like gravity and motion.
> 
> In places where it doesn't act predictably,  it was because we didn't fully understand the nature of our Universe.
> 
> Planet density and gravity are a.proportional relationship in all our observations and experiments.
> 
> However, another Universe,  which is completely possible, could operate under a completely different set of physical rules.
> 
> However, being an alternate Universe, we couldn't observe or study it.
Click to expand...

I read that in a Superman comic book once


----------



## fncceo

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  we kind of do.
> 
> Our observable Universe is remarkably predictable when it comes to things like gravity and motion.
> 
> In places where it doesn't act predictably,  it was because we didn't fully understand the nature of our Universe.
> 
> Planet density and gravity are a.proportional relationship in all our observations and experiments.
> 
> However, another Universe,  which is completely possible, could operate under a completely different set of physical rules.
> 
> However, being an alternate Universe, we couldn't observe or study it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that in a Superman comic book once
Click to expand...


Superman, like a lot of other Jews, is really good at theoretical physics.


----------



## petro

rightwinger said:


> Most planets with life on them would have creatures of the complexity of slime



That would be us.


----------



## fncceo

rightwinger said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most planets with life on them would have creatures of the complexity of slime
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  we kind of do.
> 
> Our observable Universe is remarkably predictable when it comes to things like gravity and motion.
> 
> In places where it doesn't act predictably,  it was because we didn't fully understand the nature of our Universe.
> 
> Planet density and gravity are a.proportional relationship in all our observations and experiments.
> 
> However, another Universe,  which is completely possible, could operate under a completely different set of physical rules.
> 
> However, being an alternate Universe, we couldn't observe or study it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that in a Superman comic book once
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman, like a lot of other Jews, is really good at theoretical physics.
Click to expand...

He could fly around the earth counterclockwise and turn back time

Superman was not a Jew. He is impossible to circumcise


----------



## Indeependent

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  we kind of do.
> 
> Our observable Universe is remarkably predictable when it comes to things like gravity and motion.
> 
> In places where it doesn't act predictably,  it was because we didn't fully understand the nature of our Universe.
> 
> Planet density and gravity are a.proportional relationship in all our observations and experiments.
> 
> However, another Universe,  which is completely possible, could operate under a completely different set of physical rules.
> 
> However, being an alternate Universe, we couldn't observe or study it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that in a Superman comic book once
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman, like a lot of other Jews, is really good at theoretical physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He could fly around the earth counterclockwise and turn back time
> 
> Superman was not a Jew. He is impossible to circumcise
Click to expand...

Kal-El means Voice of God.


----------



## fncceo

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  we kind of do.
> 
> Our observable Universe is remarkably predictable when it comes to things like gravity and motion.
> 
> In places where it doesn't act predictably,  it was because we didn't fully understand the nature of our Universe.
> 
> Planet density and gravity are a.proportional relationship in all our observations and experiments.
> 
> However, another Universe,  which is completely possible, could operate under a completely different set of physical rules.
> 
> However, being an alternate Universe, we couldn't observe or study it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that in a Superman comic book once
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman, like a lot of other Jews, is really good at theoretical physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He could fly around the earth counterclockwise and turn back time
> 
> Superman was not a Jew. He is impossible to circumcise
Click to expand...


Au contraire!  Superman or Kal-el was circumcised on Krypton, before he got his powers.


----------



## alang1216

fncceo said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
Click to expand...

It seems likely that life began in our oceans, possibly from free-floating molecules.  Such life could evolve on gas giants and without a surface to be crushed against, the extreme gravity wouldn't matter.

I'm no physicist but I imagine the gravity of a gas giant would have little effect on space-time.


----------



## progressive hunter

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.




there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
all we can see is pin points of light


----------



## westwall

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.








A good book on the subject is Habitable Planets For Man, by Dr. Robert L. Forward.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
Click to expand...






Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
Click to expand...



 they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure


----------



## 22lcidw

How does Superman shave? Wouldn't he have Super Stubble?


----------



## progressive hunter

22lcidw said:


> How does Superman shave? Wouldn't he have Super Stubble?


----------



## Vastator

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


Using what we know of life on earth as an analog; your premise suffered from the fact that the most intelligent species on earth are predatory. Predation upon other living things; at least here on earth; seems to be the impetus for developing intelligence...


----------



## Vastator

progressive hunter said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
Click to expand...

That’s a big negative ghost rider...
Exoplanets: Worlds Beyond Our Solar System


----------



## progressive hunter

Vastator said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a big negative ghost rider...
> Exoplanets: Worlds Beyond Our Solar System
Click to expand...




not sure how they know its a planet if all they can see is a point of light,,

of course they can assume its a planet but that doesnt mean it is


----------



## Vastator

progressive hunter said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a big negative ghost rider...
> Exoplanets: Worlds Beyond Our Solar System
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how they know its a planet if all they can see is a point of light,,
> 
> of course they can assume its a planet but that doesnt mean it is
Click to expand...

Read up on the subject. They’ll explain it to you. Just because you don’t understand what they’re talking about; doesn’t mean they don’t know what they’re talking about.


----------



## Death Angel

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


You're  alone in the universe. Well, not really, but people today dont want to contemplate who is really put there.

It's easier to believe in physical life like us than beings who see the earth and it's inhabitants as "dust"

We are both insignificant and the most important thing on His mind.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
Click to expand...







Based on observations we have made of our own solar system. exodus planets is the most likely cause.  Of course the wobble could be induced by something else, but we have no evidence for that.

Only conjecture.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



What if the other races of the Universe find us to be the cockroaches of the Universe and figure to leave us to our own destruction out here away from the Center!?!


----------



## Frannie

fncceo said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
Click to expand...

Nothing about gravity is set, suppose a Jupiter size earth spun slower would that effect its gravity.

Answer to few planets have been observed


----------



## westwall

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the other races of the Universe find us to be the cockroaches of the Universe and figure to leave us to our own destruction out here away from the Center!?!
Click to expand...






If they can get here, they can remove us without too much difficulty.


----------



## Frannie

Votto said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the massive and lifeless nature of the rest of the universe is there to send up a message.
> 
> Off the top of my head, I think it should humble us just how small in size and scope we are to the rest of the universe.  It should also humble us to know that life is seemingly precious in such a vast place.  In fact, it is so precious the odds of something like that occurring on its own are infinitesimally impossible, at least, that is what we learn every time we discover a lifeless world.
> 
> I know that with each successive lifeless world atheist scientists discover, it bothers them there is no other life but us.  It almost makes a mockery of the concept of a universe without divine planning.
Click to expand...

Define lifeless universe when you have not explored your own town fully


----------



## CrusaderFrank

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



The only question is: how much CO2 is on the atmosphere in each planet and how much has it increased recently?


----------



## miketx

rightwinger said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most planets with life on them would have creatures of the complexity of slime
Click to expand...

Progressives then?


----------



## MAGAman

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


No. It takes a leap of faith to assume there is other advanced life.

The more science discovers about the universe the more miraculous our planet is proven to be.

Some put the odds similar to having 10,000 decks of cards shuffled and drawing 10,000 Aces of Spades off the top. Or having a tornado go through a parts yard and putting an automobile together.

I see no reason to exclude the possibility of ET visiting us one day, but no reason to expect it, either.


----------



## Frannie

MAGAman said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It takes a leap of faith to assume there is other advanced life.
> 
> The more science discovers about the universe the more miraculous our planet is proven to be.
> 
> Some put the odds similar to having 10,000 decks of cards shuffled and drawing 10,000 Aces of Spades off the top.
> 
> I see no reason to exclude the possibility of ET visiting us one day, but no reason to expect it, either.
Click to expand...

You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange 

Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything


----------



## Flash

Statistics didn't create life.    Statistics didn't create advanced life.

If there are that many planets in the universe then that means the universe if finite and you can have unique things in a finite universe.

For all we know all the rest of the planets in the universe are just like the other planets in our solar system.  Devoid of life.  

We only have one data point about life in the universe.  Until we get another data point then coming up with any statistical probability is unscientific.  It is guesswork fueled by 100 years of brainwashing with Science Fiction.  We all think  that since Cpt Kirk goes star trekking across the universe and screwing blue Orion slave girls then it is out there if we can just find a way to get there.

The earth has some very unique features to it that support life.  Even at that it hasn't supported life for the majority of the time it has been in existence.  Talk about global warming but all life will probably be destroyed on earth in about 500 million years as the sun starts it death throw expansion and starts burning up the inner planets.  All in all life would have been on earth for about 1/10th of the time it has been in existence.

We know a lot about Chemistry and we know a lot about Biology but we don't know anything about how Chemistry turns into Biology.    Not even after decades of research. 

If all it takes is water, the right temperature and a few organic chemicals to produce life then every Jr High school science class would be doing it as a classroom demonstration.

We don't know jackshit about life.


----------



## Old Man Grumbles

Planets beyond our solar system - most probable. Yet until humans advance technology to where we can cross vast distances of space and "explore new worlds" we won't know what, if any, species have evolved and their level of advancement.

Until that happens we can only continue to ponder "are we alone"?


----------



## miketx




----------



## MAGAman

Frannie said:


> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything


You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.


----------



## Frannie

MAGAman said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
Click to expand...

The people will need to live in habitats but the differences you mention will cause mutations and evolution and adaptation.  The people born on Mars will not be able to live on Earth because of a lack of immunity as Mars is sterile, or so went an article I read


----------



## miketx

Frannie said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people will need to live in habitats but the differences you mention will cause mutations and evolution and adaptation.  The people born on Mars will not be able to live on Earth because of a lack of immunity as Mars is sterile, or so went an article I read
Click to expand...

IMO, no one knows what will happen because it hasn't ever been done.


----------



## Frannie

miketx said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people will need to live in habitats but the differences you mention will cause mutations and evolution and adaptation.  The people born on Mars will not be able to live on Earth because of a lack of immunity as Mars is sterile, or so went an article I read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMO, no one knows what will happen because it hasn't ever been done.
Click to expand...

Well two things are possible.

1. Everybody dies
2. Everybody adapts and evolves to a different setting.

Nothing is special about Earth, we are not from here anyway


----------



## sparky

Haven't any of you lived next to the _Fucko's_?   

I mean Mr & Mrs _Fucko_, and all their _fucko_ kids and _fucko_ relatives, constantly doing _fucko_ things that _fuck_ with everything?  

Yeah.....you _sneak _in/out ..... don't acknowledge their _existence_ .... don't attract their _attention_......don't want them to even _know_ you're next door........

Now copy/paste that notion to any _'intelligent'_  being(s)  flying on by this rock






~S~


----------



## miketx

Frannie said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people will need to live in habitats but the differences you mention will cause mutations and evolution and adaptation.  The people born on Mars will not be able to live on Earth because of a lack of immunity as Mars is sterile, or so went an article I read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMO, no one knows what will happen because it hasn't ever been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well two things are possible.
> 
> 1. Everybody dies
> 2. Everybody adapts and evolves to a different setting.
> 
> Nothing is special about Earth, we are not from here anyway
Click to expand...

Where we from?


----------



## Frannie

miketx said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people will need to live in habitats but the differences you mention will cause mutations and evolution and adaptation.  The people born on Mars will not be able to live on Earth because of a lack of immunity as Mars is sterile, or so went an article I read
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMO, no one knows what will happen because it hasn't ever been done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well two things are possible.
> 
> 1. Everybody dies
> 2. Everybody adapts and evolves to a different setting.
> 
> Nothing is special about Earth, we are not from here anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where we from?
Click to expand...

Where ever God is from...…………………………..


----------



## Frannie

sparky said:


> Haven't any of you lived next to the _Fucko's_?
> 
> I mean Mr & Mrs _Fucko_, and all their _fucko_ kids and _fucko_ relatives, constantly doing _fucko_ things that _fuck_ with everything?
> 
> Yeah.....you _sneak _in/out ..... don't acknowledge their _existence_ .... don't attract their _attention_......don't want them to even _know_ you're next door........
> 
> Now copy/paste that notion to any _'intelligent'_  being(s)  flying on by this rock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~S~



He looks brighter than anyone at NASA who put astronauts in Pure O2 to burn up


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Strange alien world found to have water vapor and possibly rain clouds

My only question is: what is the atmospheric CO2 content of these "Habitable" planets?  It's is settled science that a 120PPM increase in CO2 can end all life on these "habitable" planets in a mere 12 years


----------



## Frannie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Strange alien world found to have water vapor and possibly rain clouds
> 
> My only question is: what is the atmospheric CO2 content of these "Habitable" planets?  It's is settled science that a 120PPM increase in CO2 can end all life on these "habitable" planets in a mere 12 years



There is exactly one known habitable planet...…………….. If there are many more be sure that the closest one is 500,000 years away


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> . In fact, it is so precious the odds of something like that occurring on its own are infinitesimally impossible, at least, that is what we learn every time we discover a lifeless world.



We could literally survey 100 billion more planets and find no life, and it would not tell us that. As of right now, we have only surveyed one planet. And it has life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MAGAman said:


> Some put the odds similar to having 10,000 decks of cards shuffled and drawing 10,000 Aces of Spades off the top. Or having a tornado go through a parts yard and putting an automobile together.


And those "some" are just pulling numbers (and fallacies)out of their asses.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> . In fact, it is so precious the odds of something like that occurring on its own are infinitesimally impossible, at least, that is what we learn every time we discover a lifeless world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could literally survey 100 billion more planets and find no life, and it would not tell us that. As of right now, we have only surveyed one planet. And it has life.
Click to expand...

Actually to survey 100 billion planets would optimistically take a trillion years

Try again simpleton


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Actually to survey 100 billion planets would optimistically take a trillion years


I didnt imply otherwise, troll.


----------



## Wuwei

CrusaderFrank said:


> The only question is: how much CO2 is on the atmosphere in each planet and how much has it increased recently?


Yeah, it could be like Venus with 96% CO2 and a surface over 860 degrees -- hot enough to melt lead and zinc. Lot's of green house gas there.

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only question is: how much CO2 is on the atmosphere in each planet and how much has it increased recently?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it could be like Venus with 96% CO2 and a surface over 860 degrees -- hot enough to melt lead and zinc. Lot's of green house gas there.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Or not


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Or not


Is too.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or not
> 
> 
> 
> Is too.
Click to expand...

If Mike rowe said so on TV.  Well it must be true


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> not sure how they know its a planet if all they can see is a point of light,,
> 
> of course they can assume its a planet but that doesnt mean it is


Wobble was an earlier method, but now they use planetary eclipses.
NASA Finds 1,284 Alien Planets, Biggest Haul Yet, with Kepler Space Telescope

The Kepler space telescope has found over a thousand planets. The telescope has been surveying the sky for years looking for dips in brightness that occur in a regular pattern. The temporal spacing of these regular planetary eclipses gives the orbit frequency, The transit time gives the speed. The change in spectrum can sometimes give an indication of the atmosphere of the planet. Also two or more synchronous patterns can detect multiple planets around the same star. There is other information that can determine the size and mass, etc.

This is makes it very probable that planets have been found.

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only question is: how much CO2 is on the atmosphere in each planet and how much has it increased recently?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it could be like Venus with 96% CO2 and a surface over 860 degrees -- hot enough to melt lead and zinc. Lot's of green house gas there.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Interesting! So you're claiming that each percentage increase in CO2 will increase temperature by about 9F?

Aren't you the guy that posted the CO2 laser article that said CO2 SUCKS at absorbing energy?

Atmospheric CO2 radiation


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how they know its a planet if all they can see is a point of light,,
> 
> of course they can assume its a planet but that doesnt mean it is
> 
> 
> 
> Wobble was an earlier method, but now they use planetary eclipses.
> NASA Finds 1,284 Alien Planets, Biggest Haul Yet, with Kepler Space Telescope
> 
> The Kepler space telescope has found over a thousand planets. The telescope has been surveying the sky for years looking for dips in brightness that occur in a regular pattern. The temporal spacing of these regular planetary eclipses gives the orbit frequency, The transit time gives the speed. The change in spectrum can sometimes give an indication of the atmosphere of the planet. Also two synchronous patterns can detect multiple planets around the same star. There is other information that can determine the size and mass, etc.
> 
> This is makes it very probable that planets have been found.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



probable doesnt mean they are,,it just means they think they are


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> probable doesnt mean they are,,it just means they think they are


Of course. Very few things in the study of the universe are totally certain. But the combination of evidence in the details of each dip and the regular sequence of dips leaves no other idea that would supplant the idea of planetary discovery.

.


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> probable doesnt mean they are,,it just means they think they are
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Very few things in the study of the universe are totally certain. But the combination of evidence in the details of each dip and the regular sequence of dips leaves no other idea that would supplant the idea of planetary discovery.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



lack of another option is not  sound science,,,


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> lack of another option is not sound science,,,


Of course it isn't. It should be considered a hypothesis until a better one comes. Indirect evidence is the only thing to go by in astronomy. That's why you get religious people on the science forum claiming the earth is a few thousand years old, and denying the big bang was billions of years old and denying radioactive dating methods.

If you want to believe the Hubble findings are not planets. Fine go ahead.

.


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> lack of another option is not sound science,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it isn't. It should be considered a hypothesis until a better one comes. Indirect evidence is the only thing to go by in astronomy. That's why you get religious people on the science forum claiming the earth is a few thousand years old, and denying the big bang was billions of years old and denying radioactive dating methods.
> 
> If you want to believe the Hubble findings are not planets. Fine go ahead.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

do you have any proof of the big bang or that it happened billions of yrs ago???
no you dont,,,thats all opinion


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> do you have any proof of the big bang or that it happened billions of yrs ago???
> no you dont,,,thats all opinion


Nothing in science can be proved. Basic physics is composed of mathematical models. That's it. Experiments or observed data drive the models. Models in basic physics agree with experiment with an accuracy of parts per billion to trillion. Models involving astrophysics, geophysics, or climate, etc. are much less accurate. 

If you want to believe something else, fine go ahead. 

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any proof of the big bang or that it happened billions of yrs ago???
> no you dont,,,thats all opinion
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in science can be proved. Basic physics is composed of mathematical models. That's it. Experiments or observed data drive the models. Models in basic physics agree with experiment with an accuracy of parts per billion to trillion. Models involving astrophysics, geophysics, or climate, etc. are much less accurate.
> 
> If you want to believe something else, fine go ahead.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wait, so now there's no such thing as "Settled science"?


----------



## Vastator

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any proof of the big bang or that it happened billions of yrs ago???
> no you dont,,,thats all opinion
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in science can be proved. Basic physics is composed of mathematical models. That's it. Experiments or observed data drive the models. Models in basic physics agree with experiment with an accuracy of parts per billion to trillion. Models involving astrophysics, geophysics, or climate, etc. are much less accurate.
> 
> If you want to believe something else, fine go ahead.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, so now there's no such thing as "Settled science"?
Click to expand...

Never has been. It is the nature of science to improve accuracy in the face of new evidence.


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any proof of the big bang or that it happened billions of yrs ago???
> no you dont,,,thats all opinion
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in science can be proved. Basic physics is composed of mathematical models. That's it. Experiments or observed data drive the models. Models in basic physics agree with experiment with an accuracy of parts per billion to trillion. Models involving astrophysics, geophysics, or climate, etc. are much less accurate.
> 
> If you want to believe something else, fine go ahead.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


so far there is nothing I can believe in,,my choices are creation based on faith and evolution based on lies and assumptions of what happened billions of yrs ago, which requires another form of faith not to mention there is a lot of evidence against evolution,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any proof of the big bang or that it happened billions of yrs ago???
> no you dont,,,thats all opinion
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in science can be proved. Basic physics is composed of mathematical models. That's it. Experiments or observed data drive the models. Models in basic physics agree with experiment with an accuracy of parts per billion to trillion. Models involving astrophysics, geophysics, or climate, etc. are much less accurate.
> 
> If you want to believe something else, fine go ahead.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so far there is nothing I can believe in,,my choices are creation based on faith and evolution based on lies and assumptions of what happened billions of yrs ago, which requires another form of faith not to mention there is a lot of evidence against evolution,,
Click to expand...

Your goofy conspiracy theories regarding science are funny,,,,


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> so far there is nothing I can believe in,,my choices are creation based on faith and evolution based on lies and assumptions of what happened billions of yrs ago, which requires another form of faith not to mention there is a lot of evidence against evolution,,


That is so sad. Maybe you shouldn't visit this science & technology forum.

.


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so far there is nothing I can believe in,,my choices are creation based on faith and evolution based on lies and assumptions of what happened billions of yrs ago, which requires another form of faith not to mention there is a lot of evidence against evolution,,
> 
> 
> 
> That is so sad. Maybe you shouldn't visit this science & technology forum.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??

now that would be sad


----------



## Frannie

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so far there is nothing I can believe in,,my choices are creation based on faith and evolution based on lies and assumptions of what happened billions of yrs ago, which requires another form of faith not to mention there is a lot of evidence against evolution,,
> 
> 
> 
> That is so sad. Maybe you shouldn't visit this science & technology forum.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad
Click to expand...

If you are expecting answers here.  That is sad actually


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Same troll, 2 accounts...


If you say so fort funny


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad


Yes it would be sad, but you seem to be so nihilistic about science and what it can mean.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be sad, but you seem to be so nihilistic about science and what it can mean.
Click to expand...

You gonna find out the truth about the universe here?

Really


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be sad, but you seem to be so nihilistic about science and what it can mean.
Click to expand...

how so???
because I dont accept what I am told to accept???

science is just that,,observation and study, and at no time can we today observe something that happened 13.5 billion yrs ago and that not even getting into the problems with that opinion. and that is just one of the 5 levels of evolution, the evo theory falls even further when you start to consider the other 4,,
and again thats not even taking into account the lies pushed by evo's to support the theory.


----------



## Frannie

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be sad, but you seem to be so nihilistic about science and what it can mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how so???
> because I dont accept what I am told to accept???
> 
> science is just that,,observation and study, and at no time can we today observe something that happened 13.5 billion yrs ago and that not even getting into the problems with that opinion. and that is just one of the 5 levels of evolution, the evo theory falls even further when you start to consider the other 4,,
> and again thats not even taking into account the lies pushed by evo's to support the theory.
Click to expand...

Nothing is known, not even what vcd we are.  Strange but true


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be sad, but you seem to be so nihilistic about science and what it can mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how so???
> because I dont accept what I am told to accept???
> 
> science is just that,,observation and study, and at no time can we today observe something that happened 13.5 billion yrs ago and that not even getting into the problems with that opinion. and that is just one of the 5 levels of evolution, the evo theory falls even further when you start to consider the other 4,,
> and again thats not even taking into account the lies pushed by evo's to support the theory.
Click to expand...

Nobody is telling you to accept anything unless you are taking a science class and don't want to fail. Most studies of the universe and early earth involve indirect evidence. If you don't want to accept that type of evidence there is no harm done and we go our separate ways.

.


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be sad, but you seem to be so nihilistic about science and what it can mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how so???
> because I dont accept what I am told to accept???
> 
> science is just that,,observation and study, and at no time can we today observe something that happened 13.5 billion yrs ago and that not even getting into the problems with that opinion. and that is just one of the 5 levels of evolution, the evo theory falls even further when you start to consider the other 4,,
> and again thats not even taking into account the lies pushed by evo's to support the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is telling you to accept anything unless you are taking a science class and don't want to fail. Most studies of the universe and early earth involve indirect evidence. If you don't want to accept that type of evidence there is no harm done and we go our separate ways.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,

real science is observation and study,,,look it up,,,


----------



## Frannie

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would be sad, but you seem to be so nihilistic about science and what it can mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how so???
> because I dont accept what I am told to accept???
> 
> science is just that,,observation and study, and at no time can we today observe something that happened 13.5 billion yrs ago and that not even getting into the problems with that opinion. and that is just one of the 5 levels of evolution, the evo theory falls even further when you start to consider the other 4,,
> and again thats not even taking into account the lies pushed by evo's to support the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is telling you to accept anything unless you are taking a science class and don't want to fail. Most studies of the universe and early earth involve indirect evidence. If you don't want to accept that type of evidence there is no harm done and we go our separate ways.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,
> 
> real science is observation and study,,,look it up,,,
Click to expand...

Everything about the universe is a guess

Everything


----------



## Wuwei

CrusaderFrank said:


> Interesting! So you're claiming that each percentage increase in CO2 will increase temperature by about 9F?


No.


CrusaderFrank said:


> Aren't you the guy that posted the CO2 laser article that said CO2 SUCKS at absorbing energy?


No you didn't understand the OP. I'm the guy that said most molecular collisions at earth temperatures are elastic and do not have enough energy to deposit internal vibration energy to CO2. But all collisions can exchange kinetic translational energy, and CO2 can absorb 15 micron radiation.

.


----------



## Votto

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only question is: how much CO2 is on the atmosphere in each planet and how much has it increased recently?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it could be like Venus with 96% CO2 and a surface over 860 degrees -- hot enough to melt lead and zinc. Lot's of green house gas there.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Well the Venetians were warned not to drive SUV's and not tax carbon emissions.


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,
> 
> real science is observation and study,,,look it up,,,


I didn't say indirect science. I said indirect evidence such as radioactive dating, looking at the properties of deep ice cores, dates from tree rings etc.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so far there is nothing I can believe in,,my choices are creation based on faith and evolution based on lies and assumptions of what happened billions of yrs ago, which requires another form of faith not to mention there is a lot of evidence against evolution,,
> 
> 
> 
> That is so sad. Maybe you shouldn't visit this science & technology forum.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you saying I should stop looking for the truth??
> 
> now that would be sad
Click to expand...


You already stopped,,,,

That's sad,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,
> 
> real science is observation and study,,,look it up,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say indirect science. I said indirect evidence such as radioactive dating, looking at the properties of deep ice cores, dates from tree rings etc.
Click to expand...

just so happens those 3 test you just listed are some of the biggest problems in evo,,and I would go as far to say they are some of the lies of evolution,,

all the isotope dating process are so flawed the people that do the testing openly admit it when pressed

as for ice rings and tree rings,, its all based on assumptions that say only one ring is formed per yr,,,sorry to tell you that is  far from the case

rings in both trees and ice are based on moisture and temperature and many rings can  form each yr in both


----------



## Frannie

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,
> 
> real science is observation and study,,,look it up,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say indirect science. I said indirect evidence such as radioactive dating, looking at the properties of deep ice cores, dates from tree rings etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just so happens those 3 test you just listed are some of the biggest problems in evo,,and I would go as far to say they are some of the lies of evolution,,
> 
> all the isotope dating process are so flawed the people that do the testing openly admit it when pressed
> 
> as for ice rings and tree rings,, its all based on assumptions that say only one ring is formed per yr,,,sorry to tell you that is  far from the case
> 
> rings in both trees and ice are based on moisture and temperature and many rings can  form each yr in both
Click to expand...

Evolution has no problems as fiction can be anything.


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,
> 
> real science is observation and study,,,look it up,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say indirect science. I said indirect evidence such as radioactive dating, looking at the properties of deep ice cores, dates from tree rings etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just so happens those 3 test you just listed are some of the biggest problems in evo,,and I would go as far to say they are some of the lies of evolution,,
> 
> all the isotope dating process are so flawed the people that do the testing openly admit it when pressed
> 
> as for ice rings and tree rings,, its all based on assumptions that say only one ring is formed per yr,,,sorry to tell you that is  far from the case
> 
> rings in both trees and ice are based on moisture and temperature and many rings can  form each yr in both
Click to expand...

If you don't want to believe it, so be it. 

.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,
> 
> real science is observation and study,,,look it up,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say indirect science. I said indirect evidence such as radioactive dating, looking at the properties of deep ice cores, dates from tree rings etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just so happens those 3 test you just listed are some of the biggest problems in evo,,and I would go as far to say they are some of the lies of evolution,,
> 
> all the isotope dating process are so flawed the people that do the testing openly admit it when pressed
> 
> as for ice rings and tree rings,, its all based on assumptions that say only one ring is formed per yr,,,sorry to tell you that is  far from the case
> 
> rings in both trees and ice are based on moisture and temperature and many rings can  form each yr in both
Click to expand...


Floating conspiracy theories is the answer to those evilutionist atheist scientists,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no such thing as indirect science,,,thats called guessing or just makin shit up,,,
> 
> real science is observation and study,,,look it up,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say indirect science. I said indirect evidence such as radioactive dating, looking at the properties of deep ice cores, dates from tree rings etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just so happens those 3 test you just listed are some of the biggest problems in evo,,and I would go as far to say they are some of the lies of evolution,,
> 
> all the isotope dating process are so flawed the people that do the testing openly admit it when pressed
> 
> as for ice rings and tree rings,, its all based on assumptions that say only one ring is formed per yr,,,sorry to tell you that is  far from the case
> 
> rings in both trees and ice are based on moisture and temperature and many rings can  form each yr in both
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't want to believe it, so be it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

why would I believe it if it wasnt true???

what I just stated is a known fact


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Have you guys noticed that the frauds arguing against evolution know less than nothing about evolution?


----------



## harmonica

......there is no life on other planets...god created all of those planets and galaxies/etc --that we can't even see---so creationists can say creation is proof of god
hahhahahahahahahahahaah


----------



## harmonica

Votto said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the massive and lifeless nature of the rest of the universe is there to send up a message.
> 
> Off the top of my head, I think it should humble us just how small in size and scope we are to the rest of the universe.  It should also humble us to know that life is seemingly precious in such a vast place.  In fact, it is so precious the odds of something like that occurring on its own are infinitesimally impossible, at least, that is what we learn every time we discover a lifeless world.
> 
> I know that with each successive lifeless world atheist scientists discover, it bothers them there is no other life but us.  It almost makes a mockery of the concept of a universe without divine planning.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha
......so god made all of those planets and galaxies just for that????!!!!!!!!????? =DUMB/senseless


----------



## harmonica

Frannie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange alien world found to have water vapor and possibly rain clouds
> 
> My only question is: what is the atmospheric CO2 content of these "Habitable" planets?  It's is settled science that a 120PPM increase in CO2 can end all life on these "habitable" planets in a mere 12 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly one known habitable planet...…………….. If there are many more be sure that the closest one is 500,000 years away
Click to expand...

..if there is not another habitable planet in all the universe that would not make sense


----------



## Wuwei

harmonica said:


> ..if there is not another habitable planet in all the universe that would not make sense


How many planets are in the universe & solar system? (2019)
It has been estimated that there are
21,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.
If the probability that a planet gives rise to life is so small that it is one out of a million trillion there would be still be about 
21,600,000 planets that can support life. 
Yes, I would agree that it doesn't make sense if there were none.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..if there is not another habitable planet in all the universe that would not make sense
> 
> 
> 
> How many planets are in the universe & solar system? (2019)
> It has been estimated that there are
> 21,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.
> If the probability that a planet gives rise to life is so small that it is one out of a million trillion there would be still be about
> 21,600,000 planets that can support life.
> Yes, I would agree that it doesn't make sense if there were none.
Click to expand...

Those numbers are wrong because current estimates predicts 11,000,000 habitable planets in the Milky Way alone

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia


----------



## ThisIsMe

I find it odd that we know there are 1000000000000000 (whatever) planets in the galaxy, but we cant get a decent cell phone signal 20 miles outside of town....


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..if there is not another habitable planet in all the universe that would not make sense
> 
> 
> 
> How many planets are in the universe & solar system? (2019)
> It has been estimated that there are
> 21,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.
> If the probability that a planet gives rise to life is so small that it is one out of a million trillion there would be still be about
> 21,600,000 planets that can support life.
> Yes, I would agree that it doesn't make sense if there were none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those numbers are wrong because current estimates predicts 11,000,000 habitable planets in the Milky Way alone
> 
> List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


You are going to have to take that up with Wikipedia and SkiesAndScopes. Mayby you could change Wikipedia's text to match SkiesAndScopes and everything will be nice again.

.


----------



## Wuwei

ThisIsMe said:


> I find it odd that we know there are 1000000000000000 (whatever) planets in the galaxy, but we cant get a decent cell phone signal 20 miles outside of town....


If you want to call Alpha Centauri, their area code is 9456852348902457-555-5555. 

.


----------



## petro

Wuwei said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it odd that we know there are 1000000000000000 (whatever) planets in the galaxy, but we cant get a decent cell phone signal 20 miles outside of town....
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call Alpha Centauri, their area code is 9456852348902457-555-5555.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Intergalactic rates apply.


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> He could fly around the earth counterclockwise and turn back time



We know you're not a Jew.  You can't even figure out you can't go back in time.  That's stupid atheist beliefs.


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> A good book on the subject is Habitable Planets For Man, by Dr. Robert L. Forward.



Save your money.  We discussed that here already and the best we could do is a few of us living in a space station.  It would take too many people to start a new civilization elsewhere even if we learn how to terraform a planet for habitability.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good book on the subject is Habitable Planets For Man, by Dr. Robert L. Forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save your money.  We discussed that here already and the best we could do is a few of us living in a space station.  It would take too many people to start a new civilization elsewhere even if we learn how to terraform a planet for habitability.
Click to expand...







As is pointed out in the book, there are plenty of planets out there that require no terraforming. 

You need 200 breeding pairs for a colony to be successful.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..if there is not another habitable planet in all the universe that would not make sense
> 
> 
> 
> How many planets are in the universe & solar system? (2019)
> It has been estimated that there are
> 21,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.
> If the probability that a planet gives rise to life is so small that it is one out of a million trillion there would be still be about
> 21,600,000 planets that can support life.
> Yes, I would agree that it doesn't make sense if there were none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those numbers are wrong because current estimates predicts 11,000,000 habitable planets in the Milky Way alone
> 
> List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going to have to take that up with Wikipedia and SkiesAndScopes. Mayby you could change Wikipedia's text to match SkiesAndScopes and everything will be nice again.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Lol wikipedia is kids posting to the net, I was making a point.  

Why do I have to do anything

Play on kid


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Lol wikipedia is kids posting to the net, I was making a point.
> 
> Why do I have to do anything
> 
> Play on kid


Hey kid, it was sarcasm. You are doing the same. Play on kid. 

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wikipedia is kids posting to the net, I was making a point.
> 
> Why do I have to do anything
> 
> Play on kid
> 
> 
> 
> Hey kid, it was sarcasm. You are doing the same. Play on kid.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

But God loves me...……………….So fuck you


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> But God loves me...……………….So fuck you


God doesn't love you for being so intemperate and straying so far off topic. God loves me better because I'm ending this unfruitful banter right now and I'm not telling you to do an impossible self stimulating act, metaphorically.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wikipedia is kids posting to the net, I was making a point.
> 
> Why do I have to do anything
> 
> Play on kid
> 
> 
> 
> Hey kid, it was sarcasm. You are doing the same. Play on kid.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But God loves me...……………….So fuck you
Click to expand...

Awww, him's sky daddy loves him. Adorable.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But God loves me...……………….So fuck you
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't love you for being so intemperate and straying so far off topic. God loves me better because I'm ending this unfruitful banter right now and I'm not telling you to do an impossible self stimulating act, metaphorically.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Well however much God loves you he loves me twice as much


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wikipedia is kids posting to the net, I was making a point.
> 
> Why do I have to do anything
> 
> Play on kid
> 
> 
> 
> Hey kid, it was sarcasm. You are doing the same. Play on kid.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But God loves me...……………….So fuck you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww, him's sky daddy loves him. Adorable.
Click to expand...

Jesus was a man, so is God.  When you figure this out you will make it happen


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wikipedia is kids posting to the net, I was making a point.
> 
> Why do I have to do anything
> 
> Play on kid
> 
> 
> 
> Hey kid, it was sarcasm. You are doing the same. Play on kid.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But God loves me...……………….So fuck you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww, him's sky daddy loves him. Adorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was a man, so is God.  When you figure this out you will make it happen
Click to expand...

Jesus was a conman. Gods are myths.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol wikipedia is kids posting to the net, I was making a point.
> 
> Why do I have to do anything
> 
> Play on kid
> 
> 
> 
> Hey kid, it was sarcasm. You are doing the same. Play on kid.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But God loves me...……………….So fuck you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww, him's sky daddy loves him. Adorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was a man, so is God.  When you figure this out you will make it happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was a conman. Gods are myths.
Click to expand...

God can write DNA faster than you jerk off


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey kid, it was sarcasm. You are doing the same. Play on kid.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> But God loves me...……………….So fuck you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awww, him's sky daddy loves him. Adorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was a man, so is God.  When you figure this out you will make it happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was a conman. Gods are myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God can write DNA faster than you jerk off
Click to expand...

Fake gods can't write anything. They're fake.


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> God can write DNA faster than you jerk off


It took god millions of years to develop DNA. Most can jerk off faster than that.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But God loves me...……………….So fuck you
> 
> 
> 
> Awww, him's sky daddy loves him. Adorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was a man, so is God.  When you figure this out you will make it happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus was a conman. Gods are myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God can write DNA faster than you jerk off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake gods can't write anything. They're fake.
Click to expand...

That is true, but real Gods can.  Explain how DNA wrote itself in a sterile pond


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> God can write DNA faster than you jerk off
> 
> 
> 
> It took god millions of years to develop DNA. Most can jerk of faster than that.
Click to expand...

DNA is being written and rewritten now by geneticist.  Not taking millions of years either.

Now you explain how a sterile pond wrote DNA?

Darwin was too stupid to even know what DNA was

Yet you believe his babbles


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, gods can do anything!

But...abiogenesis? Oh, goodness no, gods can't do THAT, silly.


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> DNA is being written and rewritten now by geneticist. Not taking millions of years either.
> 
> Now you explain how a sterile pond wrote DNA?
> 
> Darwin was too stupid to even know what DNA was
> 
> Yet you believe his babbles


RNA can self replicate. Amino acids were all over the place and one was even found in a comet. Just wait for a few hundred years and have faith that science will find out.


----------



## watchingfromafar

They are here among us, I know; I'm one -


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is being written and rewritten now by geneticist. Not taking millions of years either.
> 
> Now you explain how a sterile pond wrote DNA?
> 
> Darwin was too stupid to even know what DNA was
> 
> Yet you believe his babbles
> 
> 
> 
> RNA can self replicate. Amino acids were all over the place and one was even found in a comet. Just wait for a few hundred years and have faith that science will find out.
Click to expand...

Nothing that does not exist can self replicate.  So RNA can not self replicate until RNA exist, the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing

Do try again


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> DNA is being written and rewritten now by geneticist. Not taking millions of years either.


How jealous Yahweh must be....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is being written and rewritten now by geneticist. Not taking millions of years either.
> 
> Now you explain how a sterile pond wrote DNA?
> 
> Darwin was too stupid to even know what DNA was
> 
> Yet you believe his babbles
> 
> 
> 
> RNA can self replicate. Amino acids were all over the place and one was even found in a comet. Just wait for a few hundred years and have faith that science will find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing that does not exist can self replicate.  So RNA can not self replicate until RNA exist, the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing
> 
> Do try again
Click to expand...

A stupid argument, prima facie, as nobody but you is suggesting the only two steps were nothing,then RNA. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is being written and rewritten now by geneticist. Not taking millions of years either.
> 
> 
> 
> How jealous Yahweh must be....
Click to expand...

Nah, he was an astronaut, came here to rest and left an ecosystem in 6 days


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is being written and rewritten now by geneticist. Not taking millions of years either.
> 
> Now you explain how a sterile pond wrote DNA?
> 
> Darwin was too stupid to even know what DNA was
> 
> Yet you believe his babbles
> 
> 
> 
> RNA can self replicate. Amino acids were all over the place and one was even found in a comet. Just wait for a few hundred years and have faith that science will find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing that does not exist can self replicate.  So RNA can not self replicate until RNA exist, the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing
> 
> Do try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A stupid argument, prima facie, as nobody but you is suggesting the only two steps were nothing,then RNA. You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

Show me RNA replicating when there is no RNA as the sterile pond had

Really kid your science God is dead a long tome ago, now even physicist agree that the universe is a computer program, requiring a programmer, IE God


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Nothing that does not exist can self replicate. So RNA can not self replicate until RNA exist, the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing
> 
> Do try again


Put some sterile crud in a bucket, warm it up and zap it occasionally, and you won't see abiogenesis. Try trillions of buckets and wait millions of years and the right combo is bound to happen. So I think.


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Show me RNA replicating when there is no RNA as the sterile pond had
> 
> Really kid your science God is dead a long tome ago, now even physicist agree that the universe is a computer program, requiring a programmer, IE God


...."even physicist".... Not correct grammar. 
Do you mean "even all physicists"or "even a physicist" or "even a few physicist"?

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me RNA replicating when there is no RNA as the sterile pond had
> 
> Really kid your science God is dead a long tome ago, now even physicist agree that the universe is a computer program, requiring a programmer, IE God
> 
> 
> 
> ...."even physicist".... Not correct grammar.
> Do you mean "even all physicists"or "even a physicist" or "even a few physicist"?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Does not matter how you spegle it, the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Does not matter how you spegle it, the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing


Shaman Frannie has spoken!


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing


It seems that the only thing that comes from you is a rectalcranial inversion.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing that comes from nothing is nothing
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that the only thing that comes from you is a rectalcranial inversion.
Click to expand...

And you are a bottomless pit of nothing...…………………..

But be sure to detail how something can come from nothing


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> But be sure to detail how something can come from nothing



Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light 
_A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness...._​
  A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
_For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing....
... These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations._​


----------



## progressive hunter

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But be sure to detail how something can come from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
> _A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness...._​
> A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
> _For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing....
> ... These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations._​
Click to expand...



more assumptions lacking in facts or reality,,


----------



## bripat9643

shockedcanadian said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  That's based on our own solar system though and the laws that exist here.  We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> Of course, we also don't know what full grown "human like" species might look like or how they would function under extremely different conditions.
Click to expand...

A basic principle of science is that the same laws exist everywhere.  It would be nonsensical if they didn't.


----------



## Wuwei

progressive hunter said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But be sure to detail how something can come from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
> _A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness...._​
> A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
> _For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing....
> ... These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more assumptions lacking in facts or reality,,
Click to expand...

you asked "*How something can come from nothing*" 
I told you* how*, I didn't say it was actual fact.

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But be sure to detail how something can come from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
> _A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness...._​
> A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
> _For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing....
> ... These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations._​
Click to expand...

Dude something from nothing requires an entirely new set of physical rules and conservation of mass as a result vanishes

Copy and paste changes nothing


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But be sure to detail how something can come from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
> _A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness...._​
> A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
> _For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing....
> ... These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more assumptions lacking in facts or reality,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked "*How something can come from nothing*"
> I told you* how*, I didn't say it was actual fact.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

If it's not a fact it is no different that one of your wet dreams


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  That's based on our own solar system though and the laws that exist here.  We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> Of course, we also don't know what full grown "human like" species might look like or how they would function under extremely different conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A basic principle of science is that the same laws exist everywhere.  It would be nonsensical if they didn't.
Click to expand...

Except when geniuses declare that the universe created itself from nothing because nothing got bored one day and decided to turn nothing into the universe


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  That's based on our own solar system though and the laws that exist here.  We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> Of course, we also don't know what full grown "human like" species might look like or how they would function under extremely different conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A basic principle of science is that the same laws exist everywhere.  It would be nonsensical if they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when geniuses declare that the universe created itself from nothing because nothing got bored one day and decided to turn nothing into the universe
Click to expand...

Who created God?


----------



## sealybobo

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


I was watching how the universe works and they did one on all the hellacious planets they see that couldn’t possibly be inhabited with life but look at our solar system. If you were circling another star looking at us you would probably only see Jupiter Saturn Uranus and Neptune and they would look uninhabitable too.

They may not even see tiny earth.


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Dude something from nothing requires an entirely new set of physical rules and conservation of mass as a result vanishes





Frannie said:


> If it's not a fact it is no different that one of your wet dreams



Not mine. It read about the wet dream of George Gamov many decades ago. He estimated that the negative gravitational potential of the universe is equal to the positive energy of mass. If they were exactly equal, the total energy of the universe would be zero. Virtual particles does the rest.

That requires no new laws of physics. A zero energy universe from nothing. The source I cited gives the authors of a theory on how it can happen.
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

It is not a wet dream but a viable hypothesis. You haven't been paying attention. I await your anti-science nihilistic snide remarks.

.


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
Click to expand...

If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a big negative ghost rider...
> Exoplanets: Worlds Beyond Our Solar System
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how they know its a planet if all they can see is a point of light,,
> 
> of course they can assume its a planet but that doesnt mean it is
Click to expand...

And you can assume there’s life circling every one of those points of lite. We don’t know. Do you claim to know?

And why would you think we are the only ones?


----------



## sealybobo

MAGAman said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It takes a leap of faith to assume there is other advanced life.
> 
> The more science discovers about the universe the more miraculous our planet is proven to be.
> 
> Some put the odds similar to having 10,000 decks of cards shuffled and drawing 10,000 Aces of Spades off the top. Or having a tornado go through a parts yard and putting an automobile together.
> 
> I see no reason to exclude the possibility of ET visiting us one day, but no reason to expect it, either.
Click to expand...

Yea but given the way solar systems are created and give it 5 billion years and eventually one planet will be in the Goldilocks zone and will get an atmosphere and water and ogygen and intelligent life will happen. We know because it happened here.

And life may have once been on mars. Billions of years before us.

And there might be lif on Europa.

Do you know there may b a planet beyond Pluto that’s huge and we don’t know because it’s so far away from our sun. We don’t know enough to determine yet. That’s the right answer


----------



## sealybobo

MAGAman said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
Click to expand...

If we could plant life on mars we would. Not humans but dna or simple single cell organisms 

Or if we could somehow create an ozone and plant oxygen or protein or fungus or anything that might take hold we would for sure.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
Click to expand...



here in america you are free to believe anything you want to,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a big negative ghost rider...
> Exoplanets: Worlds Beyond Our Solar System
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how they know its a planet if all they can see is a point of light,,
> 
> of course they can assume its a planet but that doesnt mean it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can assume there’s life circling every one of those points of lite. We don’t know. Do you claim to know?
> 
> And why would you think we are the only ones?
Click to expand...



when did I say either way??


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a big negative ghost rider...
> Exoplanets: Worlds Beyond Our Solar System
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how they know its a planet if all they can see is a point of light,,
> 
> of course they can assume its a planet but that doesnt mean it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can assume there’s life circling every one of those points of lite. We don’t know. Do you claim to know?
> 
> And why would you think we are the only ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did I say either way??
Click to expand...

Then we agree. The correct answer is we don’t know


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside our solar system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> 
> 
> That’s a big negative ghost rider...
> Exoplanets: Worlds Beyond Our Solar System
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how they know its a planet if all they can see is a point of light,,
> 
> of course they can assume its a planet but that doesnt mean it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can assume there’s life circling every one of those points of lite. We don’t know. Do you claim to know?
> 
> And why would you think we are the only ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when did I say either way??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we agree. The correct answer is we don’t know
Click to expand...

as I said,,we dont even know for sure they are planets let alone if they have life as we know it


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside oudon'r system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
Click to expand...

Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside oudon'r system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside oudon'r system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
Click to expand...







The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  That's based on our own solar system though and the laws that exist here.  We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> Of course, we also don't know what full grown "human like" species might look like or how they would function under extremely different conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A basic principle of science is that the same laws exist everywhere.  It would be nonsensical if they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when geniuses declare that the universe created itself from nothing because nothing got bored one day and decided to turn nothing into the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created God?
Click to expand...

That is not answerable from out current perspective, at the very least God must be defined before such a question can be ask.  A better question is what created us, and I assure you that no sterile pond created the most sophisticated code in the universe our DNA.  And do not babble that RNA created itself either because the mathematical probability of that is null


----------



## Frannie

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
Click to expand...

Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was


----------



## westwall

Frannie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
Click to expand...







Wrong, the matter is the same age. But the form that matter takes is what we are talking about.

Now. Go away troll.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.


Yes,I know. I said it took almost half the life of our star for our lightbulb of sentience to wink on (in our species,here on Earth).


----------



## Frannie

sealybobo said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we could plant life on mars we would. Not humans but dna or simple single cell organisms
> 
> Or if we could somehow create an ozone and plant oxygen or protein or fungus or anything that might take hold we would for sure.
Click to expand...

There will be life on Mars, but it will take experimentation.  Life does not need the conditions on Earth, the purpose for adaptation is for life to thrive in various places, as it does on Earth from 1000 degree sulfur based hydrothermal vents to cold mountaintops


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
Click to expand...

"A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,I know. I said it took almost half the life of our star for our lightbulb of sentience to wink on (in our species,here on Earth).
Click to expand...






And that too is inaccurate, our level of sentience is less than two million years old.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside oudon'r system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
Click to expand...



do you have  proof of that ???
or is it still an assumption??


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
Click to expand...






The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> And that too is inaccurate, our level of sentience is less than two million years old.


Yes, I know, which makes what i said accurate. It took almost half the life of the Sun for sentience to appear on one of its planets. I dont think any of us are actually disagreeing, here.


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  That's based on our own solar system though and the laws that exist here.  We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> Of course, we also don't know what full grown "human like" species might look like or how they would function under extremely different conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A basic principle of science is that the same laws exist everywhere.  It would be nonsensical if they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when geniuses declare that the universe created itself from nothing because nothing got bored one day and decided to turn nothing into the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not answerable from out current perspective, at the very least God must be defined before such a question can be ask.  A better question is what created us, and I assure you that no sterile pond created the most sophisticated code in the universe our DNA.  And do not babble that RNA created itself either because the mathematical probability of that is null
Click to expand...

Wrong.  The proposition that everything needs a creator is a logical contradiction.    If God doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe.  Your failure to answer the question I asked shows that even you know that.

Creationism is absurd.


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
Click to expand...

If it always existed, then when did God create it?

You're spouting contradictions again.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that too is inaccurate, our level of sentience is less than two million years old.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, which makes what i said accurate. It took almost half the life of the Sun for sentience to appear on one of its planets.
Click to expand...

No, it took more than half.  Real sentience doesn't begin till the Cambrian Period, 570 to 600 million years ago.

Before that it was jelly fish at best.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
Click to expand...

I would love to see the proof of that,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it always existed, then when did God create it?
> 
> You're spouting contradictions again.
Click to expand...

not if he created time at the same time he created matter and space,,,


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
Click to expand...

The disk and the sun formed at the same time.  However, it took more time for the disc to coalesce into planets.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
Click to expand...







The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.


----------



## Frannie

westwall said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the matter is the same age. But the form that matter takes is what we are talking about.
> 
> Now. Go away troll.
Click to expand...

The material that your body is made of is exactly the same age as the universe...…..

Prove me wrong

Or go away troll

LOL


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it always existed, then when did God create it?
> 
> You're spouting contradictions again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he created time at the same time he created matter and space,,,
Click to expand...

"At the same time" presumes that time already exists.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
Click to expand...

so its a theory not fact,,,got it

you might want to add that into your answers because there are some that take what they see on the internet as fact


----------



## Frannie

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
Click to expand...


What formed the sun?


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it always existed, then when did God create it?
> 
> You're spouting contradictions again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he created time at the same time he created matter and space,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "At the same time" presumes that time already exists.
Click to expand...



no it doesnt,,

which came first time, space or matter??


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, the matter is the same age. But the form that matter takes is what we are talking about.
> 
> Now. Go away troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The material that your body is made of is exactly the same age as the universe...…..
> 
> Prove me wrong
> 
> Or go away troll
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


That depends on how you define "The material that your body is made of."  Are you only counting protons and neutrons, or are Carbon and Oxygen something different from Hydrogen?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> No, it took more than half. Real sentience doesn't begin till the Cambrian Period, 570 to 600 million years ago.


Which would be about 4 billion years into the life of a star expected to "live" about 12 billion+ years. So...not more than half... Methinks we are talking past each other...


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> 
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What formed the sun?
Click to expand...

Gravity.


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  That's based on our own solar system though and the laws that exist here.  We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> Of course, we also don't know what full grown "human like" species might look like or how they would function under extremely different conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> A basic principle of science is that the same laws exist everywhere.  It would be nonsensical if they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except when geniuses declare that the universe created itself from nothing because nothing got bored one day and decided to turn nothing into the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not answerable from out current perspective, at the very least God must be defined before such a question can be ask.  A better question is what created us, and I assure you that no sterile pond created the most sophisticated code in the universe our DNA.  And do not babble that RNA created itself either because the mathematical probability of that is null
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  The proposition that everything needs a creator is a logical contradiction.    If God doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe.  Your failure to answer the question I asked shows that even you know that.
> 
> Creationism is absurd.
Click to expand...

No one has any idea what the universe is much less where it came from.  This is why all the math that would explain what is observed in the universe fails as the math is not itself wrong but can not be applied to unknowns


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it always existed, then when did God create it?
> 
> You're spouting contradictions again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he created time at the same time he created matter and space,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "At the same time" presumes that time already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt,,
> 
> which came first time, space or matter??
Click to expand...

We're discussing when time existed, not just space and matter.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> No one has any idea what the universe is much less where it came from.


No shit dummy, that's why we're trying to figure it out.


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What formed the sun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity.
Click to expand...

What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A basic principle of science is that the same laws exist everywhere.  It would be nonsensical if they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Except when geniuses declare that the universe created itself from nothing because nothing got bored one day and decided to turn nothing into the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not answerable from out current perspective, at the very least God must be defined before such a question can be ask.  A better question is what created us, and I assure you that no sterile pond created the most sophisticated code in the universe our DNA.  And do not babble that RNA created itself either because the mathematical probability of that is null
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  The proposition that everything needs a creator is a logical contradiction.    If God doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe.  Your failure to answer the question I asked shows that even you know that.
> 
> Creationism is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any idea what the universe is much less where it came from.  This is why all the math that would explain what is observed in the universe fails as the math is not itself wrong but can not be applied to unknowns
Click to expand...

There are so many things wrong with that, I don't know where to start.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has any idea what the universe is much less where it came from.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit dummy, that's why we're trying to figure it out.
Click to expand...

You can't figure out how to not wet your pants at night


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What formed the sun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity
Click to expand...

The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except when geniuses declare that the universe created itself from nothing because nothing got bored one day and decided to turn nothing into the universe
> 
> 
> 
> Who created God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not answerable from out current perspective, at the very least God must be defined before such a question can be ask.  A better question is what created us, and I assure you that no sterile pond created the most sophisticated code in the universe our DNA.  And do not babble that RNA created itself either because the mathematical probability of that is null
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  The proposition that everything needs a creator is a logical contradiction.    If God doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe.  Your failure to answer the question I asked shows that even you know that.
> 
> Creationism is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any idea what the universe is much less where it came from.  This is why all the math that would explain what is observed in the universe fails as the math is not itself wrong but can not be applied to unknowns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are so many things wrong with that, I don't know where to start.
Click to expand...

You can not start because a true unknown has no beginning body or end


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has any idea what the universe is much less where it came from.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit dummy, that's why we're trying to figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't figure out how to not wet your pants at night
Click to expand...

We all fully expected you to tap out of this discussion, the moment it went over your head.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
> 
> 
> 
> If it always existed, then when did God create it?
> 
> You're spouting contradictions again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if he created time at the same time he created matter and space,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "At the same time" presumes that time already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt,,
> 
> which came first time, space or matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing when time existed, not just space and matter.
Click to expand...

all of them are interconnected if you look at it from an evolution POV  they all had to happen at the same time

but if you look at it from a creation POV then thats spelled out in genesis

god created time then space them matter


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What formed the sun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has any idea what the universe is much less where it came from.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit dummy, that's why we're trying to figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't figure out how to not wet your pants at night
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all fully expected you to tap out of this discussion, the moment it went over your head.
Click to expand...

LOL and you believe that you might solve the universe on this page now....

Dude you are the definition of schizophrenia

Comical actually


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it always existed, then when did God create it?
> 
> You're spouting contradictions again.
> 
> 
> 
> not if he created time at the same time he created matter and space,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "At the same time" presumes that time already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt,,
> 
> which came first time, space or matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing when time existed, not just space and matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them are interconnected if you look at it from an evolution POV  they all had to happen at the same time
> 
> but if you look at it from a creation POV then thats spelled out in genesis
> 
> god created time then space them matter
Click to expand...

Why would I look at them from the creation point of view?  That's a fairy tale.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> LOL and you believe that you might solve the universe on this page now....


No...and, by "we", i mean our species. And we will make progress, despite cackling, know-nothing naysayers like you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not if he created time at the same time he created matter and space,,,
> 
> 
> 
> "At the same time" presumes that time already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt,,
> 
> which came first time, space or matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing when time existed, not just space and matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them are interconnected if you look at it from an evolution POV  they all had to happen at the same time
> 
> but if you look at it from a creation POV then thats spelled out in genesis
> 
> god created time then space them matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I look at them from the creation point of view?  That's a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

One troll. Two accounts. Keep that in mind...


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What formed the sun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself
Click to expand...

You're spouting meaningless babble.  All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL and you believe that you might solve the universe on this page now....
> 
> 
> 
> No...and, by "we", i mean our species. And we will make progress, despite cackling, know-nothing naysayers like you.
Click to expand...

LOL what would the human race be without you...……………….

Less funny for one


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What formed the sun?
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're spouting meaningless babble.  All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction.
Click to expand...

Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field

Try again


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field


Well, that makes no sense on any level...

To all: no need to respond to this gibberish...


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're spouting meaningless babble.  All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field
> 
> Try again
Click to expand...

All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction - every last proton and electron.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, a frightening thought is that sentient life has and will exist trillions of times in our universe, but no two sentient species from different planets ever have or ever will meet each other.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that makes no sense on any level...
> 
> To all: no need to respond to this gibberish...
Click to expand...

Sure it does you are just too dumb to know that the Voyage 1 craft is in interstellar space which is not affected by any gravitational field.

I could teach you, but you are hopeless


----------



## toobfreak

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



Your number is low.  Every star has a system of planets around it and almost every system has at least one planet with basic life on it, but very very few have advanced life and very very few of those have advanced, INTELLIGENT life and very very few of those have technologically advanced intelligent life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Sure it does you are just too dumb to know that the Voyage 1 craft is in interstellar space which is not affected by any gravitational field.


False. It is still affected by the gravity of all mass in the universe.


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity
> 
> 
> 
> The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're spouting meaningless babble.  All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction - every last proton and electron.
Click to expand...

Not in interstellar space with no logical gravitational field to influence the mass


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, a frightening thought is that sentient life has and will exist trillions of times in our universe, but no two sentient species from different planets ever have or ever will meet each other.


We don't know that.


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're spouting meaningless babble.  All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction - every last proton and electron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in interstellar space with no logical gravitational field to influence the mass
Click to expand...

Any particle that has mass has its own gravitational field.

You should quit posting before you demonstrate your complete ignorance of physics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a frightening thought is that sentient life has and will exist trillions of times in our universe, but no two sentient species from different planets ever have or ever will meet each other.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that.
Click to expand...

Right, the frightening thought is that it is possible.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does you are just too dumb to know that the Voyage 1 craft is in interstellar space which is not affected by any gravitational field.
> 
> 
> 
> False. It is still affected by the gravity of all mass in the universe.
Click to expand...



It is effected by nothing except the stored momentum it possesses which is infinite because there is no gravity to slow it down, so the craft will begin speeding to an attractive gravitational in it's direction of travel or be slowed by a gravitational force outside of that plane

You really are a special kind of stupid


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> It is effected by nothing except the stored momentum it possesses which is infinite because there is no gravity to slow it down


False. It is affected by the gravity of all mass in the universe.


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself
> 
> 
> 
> You're spouting meaningless babble.  All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction - every last proton and electron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in interstellar space with no logical gravitational field to influence the mass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any particle that has mass has its own gravitational field.
> 
> You should quit posting before you demonstrate your complete ignorance of physics.
Click to expand...

Not true, particles are bonded by electrical charges not gravitational ones


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is effected by nothing except the stored momentum it possesses which is infinite because there is no gravity to slow it down
> 
> 
> 
> False. It is affected by the gravity of all mass in the universe.
Click to expand...

Nope, things are separated by larger lengths then gravity reaches.  This is why Voyager 1 is no longer effected by the Suns gravity

Is your head on right because your brain is backwards


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not if he created time at the same time he created matter and space,,,
> 
> 
> 
> "At the same time" presumes that time already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt,,
> 
> which came first time, space or matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing when time existed, not just space and matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them are interconnected if you look at it from an evolution POV  they all had to happen at the same time
> 
> but if you look at it from a creation POV then thats spelled out in genesis
> 
> god created time then space them matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I look at them from the creation point of view?  That's a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

so is evolution,,,thats why no one can prove it happened

back to the topic,,under evolution and the big bang it all happened at the very same moment


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Nope, things are separated by larger lengths then gravity reaches


False. All mass in the universe is affected by the gravity of all other mass in the universe.


----------



## Mac1958

And let's not forget all the moons, like Enceladus.


----------



## Harry Dresden

22lcidw said:


> How does Superman shave? Wouldn't he have Super Stubble?


i seen people ask that about vampires,how do they shave if they cant see their reflection...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac1958 said:


> And let's not forget all the moons, like Enceladus.


Exactly. Terrifying.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Harry Dresden said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Superman shave? Wouldn't he have Super Stubble?
> 
> 
> 
> i seen people ask that about vampires,how do they shave if they cant see their reflection...
Click to expand...

Their hair doesnt grow.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, things are separated by larger lengths then gravity reaches
> 
> 
> 
> False. All mass in the universe is affected by the gravity of all other mass in the universe.
Click to expand...

That is actually funny because you just said that something billions of light years away even if the object is a single atom effects everything else

Dude the universe is not attached together, it is spreading into oblivion the question at this point is what is causing the increased rate of expansion observed.  Gravity fails this test, no one can prove that gravity is causing anything as far as expansion

You must be a Harvard professor because your stupid is special


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> 
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its a theory not fact,,,got it
> 
> you might want to add that into your answers because there are some that take what they see on the internet as fact
Click to expand...






Everything is theory.  No one was around 5 billion years ago to record what they saw.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> That is actually funny because you just said that something billions of light years away even if the object is a single atom effects everything else


Correct. It does. Well, it "A"ffects all other mass, as we say in English.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a frightening thought is that sentient life has and will exist trillions of times in our universe, but no two sentient species from different planets ever have or ever will meet each other.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the frightening thought is that it is possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's possible.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually funny because you just said that something billions of light years away even if the object is a single atom effects everything else
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It does. Well, it "A"ffects all other mass, as we say in English.
Click to expand...

No it does not, this is why the cosmological constant math fails...………….

Gravity can not be proven to be causing expansion

Were you left back often


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "At the same time" presumes that time already exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt,,
> 
> which came first time, space or matter??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're discussing when time existed, not just space and matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them are interconnected if you look at it from an evolution POV  they all had to happen at the same time
> 
> but if you look at it from a creation POV then thats spelled out in genesis
> 
> god created time then space them matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I look at them from the creation point of view?  That's a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is evolution,,,thats why no one can prove it happened
> 
> back to the topic,,under evolution and the big bang it all happened at the very same moment
Click to expand...

No, evolution is not a fairy tale.  There is a massive amount of evidence to support it.

What do you consider to be "proof?"


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually funny because you just said that something billions of light years away even if the object is a single atom effects everything else
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It does. Well, it "A"ffects all other mass, as we say in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it does not, this is why the cosmological constant math fails...………….
> 
> Gravity can not be proven to be causing expansion
> 
> Were you left back often
Click to expand...

You have no understanding of any astrophysics, so just give up now.


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a frightening thought is that sentient life has and will exist trillions of times in our universe, but no two sentient species from different planets ever have or ever will meet each other.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, the frightening thought is that it is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's possible.
Click to expand...

Not possible because we are here

And Navy F18's are being played with by cubes


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually funny because you just said that something billions of light years away even if the object is a single atom effects everything else
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It does. Well, it "A"ffects all other mass, as we say in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it does not, this is why the cosmological constant math fails...………….
> 
> Gravity can not be proven to be causing expansion
> 
> Were you left back often
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no understanding of any astrophysics, so just give up now.
Click to expand...

One who does not understand the universe will always be far brighter than the fool who says they do


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its a theory not fact,,,got it
> 
> you might want to add that into your answers because there are some that take what they see on the internet as fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is theory.  No one was around 5 billion years ago to record what they saw.
Click to expand...



now tell that to FFI

did you know its taught as fact in every public school in the country??


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> No it does not, this is why the cosmological constant math fails.


False. You literally just made that up.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it doesnt,,
> 
> which came first time, space or matter??
> 
> 
> 
> We're discussing when time existed, not just space and matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of them are interconnected if you look at it from an evolution POV  they all had to happen at the same time
> 
> but if you look at it from a creation POV then thats spelled out in genesis
> 
> god created time then space them matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I look at them from the creation point of view?  That's a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is evolution,,,thats why no one can prove it happened
> 
> back to the topic,,under evolution and the big bang it all happened at the very same moment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, evolution is not a fairy tale.  There is a massive amount of evidence to support it.
> 
> What do you consider to be "proof?"
Click to expand...

many things can be proof,,,but opinion, consensus or peer review never is


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> many things can be proof


To a strident religious dogmatist like you,nothing can ever be "proof" that your dogma is incorrect. Nothing, ever. So don't waste people's time.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, this is why the cosmological constant math fails.
> 
> 
> 
> False. You literally just made that up.
Click to expand...

I would not expect you to understand even the fundamentals of the cosmological constant or why it can not work because of insufficient mass creating gravity

Nor will I ever bother to educate you because you already know everything

A sure sign of schizophrenia


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not, this is why the cosmological constant math fails.
> 
> 
> 
> False. You literally just made that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not expect you to understand even the fundamentals of the cosmological constant or why it can not work because of insufficient mass creating gravity
> 
> Nor will I ever bother to educate you because you already know everything
> 
> A sure sign of schizophrenia
Click to expand...

Translation: you are making up stupid shit and tucking tail , when you get called on it. As always.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> many things can be proof
> 
> 
> 
> To a strident religious dogmatist like you,nothing can ever be "proof" that your dogma is incorrect. Nothing, ever. So don't waste people's time.
Click to expand...



and once again nothing but incorrect personal attacks instead of any kind of proof


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> many things can be proof
> 
> 
> 
> To a strident religious dogmatist like you,nothing can ever be "proof" that your dogma is incorrect. Nothing, ever. So don't waste people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and once again nothing but incorrect personal attacks instead of any kind of proof
Click to expand...

It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually funny because you just said that something billions of light years away even if the object is a single atom effects everything else
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It does. Well, it "A"ffects all other mass, as we say in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it does not, this is why the cosmological constant math fails...………….
> 
> Gravity can not be proven to be causing expansion
> 
> Were you left back often
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no understanding of any astrophysics, so just give up now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One who does not understand the universe will always be far brighter than the fool who says they do
Click to expand...

You think ignorance is something to be proud of?


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're discussing when time existed, not just space and matter.
> 
> 
> 
> all of them are interconnected if you look at it from an evolution POV  they all had to happen at the same time
> 
> but if you look at it from a creation POV then thats spelled out in genesis
> 
> god created time then space them matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I look at them from the creation point of view?  That's a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is evolution,,,thats why no one can prove it happened
> 
> back to the topic,,under evolution and the big bang it all happened at the very same moment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, evolution is not a fairy tale.  There is a massive amount of evidence to support it.
> 
> What do you consider to be "proof?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> many things can be proof,,,but opinion, consensus or peer review never is
Click to expand...

Did I claim any of those things are proof?  What do consider to be "proof?"


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its a theory not fact,,,got it
> 
> you might want to add that into your answers because there are some that take what they see on the internet as fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is theory.  No one was around 5 billion years ago to record what they saw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> now tell that to FFI
> 
> did you know its taught as fact in every public school in the country??
Click to expand...






It's actually not, unless the teachers are very poor.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> many things can be proof
> 
> 
> 
> To a strident religious dogmatist like you,nothing can ever be "proof" that your dogma is incorrect. Nothing, ever. So don't waste people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and once again nothing but incorrect personal attacks instead of any kind of proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.
Click to expand...


why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??

its almost like youre a common troll,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so its a theory not fact,,,got it
> 
> you might want to add that into your answers because there are some that take what they see on the internet as fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is theory.  No one was around 5 billion years ago to record what they saw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> now tell that to FFI
> 
> did you know its taught as fact in every public school in the country??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually not, unless the teachers are very poor.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the text books not the teachers


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*There is a 99% chance that there is other intelligent life forms in our universe, however there is less than a 1% chance that we will ever find it because the distances are just too great*


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> many things can be proof
> 
> 
> 
> To a strident religious dogmatist like you,nothing can ever be "proof" that your dogma is incorrect. Nothing, ever. So don't waste people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and once again nothing but incorrect personal attacks instead of any kind of proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
Click to expand...





That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.  

Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> many things can be proof
> 
> 
> 
> To a strident religious dogmatist like you,nothing can ever be "proof" that your dogma is incorrect. Nothing, ever. So don't waste people's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and once again nothing but incorrect personal attacks instead of any kind of proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
Click to expand...

Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a strident religious dogmatist like you,nothing can ever be "proof" that your dogma is incorrect. Nothing, ever. So don't waste people's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and once again nothing but incorrect personal attacks instead of any kind of proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
Click to expand...






Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
> 
> 
> 
> so its a theory not fact,,,got it
> 
> you might want to add that into your answers because there are some that take what they see on the internet as fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is theory.  No one was around 5 billion years ago to record what they saw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> now tell that to FFI
> 
> did you know its taught as fact in every public school in the country??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually not, unless the teachers are very poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about the text books not the teachers
Click to expand...






The textbooks are poorly written these days.  A sad fact, but it is true.


----------



## progressive hunter

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *There is a 99% chance that there is other intelligent life forms in our universe, however there is less than a 1% chance that we will ever find it because the distances are just too great*


why not just say 100% chance since you can never be proven wrong??

I'l stick with a 50/50% chance


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so its a theory not fact,,,got it
> 
> you might want to add that into your answers because there are some that take what they see on the internet as fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is theory.  No one was around 5 billion years ago to record what they saw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> now tell that to FFI
> 
> did you know its taught as fact in every public school in the country??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually not, unless the teachers are very poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about the text books not the teachers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The textbooks are poorly written these days.  A sad fact, but it is true.
Click to expand...



thats an understatement


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.


No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.

Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.

Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a strident religious dogmatist like you,nothing can ever be "proof" that your dogma is incorrect. Nothing, ever. So don't waste people's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and once again nothing but incorrect personal attacks instead of any kind of proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
Click to expand...


thats easy,,
something we can observe and study,,,

and we cant observe the big bang, rocks turning into life or a monkey turning into a human,,,but you think all that is true,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain it, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

 when was a star ever observed being formed??


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.
Click to expand...





No, it is not.   It is a theory, and that is all it is.  It has evidentiary support,  but it is far from being a fact.


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and once again nothing but incorrect personal attacks instead of any kind of proof
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
Click to expand...

It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> and we cant observe the big bang,


Of course we can. Just as we observe anything. All light which reaches us is a snapshot of the past. That includes the CMB. 



progressive hunter said:


> rocks turning into life


Irrelevant YEC babble...



progressive hunter said:


> a monkey turning into a human,,


Same....


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain it, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when was a star ever observed being formed??
Click to expand...





We have seen them explode.  That happens in a short period of time.  Formation takes longer than human lives do.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we cant observe the big bang,
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we can. Just as we observe anything. All light which reaches us is a snapshot of the past. That includes the CMB.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> rocks turning into life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant YEC babble...
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> a monkey turning into a human,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same....
Click to expand...





 No, we can't.   Where the hell do you come up with this crap.  We have mathematical constructs that support the BB.  And we may be able to hear it's echo, but we can't see it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> No, it is not. It is a theory, and that is all it is.


False. Evolution is a fact. We can observe it and all the mechanisms of it. You couldn't stop it if you tried.  The attempt to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor is a scientific theory. You are just going to have to come to terms with this.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
Click to expand...

but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> And we may be able to hear it's echo, but we can't see it


When you hear an echo, you are hearing the original sound. When you look at a reflection, you are observing light reflected off of or emitted from the object seen in the mirror, even though it is reflected by a mirror.

The 'big bang' merely refers to the period of quick expansion in the early universe. We know what this looks like...because we took a picture of it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock


It doesn't do that. And you know that. This has been explained to you, troll.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we cant observe the big bang,
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we can. Just as we observe anything. All light which reaches us is a snapshot of the past. That includes the CMB.
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> rocks turning into life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant YEC babble...
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> a monkey turning into a human,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same....
Click to expand...

now whos telling fairy tales,,,sure isnt me


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't do that. And you know that. This has been explained to you, troll.
Click to expand...

what youve explained is magic,,,what can you show me,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we may be able to hear it's echo, but we can't see it
> 
> 
> 
> Um...when you hear an echo, you are hearing the original sound. When you look at a reflection, you are observing light reflected off of or emitted from the object seen in the mirror, even though it is reflected by a mirror.
> 
> The 'big bang' merely refers to the period of quick expansion in the early universe. We know what this looks like...because we took a picture of it.
Click to expand...

what kind of camera did they use 13.5 billion yrs ago??


----------



## FA_Q2

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
Click to expand...

Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.

This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't claim anything like that.  What it does claim is that life came from non-life.  That is an indisputable fact since at one point the universe had no life, and now it does.  You don't get to claim that life is the result of magic just because we don't yet know the exact process by which it came about.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*But what if we are the only life in the universe?*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *But what if we are the only life in the universe?*


Then we can claim to own all of it.


----------



## progressive hunter

FA_Q2 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
Click to expand...

you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup

what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup


False. Rocks are not made of amino acids. Everything you are babbling is wrong. Of course, you know that.


----------



## FA_Q2

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   It is a theory, and that is all it is.  It has evidentiary support,  but it is far from being a fact.
Click to expand...

That is somewhat misleading though.  In common parlance it is basically a fact.  In science, there really are no facts, just theories.  Gravity is a theory.  The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.  

A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data.  Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> 
> 
> False. Rocks are not made of amino acids. Everything you are babbling is wrong. For fuck's sake, learn something from these discussions.
Click to expand...

I never said they were,,,try keeping up


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life
Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't teach anything about the "primordial soup."  Making up denigrating nicknames for it isn't an argument against it, either.

Here's the bottom line:  At one point the Earth had no life, and now it does.  That means life arose from non-life.  There's no way to get around that fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   It is a theory, and that is all it is.  It has evidentiary support,  but it is far from being a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is somewhat misleading though.  In common parlance it is basically a fact.  In science, there really are no facts, just theories.  Gravity is a theory.  The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.
> 
> A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data.  Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.
Click to expand...

"Only a theory" is a talking point for religious dogmatists who find their dogma at odds with empirical evidence and knowledge. And that's all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> At one point the Earth had no life, and now it does.


Exactly. Just as there was once no volcano where Hawaii is located, then there was. Where are all the religious people jumping in to claim the volcano was formed by magic? Well, their religious dogma doesn't say anything about volcano formation. It's all very simple and easy to see.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> I know that with each successive lifeless world atheist scientists discover, it bothers them there is no other life but us.


This is not rational. No rational person would observe even 1 billion planets, not find life, and then think it speaks at all to the possibility of life on the countless other planets in the universe.

By the way, we have only really surveyed one planet to any satisfactory degree. And that planet has life.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

If it is that number, that is 1 sextillion  planets. It must have taken a long time to count them all.


----------



## progressive hunter

bripat9643 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution doesn't teach anything about the "primordial soup."  Making up denigrating nicknames for it isn't an argument against it, either.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  At one point the Earth had no life, and now it does.  That means life arose from non-life.  There's no way to get around that fact.
Click to expand...

no it doesnt mean that,,,you think that,,


pri·mor·di·al soup
_noun_

a solution rich in organic compounds in the primitive oceans of the earth, from which life is hypothesized to have originated.
you can google for more info so that you may educate yourself


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

QuickHitCurepon said:


> If it is that number, that is 1 sextillion  planets. It must have taken a long time to count them all.


Nope, it only took a few years of observing other stars and the frequency with which they have planets.


----------



## bripat9643

progressive hunter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution doesn't teach anything about the "primordial soup."  Making up denigrating nicknames for it isn't an argument against it, either.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  At one point the Earth had no life, and now it does.  That means life arose from non-life.  There's no way to get around that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it doesnt mean that,,,you think that,,
> 
> 
> pri·mor·di·al soup
> _noun_
> 
> a solution rich in organic compounds in the primitive oceans of the earth, from which life is hypothesized to have originated.
> you can google for more info so that you may educate yourself
Click to expand...

You're the one who called it "rock soup," not me.

What's your point?


----------



## FA_Q2

progressive hunter said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is NOT evolutionary theory nor does it have anything to do with evolutionary theory.  Evolution ONLY covers what happens AFTER DNA becomes a reality and may possibly work with RNA.  Before that point is not in the realm of evolution.


----------



## progressive hunter

FA_Q2 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis is NOT evolutionary theory nor does it have anything to do with evolutionary theory.  Evolution ONLY covers what happens AFTER DNA becomes a reality and may possibly work with RNA.  Before that point is not in the realm of evolution.
Click to expand...

got a link??


----------



## Harry Dresden

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Superman shave? Wouldn't he have Super Stubble?
> 
> 
> 
> i seen people ask that about vampires,how do they shave if they cant see their reflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their hair doesnt grow.
Click to expand...

depends on who the author of the book is.....


----------



## progressive hunter

Harry Dresden said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Superman shave? Wouldn't he have Super Stubble?
> 
> 
> 
> i seen people ask that about vampires,how do they shave if they cant see their reflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their hair doesnt grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> depends on who the author of the book is.....
Click to expand...


----------



## Harry Dresden

progressive hunter said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Superman shave? Wouldn't he have Super Stubble?
> 
> 
> 
> i seen people ask that about vampires,how do they shave if they cant see their reflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their hair doesnt grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> depends on who the author of the book is.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 280537
Click to expand...


----------



## FA_Q2

progressive hunter said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis is NOT evolutionary theory nor does it have anything to do with evolutionary theory.  Evolution ONLY covers what happens AFTER DNA becomes a reality and may possibly work with RNA.  Before that point is not in the realm of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got a link??
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis - RationalWiki
"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are _two completely different things_. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the _origin_ of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started."

Definition of evolution | Dictionary.com
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Evolution REQUIRES replication otherwise the core of the theory, natural selection, cannot take place.  It is, by definition, silent on how the original replicator came into existence.  That is abiogenesis and that is NOT a scientific theory.  Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis.  It describes a process that may have happened BUT it lacks the proof to make it a theory.


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. If you perceve it as an attack, that only indicates that part of you is embarrassed of your dogmatic ways. A person of strong faith would be proud of the fact i stated. So maybe your faith is tenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you only respond with personal attacks and never with rational debate??
> 
> its almost like youre a common troll,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because ffi is a troll.   Too many people have little understanding of how science works.
> 
> Science is not concerned with truth.  That is the realm of religion.  Science is only concerned with what we can observe and measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trolling, eh? Then ask the sock what would convince him that evolution is a fact. See for yourself. I will wait for your apology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either.  It too is a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's as close to a fact as there is in science.  You don't get to assume magic happened because biologists don't have a video of evolution occurring.
Click to expand...







Facts are used to support theories.  Non scientific people don't understand that.  There are many observations that have been made and those observations reveal facts.  Most facts support the theory of evolution.   However,  some facts don't .  That has led to updates in the evolutionary theory such as punctuated equilibrium etc.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. It is a theory, and that is all it is.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Evolution is a fact. We can observe it and all the mechanisms of it. You couldn't stop it if you tried.  The attempt to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor is a scientific theory. You are just going to have to come to terms with this.
Click to expand...







I suggest you take a science class sometime.  Your understanding is very inadequate.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we may be able to hear it's echo, but we can't see it
> 
> 
> 
> When you hear an echo, you are hearing the original sound. When you look at a reflection, you are observing light reflected off of or emitted from the object seen in the mirror, even though it is reflected by a mirror.
> 
> The 'big bang' merely refers to the period of quick expansion in the early universe. We know what this looks like...because we took a picture of it.
Click to expand...






We don't know that.  We suspect, but we don't know.  There is no picture of it.  You have no clue what you're babbling about.

We have mathematical constructs that take us to within about 300,000 years after the Big Bang.  Before that no math explains what went on.

There is ZERO physical evidence.  There is a background noise that comes from all points of the Universe that we suspect is the echo of the Bang, but that's all.


----------



## westwall

FA_Q2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   It is a theory, and that is all it is.  It has evidentiary support,  but it is far from being a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is somewhat misleading though.  In common parlance it is basically a fact.  In science, there really are no facts, just theories.  Gravity is a theory.  The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.
> 
> A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data.  Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.
Click to expand...







Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory...  period.


----------



## progressive hunter

FA_Q2 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed  humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis is NOT evolutionary theory nor does it have anything to do with evolutionary theory.  Evolution ONLY covers what happens AFTER DNA becomes a reality and may possibly work with RNA.  Before that point is not in the realm of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got a link??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis - RationalWiki
> "Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are _two completely different things_. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the _origin_ of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started."
> 
> Definition of evolution | Dictionary.com
> Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
> 
> Evolution REQUIRES replication otherwise the core of the theory, natural selection, cannot take place.  It is, by definition, silent on how the original replicator came into existence.  That is abiogenesis and that is NOT a scientific theory.  Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis.  It describes a process that may have happened BUT it lacks the proof to make it a theory.
Click to expand...

so they broke it up into two different sections ,,most likely so they can say the other guy has the answers,,

and we are back to that "may have happened" and isnt even a theory,,sounds like they just guessed or made it up, which is my whole point


----------



## FA_Q2

westwall said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   It is a theory, and that is all it is.  It has evidentiary support,  but it is far from being a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is somewhat misleading though.  In common parlance it is basically a fact.  In science, there really are no facts, just theories.  Gravity is a theory.  The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.
> 
> A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data.  Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory...  period.
Click to expand...

And?

Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.


----------



## justoffal

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



It's nothing to worry about.  All we see when we look at the night sky is ultra ancient history.  99% of the starlight you detect left it's place of origin before earth was even a planet.   It's highly probable that most of it isn't even there anymore. It doesn't matter whether or not we are alone we are effectively alone.  

Jo


----------



## FA_Q2

progressive hunter said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution says no such thing whatsoever.  It is not part of evolutionary theory.
> 
> This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup
> 
> what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis is NOT evolutionary theory nor does it have anything to do with evolutionary theory.  Evolution ONLY covers what happens AFTER DNA becomes a reality and may possibly work with RNA.  Before that point is not in the realm of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got a link??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis - RationalWiki
> "Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are _two completely different things_. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the _origin_ of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started."
> 
> Definition of evolution | Dictionary.com
> Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
> 
> Evolution REQUIRES replication otherwise the core of the theory, natural selection, cannot take place.  It is, by definition, silent on how the original replicator came into existence.  That is abiogenesis and that is NOT a scientific theory.  Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis.  It describes a process that may have happened BUT it lacks the proof to make it a theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so they broke it up into two different sections ,,most likely so they can say the other guy has the answers,,
Click to expand...

No, they did not 'break it up.'  Evolution HAS NEVER described abiogenesis.  What you are doing is trying to combine them.


> and we are back to that "may have happened" and isnt even a theory,,sounds like they just guessed or made it up, which is my whole point


Yes, abiogenesis is an informed guess.  You know, hypothesis.


----------



## westwall

FA_Q2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   It is a theory, and that is all it is.  It has evidentiary support,  but it is far from being a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is somewhat misleading though.  In common parlance it is basically a fact.  In science, there really are no facts, just theories.  Gravity is a theory.  The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.
> 
> A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data.  Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory...  period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.
Click to expand...






The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly.   They also make assertions with far too much certainty.   That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.

My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee.   To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.
> 
> Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.
> 
> Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   It is a theory, and that is all it is.  It has evidentiary support,  but it is far from being a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is somewhat misleading though.  In common parlance it is basically a fact.  In science, there really are no facts, just theories.  Gravity is a theory.  The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.
> 
> A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data.  Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory...  period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly.   They also make assertions with far too much certainty.   That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.
> 
> My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee.   To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.
Click to expand...

whats a non scientist???

wouldnt you agree that a scientist is someone that observes and studies in a specific area,,,


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   It is a theory, and that is all it is.  It has evidentiary support,  but it is far from being a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat misleading though.  In common parlance it is basically a fact.  In science, there really are no facts, just theories.  Gravity is a theory.  The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.
> 
> A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data.  Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory...  period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly.   They also make assertions with far too much certainty.   That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.
> 
> My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee.   To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whats a non scientist???
> 
> wouldnt you agree that a scientist is someone that observes and studies in a specific area,,,
Click to expand...







A scientist looks at the world differently than a non scientist.  However, there are dilettantes who bridge that gap and do significant work.

They may not have a degree in science,  but their minds work the same way.

As a geologist I use physics, chemistry and
biochem in my work.  Any scientific paper is very readable to me.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside oudon'r system,,
> all we can see is pin points of light
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
Click to expand...

What? Everything in our solar system came from other stars that went super nova. When our sun was born the earth wasn’t here yet.


----------



## fncceo

Frannie said:


> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age



Demonstrably not true ...


----------



## sealybobo

Frannie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
Click to expand...

So everything on earth and every other planet moon asteroids and comets are older than our star because we all came from stars that went super nova long before our sun was born. 

Imagine the amount of time all that star stuff would have taken to get to us too.


----------



## sealybobo

Frannie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we could plant life on mars we would. Not humans but dna or simple single cell organisms
> 
> Or if we could somehow create an ozone and plant oxygen or protein or fungus or anything that might take hold we would for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be life on Mars, but it will take experimentation.  Life does not need the conditions on Earth, the purpose for adaptation is for life to thrive in various places, as it does on Earth from 1000 degree sulfur based hydrothermal vents to cold mountaintops
Click to expand...

If there is water. Water seems to be the one necessary ingredient.

I think there is water in mars.


----------



## progressive hunter

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat misleading though.  In common parlance it is basically a fact.  In science, there really are no facts, just theories.  Gravity is a theory.  The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.
> 
> A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data.  Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory...  period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly.   They also make assertions with far too much certainty.   That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.
> 
> My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee.   To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whats a non scientist???
> 
> wouldnt you agree that a scientist is someone that observes and studies in a specific area,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A scientist looks at the world differently than a non scientist.  However, there are dilettantes who bridge that gap and do significant work.
> 
> They may not have a degree in science,  but their minds work the same way.
> 
> As a geologist I use physics, chemistry and
> biochem in my work.  Any scientific paper is very readable to me.
Click to expand...



so not all people can be a scientist??


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that too is inaccurate, our level of sentience is less than two million years old.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know, which makes what i said accurate. It took almost half the life of the Sun for sentience to appear on one of its planets. I dont think any of us are actually disagreeing, here.
Click to expand...


In fact, for 99.95% of the lifetime of our sun ... there was no sentient life on our planet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Most facts support the theory of evolution. However, some facts don't


Nonsense. There is no data that contradicts the theory of evolution as the origin of species.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> In fact, for 99.95% of the lifetime of our sun .


Not for its entire lifetime. You mean, for its lifetime so far.


----------



## Weatherman2020

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.


----------



## fncceo

westwall said:


> A scientist looks at the world differently than a non scientist



Very differently ...


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, for 99.95% of the lifetime of our sun .
> 
> 
> 
> Not for its entire lifetime. You mean, for its lifetime so far.
Click to expand...


You haven't heard?  I have some bad news for you then ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> I suggest you take a science class sometime. Your understanding is very inadequate.


Vapid whining is no substitute for actual argument. 



westwall said:


> We don't know that. We suspect, but we don't know. There is no picture of it.


False. The image of the CMB map is,indeed, a picture of the first electromagnetic radiation of our universe, released during the decoupling event, itself brought on by and part of the rapid expansion of the early universe. I.E., the Big Bang.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Yes, abiogenesis is an informed guess.


It's a fact. It's simply the name given to the process of the formation of life.  The hypotheses of how it occured are hypotheses.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a science class sometime. Your understanding is very inadequate.
> 
> 
> 
> Vapid whining is no substitute for actual argument.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that. We suspect, but we don't know. There is no picture of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. The image of the CMB map is,indeed, a picture of the first electromagnetic radiation of our universe, released during the decoupling event, itself brought on by and part of the rapid expansion of the early universe. I.E., the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


Please tell me more about the decoupling after the Big Bang.  I'm very interested.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Everything in our solar system came from other stars that went super nova. When our sun was born the earth wasn’t here yet.
Click to expand...

The earth and the sun formed at the same time.  Like I said, its formation wasn't complete, but it existed in proto form.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we could plant life on mars we would. Not humans but dna or simple single cell organisms
> 
> Or if we could somehow create an ozone and plant oxygen or protein or fungus or anything that might take hold we would for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be life on Mars, but it will take experimentation.  Life does not need the conditions on Earth, the purpose for adaptation is for life to thrive in various places, as it does on Earth from 1000 degree sulfur based hydrothermal vents to cold mountaintops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is water. Water seems to be the one necessary ingredient.
> 
> I think there is water in mars.
Click to expand...

Liquid water.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.


Wrong, as all the structures we see have a finite age.


----------



## K9Buck

Weatherman2020 said:


> If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.



They're "anything but God" apologists so, yes, they would _gleefully _go along with that belief, so long as it doesn't involve "God".


----------



## Frannie

fncceo said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably not true ...
Click to expand...


Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age


----------



## Frannie

sealybobo said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything on earth and every other planet moon asteroids and comets are older than our star because we all came from stars that went super nova long before our sun was born.
> 
> Imagine the amount of time all that star stuff would have taken to get to us too.
Click to expand...

All the elements in the universe are the same age, stars are not elements


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.
Click to expand...


A thing broken down into it's constituent parts is no longer that thing (as anyone who owns a set of Lego can attest).


----------



## K9Buck

We may or may not be alone in the universe.  If there is other life in the universe, then it too is a part of God's creation.


----------



## sealybobo

westwall said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age.  The universe is about 13 billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "A million years?"  The Sun and the Earth are 4.5 billion years old.  A million years is virtually an instant when measured against that.  The Earth took a while to take it's final form, but that process began at the same time the Sun formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun formed first, the planetary disc came later.  How long it took for the disc to form planets is still open to conjecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see the proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sun had to form first for our current theory of planetary formation to work.
Click to expand...

So the star stuff that was floating around when our sun formed came from previous generations of stars 4.5 billion years ago.

They say our sun came first and is a couple million years older but I think the elements that came from older stars and became everything on earth has to be much older. When did the stars that made us explode? I bet billions of years before our sun was born from gas.


----------



## Frannie

sealybobo said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have everything backwards.  If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange
> 
> Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything
> 
> 
> 
> You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we could plant life on mars we would. Not humans but dna or simple single cell organisms
> 
> Or if we could somehow create an ozone and plant oxygen or protein or fungus or anything that might take hold we would for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There will be life on Mars, but it will take experimentation.  Life does not need the conditions on Earth, the purpose for adaptation is for life to thrive in various places, as it does on Earth from 1000 degree sulfur based hydrothermal vents to cold mountaintops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is water. Water seems to be the one necessary ingredient.
> 
> I think there is water in mars.
Click to expand...

Sunlight was another ingredient needed for life, until hydrothermal vents were discovered.  Water is needed for our type of life, no reason to assume all is like us


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably not true ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age
Click to expand...

Wrong. The hydrogen atoms are as old as the universe.  The other atoms are a lot younger.


----------



## fncceo

My home is made of brick.  Those bricks are made of clay.  That clay may be millions of years old.

My house isn't millions of years old.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a science class sometime. Your understanding is very inadequate.
> 
> 
> 
> Vapid whining is no substitute for actual argument.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that. We suspect, but we don't know. There is no picture of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. The image of the CMB map is,indeed, a picture of the first electromagnetic radiation of our universe, released during the decoupling event, itself brought on by and part of the rapid expansion of the early universe. I.E., the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me more about the decoupling after the Big Bang.  I'm very interested.
Click to expand...

That is when the universe became "transparent", so to speak. As the universe expanded, it reached a point where hydrogen atoms could form (recombination). These atoms emitted photons, as their electrons tried to find lower energy states. This collection of hydrogen atoms, unlike its progenitor plasma state, was transparent to photons. So the photons could escape and then travel over distance. They reach us as radio waves, and we deem them the CMB.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take a science class sometime. Your understanding is very inadequate.
> 
> 
> 
> Vapid whining is no substitute for actual argument.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know that. We suspect, but we don't know. There is no picture of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. The image of the CMB map is,indeed, a picture of the first electromagnetic radiation of our universe, released during the decoupling event, itself brought on by and part of the rapid expansion of the early universe. I.E., the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me more about the decoupling after the Big Bang.  I'm very interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is when the universe became "transparent", so to speak. As the universe expanded, it reached a point where hydrogen atoms could form (recombination). These atoms emitted photons, as their electrons tried to find lower energy states. This collection of hydrogen atoms, unlike its progenitor plasma state, was transparent to photons. So the photons could escape and then travel over distance. They reach us as radio waves, and we deem them the CMB.
Click to expand...


Not nearly has hot as it sounded.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> They're "anything but God" apologists


Whiny nonsense. You can still point at anything being described here and say, "god did it!".


----------



## sealybobo

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A basic principle of science is that the same laws exist everywhere.  It would be nonsensical if they didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Except when geniuses declare that the universe created itself from nothing because nothing got bored one day and decided to turn nothing into the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not answerable from out current perspective, at the very least God must be defined before such a question can be ask.  A better question is what created us, and I assure you that no sterile pond created the most sophisticated code in the universe our DNA.  And do not babble that RNA created itself either because the mathematical probability of that is null
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  The proposition that everything needs a creator is a logical contradiction.    If God doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe.  Your failure to answer the question I asked shows that even you know that.
> 
> Creationism is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any idea what the universe is much less where it came from.  This is why all the math that would explain what is observed in the universe fails as the math is not itself wrong but can not be applied to unknowns
Click to expand...

Still it’s pretty amazing the universe itself created the earth and us. We were all forged in stars. You are related to the rocks.

And here we are. The universe created intelligent being able to ponder such thought?

Even the dinosaurs were amazing. But they may not have been smart enough to wonder such things. Who knows.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Not nearly has hot as it sounded.


Hotter than any temperature which has existed since...


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're "anything but God" apologists
> 
> 
> 
> Whiny nonsense. You can still point at anything being described here and say, "god did it!".
Click to expand...

I love pointing out these people claim to know. We don’t.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> My home is made of brick.  Those bricks are made of clay.  That clay may be millions of years old.
> 
> My house isn't millions of years old.


Uh....so? Not following.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age


False.


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably not true ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The hydrogen atoms are as old as the universe.  The other atoms are a lot younger.
Click to expand...


There is zero evidence of that...………………

Grow up, no one was there or knows anyone who was, and the people blurting out that nonsense are now saying that there are no Hydrogen atoms because we are all a computer simulation.

No one can explain why the universe is expanding as fast as it is you do know that right


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age
> 
> 
> 
> False.
Click to expand...

Dude a person dies, rots into the Earth and is uptaken by a plant that is eaten. 

Next


----------



## sealybobo

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're spouting meaningless babble.  All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field
> 
> Try again
Click to expand...

When a star goes super nova it sends stuff out in all directions.

We had a big planet or asteroid fly through our solar system. It came from another star. It was flung out. So it’s a rogue planet or rock not bound to any star, yet.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A thing broken down into it's constituent parts is no longer that thing (as anyone who owns a set of Lego can attest).
Click to expand...

How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, a frightening thought is that sentient life has and will exist trillions of times in our universe, but no two sentient species from different planets ever have or ever will meet each other.



But then that means we will one day go extinct on this rock.

I think we could live forever in space if we really wanted to figure how how. And that would probably mean traveling to other stars.


----------



## sealybobo

toobfreak said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your number is low.  Every star has a system of planets around it and almost every system has at least one planet with basic life on it, but very very few have advanced life and very very few of those have advanced, INTELLIGENT life and very very few of those have technologically advanced intelligent life.
Click to expand...

We think.

Look at our sola system. If an intelligent species looked at us what would they see? Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. They would conclude no life was here becaus they wouldn’t even see us


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Dude a person dies, rots into the Earth and is uptaken by a plant that is eaten.


So what? Fusion and fission are not happening during that process.  What you said is still demonstrably false.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> But then that means we will one day go extinct on this rock.


Not necessarily. We may visit a billion other galaxies and still never meet another sentient species, even if trillions of them have and will exist in our universe.


----------



## sealybobo

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that makes no sense on any level...
> 
> To all: no need to respond to this gibberish...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it does you are just too dumb to know that the Voyage 1 craft is in interstellar space which is not affected by any gravitational field.
> 
> I could teach you, but you are hopeless
Click to expand...

Actually, voyager one may actually still be in our solar system. That’s how big our solar system is. It may be a long time before it’s truly into interstellar space.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then that means we will one day go extinct on this rock.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. We may visit a billion other galaxies and still never meet another sentient species, even if trillions of them have and will exist in our universe.
Click to expand...

And we could visit another star and intelligent lif existed 2 billion years ago but no longer. Or we could be 1 billion years too early


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A thing broken down into it's constituent parts is no longer that thing (as anyone who owns a set of Lego can attest).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
Click to expand...


If Lego were capable of making chemical bonds, then about 4 Billion Years.


----------



## fncceo

Frannie said:


> There is zero evidence of that..



Actually, there is lots of evidence of that.  We know precisely how atoms heavier than Hydrogen are created.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A thing broken down into it's constituent parts is no longer that thing (as anyone who owns a set of Lego can attest).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lego were capable of making chemical bonds, then about 4 Billion Years.
Click to expand...

Then how long after that does it write a poem?


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A thing broken down into it's constituent parts is no longer that thing (as anyone who owns a set of Lego can attest).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lego were capable of making chemical bonds, then about 4 Billion Years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then how long after that does it write a poem?
Click to expand...


Was Einstein a poet?

_For things moving free or at rest,
Observe what the first law does best.
It defines a key frame,
Inertial by name,
Where the second law then is expressed._


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?


That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the formation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophobic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.

Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.


----------



## fncceo




----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the fomation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophbic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.
> 
> Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.
Click to expand...

There are only two options possible:
1. A creator

2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the fomation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophbic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.
> 
> Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
Click to expand...


3... all of the above.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the fomation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophbic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.
> 
> Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
Click to expand...

That simply involves a creator utilizing the dust. 
Oh wait. 
Genesis says dust.


----------



## westwall

progressive hunter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory...  period.
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly.   They also make assertions with far too much certainty.   That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.
> 
> My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee.   To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whats a non scientist???
> 
> wouldnt you agree that a scientist is someone that observes and studies in a specific area,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A scientist looks at the world differently than a non scientist.  However, there are dilettantes who bridge that gap and do significant work.
> 
> They may not have a degree in science,  but their minds work the same way.
> 
> As a geologist I use physics, chemistry and
> biochem in my work.  Any scientific paper is very readable to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so not all people can be a scientist??
Click to expand...






Nope.  You have to be at least average intelligence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the fomation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophbic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.
> 
> Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
Click to expand...

False. Another option is that the conditions never produce dust that writes a sonata, and there is no creator.

You are clinging to a fallacy dubbed "the 747 fallacy". This fallacy is fodder for college students first leanring about logic, philosophy, and science. Your postings are a pop quiz exercise for college sophomores on Thursday of week 3 of the first semester.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the fomation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophbic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.
> 
> Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply involves a creator utilizing the dust.
> Oh wait.
> Genesis says dust.
Click to expand...


A creator and evolution aren't exclusive.   It's a matter of, "Does G-d work hard or does G-d work smart?".  

Given his copious amount of spare time, I'm thinking he would get mightily bored sculpting every earthworm from scratch.

... fun fact, in Hebrew scripture, man was created from "Adamah", which translates to earth or ground ... not dust.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Genesis says dust.


Which, of course, is a stupid, irrelevant declaration. You will simply say dust means "any matter", defeating your own silly point.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is a stupid, irrelevant declaration. You will simply say dust means "any matter", defeating your own silly point.
Click to expand...

Stupid?  Why do you call your belief stupid?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is a stupid, irrelevant declaration. You will simply say dust means "any matter", defeating your own silly point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid?  Why do you call your belief stupid?
Click to expand...

Aaaaaand and the hissy fit begins. Go throw your fit in the religious section,shaman.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the fomation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophbic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.
> 
> Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
Click to expand...

And that's another option...


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long after I buy a bag of legos does it look like Einstein?
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the fomation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophbic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.
> 
> Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply involves a creator utilizing the dust.
> Oh wait.
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A creator and evolution aren't exclusive.   It's a matter of, "Does G-d work hard or does G-d work smart?".
> 
> Given his copious amount of spare time, I'm thinking he would get mightily bored sculpting every earthworm from scratch.
> 
> ... fun fact, in Hebrew scripture, man was created from "Adamah", which translates to earth or ground ... not dust.
Click to expand...

The issue of how God did it is separate from was God the catalyst or will dirt eventually write poetry given enough time.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is a stupid, irrelevant declaration. You will simply say dust means "any matter", defeating your own silly point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid?  Why do you call your belief stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aaaaaand and the hissy fit begins. Go throw your fit in the religious section,shaman.
Click to expand...

You’re not bright enough to understand your own position.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The laws of our universe play "designer", "arbiter", "judge and jury", "policeman", and even "mommy".

The laws of the universe select for the presence and shapes of stars. Why are they spheroids? Because that's the shape "selected for" by natural laws. Who would call this random? Nobody. A universe where stars come in all shapes and sizes? Now THAT would be random and would entail randomly changing natural laws. This is the opposite of the deterministic, uniformitarian universe in which scientists operate  and to which all observation points.

The laws of the universe "select for" the shape of water molecules, for the properties of liquid water, and for the shapes of the animals that move through water. Convergent evolution brings us two fusiform animals with vastly different ancestry (sharks and whales), just as we would expect, as the "selection for" this shape is not random.

If someone wants to point at all of that together and say it is the design of gods...go right ahead! That's not going to bring you into any conflict with science.


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably not true ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The hydrogen atoms are as old as the universe.  The other atoms are a lot younger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of that...………………
> 
> Grow up, no one was there or knows anyone who was, and the people blurting out that nonsense are now saying that there are no Hydrogen atoms because we are all a computer simulation.
> 
> No one can explain why the universe is expanding as fast as it is you do know that right
Click to expand...

So you believe new hydrogen atoms are spurting into existence?  Where is this happening?  What is the process?  

We know new Oxygen and Carbon atoms are being created.  It's done in the core of every star.


----------



## bripat9643

an intelligent species would know that gas giant planets are not good planets for life.  It would also know that a solar system, in addition to gas giants, would contain smaller planets that are good candidates for life.


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude a person dies, rots into the Earth and is uptaken by a plant that is eaten.
> 
> Next
Click to expand...

Hydrogen atoms and Oxygen atoms are not the same age.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid question that belies total misunderstanding of the material. For one, physical laws are not "selecting for" legos to form the face of Einstein, as they are "selecting for" the fomation of the structures found in life as we know it (Example: hydrophilic and hydrophbic ends of the lipids which can form cell membranes). This selection is not "random". Your misunderstanding of this is your first error.
> 
> Your second error is your implicit assumption that anyone says or thinks that selection here on earth would produce the same result in every universe with identical initial conditions (you can choose any arbitrary time for this, be it 13 or 5 billion years ago). Nobody is saying or implying that life on Earth had to have turned out a certain way (the way we find it today), or even at all. "Einstein's face" places this arbitrary constraint.
> 
> 
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply involves a creator utilizing the dust.
> Oh wait.
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A creator and evolution aren't exclusive.   It's a matter of, "Does G-d work hard or does G-d work smart?".
> 
> Given his copious amount of spare time, I'm thinking he would get mightily bored sculpting every earthworm from scratch.
> 
> ... fun fact, in Hebrew scripture, man was created from "Adamah", which translates to earth or ground ... not dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue of how God did it is separate from was God the catalyst or will dirt eventually write poetry given enough time.
Click to expand...


We have zero evidence of how our Universe existed prior to the Big Bang or what could have created the singularity from where the Big Bag originated came into being.

We live in an infinite universe but _our _physical dimensional doesn't allow for infinity.  So, obviously, there's a lot going on here that we don't get.

I prefer to think that our infinite creator was wise enough to know that given a specific set of physical rules, life (ultimately poetry-writing life) is inevitable given molecular bonding and the right conditions.

Scripture, is bronze-age man's attempt explain the processes as revealed by G-d.  G-d couldn't explain the processes in detail any more than a physicist could explain quantum physics to a toddler. Bronze-age man didn't have the foundation in science to be able to grasp it.

However, G-d is wise, he knew that, given enough time (something G-d has a lot of), the events he put into motion all those Billions of years ago would come to one day understand his design.  G-d's ultimate plan for our Universe is ineffable, but, based on what I see, I believe he's placed us in a play pen with trillions of puzzles to solve and our early childhood education will be to solve these puzzles and remove our ourselves from the playpen to the next step in our intellectual evolution.

I can't even imagine what G-d's middle school will look like ... but I'm guessing it will be awesome.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bripat9643 said:


> an intelligent species would know that gas giant planets are not good planets for life.  It would also know that a solar system, in addition to gas giants, would contain smaller planets that are good candidates for life.


Maybe the lifeform requires gas.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply involves a creator utilizing the dust.
> Oh wait.
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A creator and evolution aren't exclusive.   It's a matter of, "Does G-d work hard or does G-d work smart?".
> 
> Given his copious amount of spare time, I'm thinking he would get mightily bored sculpting every earthworm from scratch.
> 
> ... fun fact, in Hebrew scripture, man was created from "Adamah", which translates to earth or ground ... not dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue of how God did it is separate from was God the catalyst or will dirt eventually write poetry given enough time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have zero evidence of how our Universe existed prior to the Big Bang or what could have created the singularity from where the Big Bag originated came into being.
> 
> We live in an infinite universe but _our _physical dimensional doesn't allow for infinity.  So, obviously, there's a lot going on here that we don't get.
> 
> I prefer to think that our infinite creator was wise enough to know that given a specific set of physical rules, life (ultimately poetry-writing life) is inevitable given molecular bonding and the right conditions.
> 
> Scripture, is bronze-age man's attempt explain the processes as revealed by G-d.  G-d couldn't explain the processes in detail any more than a physicist could explain quantum physics to a toddler. Bronze-age man didn't have the foundation in science to be able to grasp it.
> 
> However, G-d is wise, he knew that, given enough time (something G-d has a lot of), the events he put into motion all those Billions of years ago would come to one day understand his design.  G-d's ultimate plan for our Universe is ineffable, but, based on what I see, I believe he's placed us in a play pen with trillions of puzzles to solve and our early childhood education will be to solve these puzzles and remove our ourselves from the playpen to the next step in our intellectual evolution.
> 
> I can't even imagine what G-d's middle school will look like ... but I'm guessing it will be awesome.
Click to expand...

I like the way you think.

Why do you suppose god hides himself like this?


----------



## bripat9643

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> an intelligent species would know that gas giant planets are not good planets for life.  It would also know that a solar system, in addition to gas giants, would contain smaller planets that are good candidates for life.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the lifeform requires gas.
Click to expand...

So far, we don't know that such a thing is possible.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only two options possible:
> 1. A creator
> 
> 2. Given enough time dust will write a Sonata.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That simply involves a creator utilizing the dust.
> Oh wait.
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A creator and evolution aren't exclusive.   It's a matter of, "Does G-d work hard or does G-d work smart?".
> 
> Given his copious amount of spare time, I'm thinking he would get mightily bored sculpting every earthworm from scratch.
> 
> ... fun fact, in Hebrew scripture, man was created from "Adamah", which translates to earth or ground ... not dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue of how God did it is separate from was God the catalyst or will dirt eventually write poetry given enough time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have zero evidence of how our Universe existed prior to the Big Bang or what could have created the singularity from where the Big Bag originated came into being.
> 
> We live in an infinite universe but _our _physical dimensional doesn't allow for infinity.  So, obviously, there's a lot going on here that we don't get.
> 
> I prefer to think that our infinite creator was wise enough to know that given a specific set of physical rules, life (ultimately poetry-writing life) is inevitable given molecular bonding and the right conditions.
> 
> Scripture, is bronze-age man's attempt explain the processes as revealed by G-d.  G-d couldn't explain the processes in detail any more than a physicist could explain quantum physics to a toddler. Bronze-age man didn't have the foundation in science to be able to grasp it.
> 
> However, G-d is wise, he knew that, given enough time (something G-d has a lot of), the events he put into motion all those Billions of years ago would come to one day understand his design.  G-d's ultimate plan for our Universe is ineffable, but, based on what I see, I believe he's placed us in a play pen with trillions of puzzles to solve and our early childhood education will be to solve these puzzles and remove our ourselves from the playpen to the next step in our intellectual evolution.
> 
> I can't even imagine what G-d's middle school will look like ... but I'm guessing it will be awesome.
Click to expand...

Pretty interesting that people 4,000 years ago got it right. 

Still gets down to the either or issue. God did/did not.


----------



## fncceo

bripat9643 said:


> an intelligent species would know that gas giant planets are not good planets for life



Not for bipedal, anthropomorphic life, obviously.  But, the atmosphere of a gas giant is much like the sea in our own planet.  Rich in constituent molecules and dense enough to allow those molecules to combine.  It's not inconceivable that life might have evolved on a gas giant.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> an intelligent species would know that gas giant planets are not good planets for life.  It would also know that a solar system, in addition to gas giants, would contain smaller planets that are good candidates for life.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the lifeform requires gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far, we don't know that such a thing is possible.
Click to expand...

No, but if we are going to toss reason aside and say dust will someday write a screenplay, then we have to be open to anything.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
> 
> 
> 
> That simply involves a creator utilizing the dust.
> Oh wait.
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A creator and evolution aren't exclusive.   It's a matter of, "Does G-d work hard or does G-d work smart?".
> 
> Given his copious amount of spare time, I'm thinking he would get mightily bored sculpting every earthworm from scratch.
> 
> ... fun fact, in Hebrew scripture, man was created from "Adamah", which translates to earth or ground ... not dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue of how God did it is separate from was God the catalyst or will dirt eventually write poetry given enough time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have zero evidence of how our Universe existed prior to the Big Bang or what could have created the singularity from where the Big Bag originated came into being.
> 
> We live in an infinite universe but _our _physical dimensional doesn't allow for infinity.  So, obviously, there's a lot going on here that we don't get.
> 
> I prefer to think that our infinite creator was wise enough to know that given a specific set of physical rules, life (ultimately poetry-writing life) is inevitable given molecular bonding and the right conditions.
> 
> Scripture, is bronze-age man's attempt explain the processes as revealed by G-d.  G-d couldn't explain the processes in detail any more than a physicist could explain quantum physics to a toddler. Bronze-age man didn't have the foundation in science to be able to grasp it.
> 
> However, G-d is wise, he knew that, given enough time (something G-d has a lot of), the events he put into motion all those Billions of years ago would come to one day understand his design.  G-d's ultimate plan for our Universe is ineffable, but, based on what I see, I believe he's placed us in a play pen with trillions of puzzles to solve and our early childhood education will be to solve these puzzles and remove our ourselves from the playpen to the next step in our intellectual evolution.
> 
> I can't even imagine what G-d's middle school will look like ... but I'm guessing it will be awesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty interesting that people 4,000 years ago got it right.
> 
> Still gets down to the either or issue. God did/did not.
Click to expand...


If he did, or didn't isn't a question we can accurately answer.  We still have a lot  of puzzles to solve before we get anywhere close to a definitive answer to that question.

It's perfectly alright to ask those questions.  What's not right is burning people at the stake for coming up with a different answer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Pretty interesting that people 4,000 years ago got it right


Not really. They were looking at the same world and sky we are. How else would they have imagined things, other than working with what they knew? God picked up some dirt and made a body; they knew about dirt (and how to make clay pots and dwellings), and they knew about bodies.  God made the container of the heavens, then the earth he placed in it .... As opposed to the opposite order?


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3... all of the above.
> 
> 
> 
> That simply involves a creator utilizing the dust.
> Oh wait.
> Genesis says dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A creator and evolution aren't exclusive.   It's a matter of, "Does G-d work hard or does G-d work smart?".
> 
> Given his copious amount of spare time, I'm thinking he would get mightily bored sculpting every earthworm from scratch.
> 
> ... fun fact, in Hebrew scripture, man was created from "Adamah", which translates to earth or ground ... not dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue of how God did it is separate from was God the catalyst or will dirt eventually write poetry given enough time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have zero evidence of how our Universe existed prior to the Big Bang or what could have created the singularity from where the Big Bag originated came into being.
> 
> We live in an infinite universe but _our _physical dimensional doesn't allow for infinity.  So, obviously, there's a lot going on here that we don't get.
> 
> I prefer to think that our infinite creator was wise enough to know that given a specific set of physical rules, life (ultimately poetry-writing life) is inevitable given molecular bonding and the right conditions.
> 
> Scripture, is bronze-age man's attempt explain the processes as revealed by G-d.  G-d couldn't explain the processes in detail any more than a physicist could explain quantum physics to a toddler. Bronze-age man didn't have the foundation in science to be able to grasp it.
> 
> However, G-d is wise, he knew that, given enough time (something G-d has a lot of), the events he put into motion all those Billions of years ago would come to one day understand his design.  G-d's ultimate plan for our Universe is ineffable, but, based on what I see, I believe he's placed us in a play pen with trillions of puzzles to solve and our early childhood education will be to solve these puzzles and remove our ourselves from the playpen to the next step in our intellectual evolution.
> 
> I can't even imagine what G-d's middle school will look like ... but I'm guessing it will be awesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like the way you think.
> 
> Why do you suppose god hides himself like this?
Click to expand...


I don't think G-d hides himself at all.  He's there all the time.  We just don't have the ability to see ... for now.

Give our species a few million more years, we'll be a lot closer to the answer.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty interesting that people 4,000 years ago got it right
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. They were looking at the same world and sky we are. How else would they have imagined things, other than working with what they knew? God picked up some dirt and made a body; they knew about dirt (and how to make clay pots and dwellings), and they knew about bodies.  God made the container of the heavens, then the earth he placed in it .... As opposed to the opposite order?
Click to expand...

There are many religions, each with an explanation for creation. 

Only one got it right.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> It's perfectly alright to ask those questions. What's not right is burning people at the stake for coming up with a different answer.


BUT

It is perectly acceptable to give someone an 'F' on a 9th grade evolution quiz for answering, "dust can't write poetry".

Let's all be crystal clear on that.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty interesting that people 4,000 years ago got it right
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. They were looking at the same world and sky we are. How else would they have imagined things, other than working with what they knew? God picked up some dirt and made a body; they knew about dirt (and how to make clay pots and dwellings), and they knew about bodies.  God made the container of the heavens, then the earth he placed in it .... As opposed to the opposite order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many religions, each with an explanation for creation.
> 
> Only one got it right.
Click to expand...


Which one?

My money is on the turtles.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> There are many religions, each with an explanation for creation.
> 
> Only one got it right.


Wrong. You can fish for and retrofit things from any mythology to fit empirical knowledge. Just as you are with christianity. That's the luxury of "magic!"


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfectly alright to ask those questions. What's not right is burning people at the stake for coming up with a different answer.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT
> 
> It is perectly acceptable to give someone an 'F' on a 9th grade evolution quiz for answering, "dust can't write poetry".
> 
> Let's all be crystal clear on that.
Click to expand...

You’re the one claiming dust will naturally end up writing a novel. 

Is that why you don’t dust?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> You’re the one claiming dust will naturally end up writing a novel.


I have never said or implied such a thing. Sorry my man, I'm pretty immune to your tired, tedious YEC rhetoric. Most people are.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re the one claiming dust will naturally end up writing a novel.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said or implied such a thing. Sorry my man, I'm pretty immune to your tired, tedious YEC rhetoric. Most people are.
Click to expand...

You don’t even understand what the Periodic Table is and what that means, do you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re the one claiming dust will naturally end up writing a novel.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said or implied such a thing. Sorry my man, I'm pretty immune to your tired, tedious YEC rhetoric. Most people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t even understand what the Periodic Table is and what that means, do you?
Click to expand...

I'm not your assistant. If you have a point,state it.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfectly alright to ask those questions. What's not right is burning people at the stake for coming up with a different answer.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT
> 
> It is perectly acceptable to give someone an 'F' on a 9th grade evolution quiz for answering, "dust can't write poetry".
> 
> Let's all be crystal clear on that.
Click to expand...


School (particularly 9th grade) isn't about finding the answers to anything.  It's about absorbing a pre-approved list of facts and data so we can regurgitate them onto a test and be classified for our future place in society.

The lesson we learn in the first 18 or so years of our formal education is conformity.  

However, what one believes based on their observations in life is something completely different.  

Would I give someone an "F" for saying "Dust can't create poetry".  Yes, I would.  Not because it's an argument against evolution.  But, because it's a reductionist argument with no actual observational data behind it.

"Dust can't write poetry" isn't even a good basis for an argument because it is rooted in the fallacy that any object only has the same capabilities of its constituent parts.

Additionally, dust is a mistranslation of the Hebrew scripture.  If you're going to make an argument based on scripture, you should at least go to the original source.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> School (particularly 9th grade) isn't about finding the answers to anything. It's about absorbing a pre-approved list of facts and data so we can regurgitate them onto a test and be classified for our future place in society.


Haha, wow, that escalated quickly .

No, i assure you, 9th grade science class is about learning basic, true, empirical knowledge.

Furthermore, you will get an F in science class in college, too, for that answer.

So, willing to acknowledge my point yet?


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re the one claiming dust will naturally end up writing a novel.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said or implied such a thing. Sorry my man, I'm pretty immune to your tired, tedious YEC rhetoric. Most people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t even understand what the Periodic Table is and what that means, do you?
Click to expand...


You know the coolest thing about the Periodic Table of Elements?

It actually predicted the existence of elements before they were discovered.  Mendeleev predicted the existence of gallium (Ga), scandium (Sc), and germanium (Ge) based on the missing holes where elements should exist but we weren't aware of them.

That is cool as balls.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re the one claiming dust will naturally end up writing a novel.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said or implied such a thing. Sorry my man, I'm pretty immune to your tired, tedious YEC rhetoric. Most people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t even understand what the Periodic Table is and what that means, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not your assistant. If you have a point,state it.
Click to expand...

Me, you, everything around us is listed. That’s all we are if there is no spirit. Just a bunch of elements we can buy on Amazon. 

So either those elements will end up playing frisbee given enough time or that’s impossible. 

You say they’ll be playing frisbee.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> School (particularly 9th grade) isn't about finding the answers to anything. It's about absorbing a pre-approved list of facts and data so we can regurgitate them onto a test and be classified for our future place in society.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, wow, that escalated quickly .
> 
> No, i assure you, 9th grade science class is about learning basic, true, empirical knowledge.
> 
> Furthermore, you will get an F in science class in college, too, for that answer.
> 
> So, willing to acknowledge my point yet?
Click to expand...


Like I said, it's a bad answer.  Not for its conclusion, but for the fact it's not well reasoned and rooted in a false analogy.

Maybe it's because I've been around a long while, but I can assure you that many of the empirical facts I learned in 9th grade were no such thing.  It's huge leap from intelligence to insight.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> So either those elements will end up playing frisbee given enough time or that’s impossible.



I'm pretty sure G-d smiled when his elements created the Frisbee.  G-d is funny that way.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> That’s all we are if there is no spirit.



Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> School (particularly 9th grade) isn't about finding the answers to anything. It's about absorbing a pre-approved list of facts and data so we can regurgitate them onto a test and be classified for our future place in society.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, wow, that escalated quickly .
> 
> No, i assure you, 9th grade science class is about learning basic, true, empirical knowledge.
> 
> Furthermore, you will get an F in science class in college, too, for that answer.
> 
> So, willing to acknowledge my point yet?
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all we are if there is no spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?
Click to expand...

Everything with breath has a spirit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> That’s all we are if there is no spirit. Just a bunch of elements we can buy on Amazon


Yeah....and?



Weatherman2020 said:


> So either those elements will end up playing frisbee given enough time or that’s impossible.


People made up of only thse elements play frisbee all the time. So what?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all we are if there is no spirit. Just a bunch of elements we can buy on Amazon
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....and?
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So either those elements will end up playing frisbee given enough time or that’s impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People made up of only thse elements play frisbee all the time. So what?
Click to expand...

You validate my point. You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players. 

I missed that day in class where they taught nature grows more complex.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all we are if there is no spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything with breath has a spirit.
Click to expand...


That would depend on how you define spirit...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.


I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense won't work, here.

But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.

"Nature grows more complex"

Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all we are if there is no spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything with breath has a spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would depend on how you define spirit...
Click to expand...

According to numerous references in the OT and a few in the NT, all creatures with breath have more to them than just being an assembly of atoms.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense wont work, here.
> 
> But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.
> 
> "Nature grows more complex"
> 
> Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!
Click to expand...

Good luck watching your dust.


----------



## bripat9643

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all we are if there is no spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything with breath has a spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would depend on how you define spirit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to numerous references in the OT and a few in the NT, all creatures with breath have more to them than just being an assembly of atoms.
Click to expand...

Salamanders?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense wont work, here.
> 
> But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.
> 
> "Nature grows more complex"
> 
> Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck watching your dust.
Click to expand...

It's your dust, not mine. You can keep your silly magical nonsense, i have no use for it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense wont work, here.
> 
> But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.
> 
> "Nature grows more complex"
> 
> Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck watching your dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your dust, not mine. You can keep your silly magical nonsense, i have no use for it.
Click to expand...

Magic is thinking a dust pile will eventually write poetry.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all we are if there is no spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything with breath has a spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would depend on how you define spirit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to numerous references in the OT and a few in the NT, all creatures with breath have more to them than just being an assembly of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Salamanders?
Click to expand...

Takes in oxygen.


----------



## bripat9643

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense wont work, here.
> 
> But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.
> 
> "Nature grows more complex"
> 
> Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck watching your dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your dust, not mine. You can keep your silly magical nonsense, i have no use for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magic is thinking a dust pile will eventually write poetry.
Click to expand...

No one thinks that.


----------



## bripat9643

Weatherman2020 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?
> 
> 
> 
> Everything with breath has a spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would depend on how you define spirit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to numerous references in the OT and a few in the NT, all creatures with breath have more to them than just being an assembly of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Salamanders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes in oxygen.
Click to expand...

Salamanders?  Bacteria?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense wont work, here.
> 
> But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.
> 
> "Nature grows more complex"
> 
> Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck watching your dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your dust, not mine. You can keep your silly magical nonsense, i have no use for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magic is thinking a dust pile will eventually write poetry.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a very accurate description of your beliefs. Not of mine.

You say and believe god used magic to turn dust into beings who write poetry. You are literally stating your beliefs, over and over again, and trying to say they are mine. This is very odd behavior, for a grown man.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense wont work, here.
> 
> But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.
> 
> "Nature grows more complex"
> 
> Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck watching your dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your dust, not mine. You can keep your silly magical nonsense, i have no use for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magic is thinking a dust pile will eventually write poetry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one thinks that.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks elements just become Agatha Christie naturally of course does.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything with breath has a spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would depend on how you define spirit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to numerous references in the OT and a few in the NT, all creatures with breath have more to them than just being an assembly of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Salamanders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes in oxygen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Salamanders?  Bacteria?
Click to expand...

I don’t know. Not my concern.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all we are if there is no spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything with breath has a spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would depend on how you define spirit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to numerous references in the OT and a few in the NT, all creatures with breath have more to them than just being an assembly of atoms.
Click to expand...


Again, it's back to the definition of 'spirit'.  That anything is more than the sum of its constituent elements is very often true.  I'm just not clear what qualities the banana slug or slime mold possess that might be considered spirit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> I'm just not clear what qualities the banana slug or slime mold possess that might be considered spirit.


I say the same about humans. We are also just deterministic, physical systems.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

The Klingons are coming.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all we are if there is no spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it concluded that sentient life has no spirit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything with breath has a spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would depend on how you define spirit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to numerous references in the OT and a few in the NT, all creatures with breath have more to them than just being an assembly of atoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it's back to the definition of 'spirit'.  That anything is more than the sum of its constituent elements is very often true.  I'm just not clear what qualities the banana slug or slime mold possess that might be considered spirit.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why, just the way it is.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just not clear what qualities the banana slug or slime mold possess that might be considered spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> I say the same about humans. We are also just deterministic, physical systems.
Click to expand...


Not just.  We've evolved a long way past photokinesis, autonomic glycolosis, and purely autonomic functionality.

We can ask ourselves, "Who are we?  Why are we here? How do we get to the mall?".


----------



## Frannie

sealybobo said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What forms gravity without any sort of mass coalition to form the gravity
> 
> 
> 
> The mass consists of the hydrogen and other trace elements that eventually made up the solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that have to do with scattered mass gravitating itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're spouting meaningless babble.  All matter possesses the quality of gravitational attraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not random matter in outer space not attached to a gravitational field
> 
> Try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a star goes super nova it sends stuff out in all directions.
> 
> We had a big planet or asteroid fly through our solar system. It came from another star. It was flung out. So it’s a rogue planet or rock not bound to any star, yet.
Click to expand...

Again there is such a thing as interstellar space.  In fact there is more of this than anything else.  There is no gravity here, an atom of iron if there has nothing to attract it.

Not sure what you are arguing


----------



## fncceo

AzogtheDefiler said:


> The Klingons are coming.



As much fun as "Star Trek" is ... I believe that the real aliens will be infinitely more interesting.

Given the diversity of life on our own planet ... the number of variations that might exist on a much different planet is truly staggering.


----------



## Weatherman2020

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just not clear what qualities the banana slug or slime mold possess that might be considered spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> I say the same about humans. We are also just deterministic, physical systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just.  We've evolved a long way past photokinesis, autonomic glycolosis, and purely autonomic functionality.
> 
> We can ask ourselves, "Who are we?  Why are we here? How do we get to the mall?".
Click to expand...

Mutations don’t work that way. A mutated life is always inferior to its original. Always.


----------



## fncceo

Frannie said:


> There is no gravity here



Actually, untrue.  Every grain of space dust, in fact, every free floating atom that exists in space has its own minute mass and therefore its own gravity.


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> A mutated life is always inferior to its original



We know that's not true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Not just. We've evolved a long way past photokinesis, autonomic glycolosis, and purely autonomic functionality.


No, we haven't . Even our consciousness is just a deterministic, chemical system. Your thoughts of yourself are no more magical than a slug's preference for beer. Yes, we are just deterministic, physical systems, as are slugs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Again there is such a thing as interstellar space. In fact there is more of this than anything else. There is no gravity here,


False.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Mutations don’t work that way. A mutated life is always inferior to its original.


Not always. It depends on the context. A different shaped beak, for instance, may be inferior for picking bugs from holes, but superior for cracking a nut. If this trait or better ability is selected for by any of a number of means, then it starts to prevail.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just. We've evolved a long way past photokinesis, autonomic glycolosis, and purely autonomic functionality.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we haven't . Even our consciousness is just a deterministic, chemical system. Your thoughts of yourself are no more magical than a slug's preference for beer. Yes, we are just deterministic, physical systems, as are slugs.
Click to expand...


Slugs don't know of the existence of beer.  To a slug, it's simply complex carbohydrates and alcohol.  

To a human, it's a way of lowering our standards.






That's not magic, it's sentience.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Slugs don't know of the existence of beer. To a slug, it's simply complex carbohydrates and alcohol.


So? That doesn't mean you aren't just a deterministic, physical system.


----------



## bripat9643

Weatherman2020 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just not clear what qualities the banana slug or slime mold possess that might be considered spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> I say the same about humans. We are also just deterministic, physical systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just.  We've evolved a long way past photokinesis, autonomic glycolosis, and purely autonomic functionality.
> 
> We can ask ourselves, "Who are we?  Why are we here? How do we get to the mall?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mutations don’t work that way. A mutated life is always inferior to its original. Always.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slugs don't know of the existence of beer. To a slug, it's simply complex carbohydrates and alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> So? That doesn't mean you aren't just a deterministic, physical system.
Click to expand...


Not just, no.  I have cognitive ability.


----------



## Frannie

fncceo said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no gravity here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, untrue.  Every grain of space dust, in fact, every free floating atom that exists in space has its own minute mass and therefore its own gravity.
Click to expand...

That might be true and it might not, in fact gravity is well understood on one hand and an enigma on the other.  Remember according to gravity as we know it 85 percent of the universe is missing.  Lunacy


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again there is such a thing as interstellar space. In fact there is more of this than anything else. There is no gravity here,
> 
> 
> 
> False.
Click to expand...

LOL the mental imbecile says that there is no such thing as interstellar space.

Dude there is life out of your Moms basement

Really

There are even living girls, you know not in mags or on the computer


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, abiogenesis is an informed guess.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact. It's simply the name given to the process of the formation of life.  The hypotheses of how it occured are hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Science has been unable to establish what life came from ergo we do not know.  That does not mean abiogenesis is fact, it means that we do not know.


----------



## fncceo

Frannie said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no gravity here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, untrue.  Every grain of space dust, in fact, every free floating atom that exists in space has its own minute mass and therefore its own gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That might be true and it might not, in fact gravity is well understood on one hand and an enigma on the other.  Remember according to gravity as we know it 85 percent of the universe is missing.  Lunacy
Click to expand...


Dark matter isn't 'missing' matter.  It's a concept to explain why the amount of observed matter in the known universe isn't sufficient to explain why the universe behaves the way we observe it.


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, abiogenesis is an informed guess.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact. It's simply the name given to the process of the formation of life.  The hypotheses of how it occured are hypotheses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Science has been unable to establish what life came from ergo we do not know.  That does not mean abiogenesis is fact, it means that we do not know.
Click to expand...

Well put, thank you...……………….


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.




The white people who enslaved the universe are out there !
Long live the patriarchy of the cosmos and their hot bitches ! 







In UFOlogy, *Nordic aliens* are humanoid extraterrestrials purported to come from the Pleiades who resemble Nordic-Scandinavians.[1] Professed contactees describe them as typically male, six to seven feet tall (about two meters) with long blonde hair, blue eyes,[2] and skin tones ranging from fair to tanned.[3][2][4] UFOlogist George Adamski is credited with being among the first to claim contact with Nordic aliens in the mid 1950s, and scholars note that the mythology of extraterrestrial visitation from beings with features described as Aryan often include claims of telepathy, benevolence, and physical beauty.[5][6][1]


----------



## Frannie

fncceo said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no gravity here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, untrue.  Every grain of space dust, in fact, every free floating atom that exists in space has its own minute mass and therefore its own gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That might be true and it might not, in fact gravity is well understood on one hand and an enigma on the other.  Remember according to gravity as we know it 85 percent of the universe is missing.  Lunacy
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dark matter isn't 'missing' matter.  It's a concept to explain why the amount of observed matter in the known universe isn't sufficient to explain why the universe behaves the way we observe it.
Click to expand...

Dark matter is certainly missing matter, it is like this

15% + (blank)% = 100% 

That simplifies it, the dark matter is missing from the equation.  The interesting thing is that the equation might be wrong because we are not seeing the universe right.  If the equation is wrong dark matter is no longer needed.  There is no agreement here, some are now with straight faces saying that the universe is not real, or that a pulling force from outside the universe is causing expansion

However if as you say dark matter is not missing.

WHERE IS IT?


----------



## Frannie

Deplorable Yankee said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The white people who enslaved the universe are out there !
> Long live the patriarchy of the cosmos and their hot bitches !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In UFOlogy, *Nordic aliens* are humanoid extraterrestrials purported to come from the Pleiades who resemble Nordic-Scandinavians.[1] Professed contactees describe them as typically male, six to seven feet tall (about two meters) with long blonde hair, blue eyes,[2] and skin tones ranging from fair to tanned.[3][2][4] UFOlogist George Adamski is credited with being among the first to claim contact with Nordic aliens in the mid 1950s, and scholars note that the mythology of extraterrestrial visitation from beings with features described as Aryan often include claims of telepathy, benevolence, and physical beauty.[5][6][1]
Click to expand...


US Navy confirms previously released UFO videos show 'unidentified aerial phenomena' - CNNPolitics

No more weather balloons?

Anyone looking for ET at Area51

Is dumb


----------



## FA_Q2

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably not true ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The hydrogen atoms are as old as the universe.  The other atoms are a lot younger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of that...………………
> 
> Grow up, no one was there or knows anyone who was, and the people blurting out that nonsense are now saying that there are no Hydrogen atoms because we are all a computer simulation.
> 
> No one can explain why the universe is expanding as fast as it is you do know that right
Click to expand...

That is not really what holographic theory suggest.  It is just an explanation for the seeming observation all volumes of space can actually be explained through a 2 dimensional plane.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Not just, no. I have cognitive ability.


And that makes you not just a deterministic physical system, how?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> LOL the mental imbecile says that there is no such thing as interstellar space.


Not what I said. I said all matter is affected by the gravity of all other matter in the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Science has been unable to establish what life came from ergo we do not know. That does not mean abiogenesis is fact, it means that we do not know.


But we do know a few things. We know there was once no life, then there was. So, we know life formed. And that's all we need to know in order to know that abiogensis is a fact. Life formed by some sort of process that follows all the same laws as every other process. Star formation, volcano formation, hurricane formation.... And formation of life. "Abiogensis" is just the name given the process. It's not any less a fact than is hurricane formation. "Hurrigenesis"...


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just, no. I have cognitive ability.
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes you not just a deterministic physical system, how?
Click to expand...


In a deterministic model, you will always get the same output from the same initial state.

Does that sound like humans to you?


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in the universe is exactly the same age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably not true ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The hydrogen atoms are as old as the universe.  The other atoms are a lot younger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of that...………………
> 
> Grow up, no one was there or knows anyone who was, and the people blurting out that nonsense are now saying that there are no Hydrogen atoms because we are all a computer simulation.
> 
> No one can explain why the universe is expanding as fast as it is you do know that right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not really what holographic theory suggest.  It is just an explanation for the seeming observation all volumes of space can actually be explained through a 2 dimensional plane.
Click to expand...


Wrong Tyson says everything is a coded simulation

Why, because none of the math adds up, and math is never wrong, so the universe is wrong and there is no expansion happening.  Laughing


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> In a deterministic model, you will always get the same output from the same initial state.
> 
> Does that sound like humans to you?


Yes. And you won't necessarily always get the same output, due to quantum effects. But yes humans are just deterministic systems. Else...what? Magic?


----------



## bripat9643

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just, no. I have cognitive ability.
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes you not just a deterministic physical system, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a deterministic model, you will always get the same output from the same initial state.
> 
> Does that sound like humans to you?
Click to expand...

Is weather deterministic?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations don’t work that way. A mutated life is always inferior to its original.
> 
> 
> 
> Not always. It depends on the context. A different shaped beak, for instance, may be inferior for picking bugs from holes, but superior for cracking a nut. If this trait or better ability is selected for by any of a number of means, then it starts to prevail.
Click to expand...

There’s not a mutation that’s ever been beneficial. 

How many parents say ‘oh good, our baby has a mutation!’?  Same with every species, mutations are always a hinderance if not death.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense wont work, here.
> 
> But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.
> 
> "Nature grows more complex"
> 
> Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck watching your dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your dust, not mine. You can keep your silly magical nonsense, i have no use for it.
Click to expand...

This is what you claim rights poetry. 170 pounds of chemicals you can buy on Amazon.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> There’s not a mutation that’s ever been beneficial.


False.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think dust will naturally evolve into champion frisbee players.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied that. Your silly bait and switch nonsense wont work, here.
> 
> But, interestingly enough,humans create much of the actual dust in your house with skin particles.
> 
> "Nature grows more complex"
> 
> Yes, you certainly did miss that day, and even that century. We have known for quite a while that entropy laws dont preclude local instances of decreasing entropy. Welcome to the year 1865. We should give you some time to catch up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good luck watching your dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's your dust, not mine. You can keep your silly magical nonsense, i have no use for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what you claim rights poetry. 170 pounds of chemicals you can buy on Amazon.
> 
> View attachment 280626
Click to expand...

No, you are confused again. You are the one claiming the body is made of something else besides elements in the periodic table. Stop pushing your nonsense and your burden off on others, son.


----------



## bripat9643

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations don’t work that way. A mutated life is always inferior to its original.
> 
> 
> 
> Not always. It depends on the context. A different shaped beak, for instance, may be inferior for picking bugs from holes, but superior for cracking a nut. If this trait or better ability is selected for by any of a number of means, then it starts to prevail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s not a mutation that’s ever been beneficial.
> 
> How many parents say ‘oh good, our baby has a mutation!’?  Same with every species, mutations are always a hinderance if not death.
Click to expand...

Only bad mutations become a medical issue.  When there's a good mutation, how would a doctor know it's a mutation and not an existing gene?  If some mutation made you immune to cancer, would your doctor know?  Nope.    Furthermore, there are probably thousands or even millions of bad mutations for every good mutation, but that's all it takes.

Your claim lacks any visible means of support.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s not a mutation that’s ever been beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
Click to expand...

Do tell.


----------



## Weatherman2020

bripat9643 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mutations don’t work that way. A mutated life is always inferior to its original.
> 
> 
> 
> Not always. It depends on the context. A different shaped beak, for instance, may be inferior for picking bugs from holes, but superior for cracking a nut. If this trait or better ability is selected for by any of a number of means, then it starts to prevail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s not a mutation that’s ever been beneficial.
> 
> How many parents say ‘oh good, our baby has a mutation!’?  Same with every species, mutations are always a hinderance if not death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only bad mutations become a medical issue.  When there's a good mutation, how would a doctor know it's a mutation and not an existing gene?  If some mutation made you immune to cancer, would your doctor know?  Nope.    Furthermore, there are probably thousands or even millions of bad mutations for every good mutation, but that's all it takes.
> 
> Your claim lacks any visible means of support.
Click to expand...

Feel free to name an event. 

The only thing that ever occurs is a recessive gene becoming dominant and visa versa.


----------



## FA_Q2

Frannie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demonstrably not true ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the elements composing those two people are exactly the same age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. The hydrogen atoms are as old as the universe.  The other atoms are a lot younger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is zero evidence of that...………………
> 
> Grow up, no one was there or knows anyone who was, and the people blurting out that nonsense are now saying that there are no Hydrogen atoms because we are all a computer simulation.
> 
> No one can explain why the universe is expanding as fast as it is you do know that right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not really what holographic theory suggest.  It is just an explanation for the seeming observation all volumes of space can actually be explained through a 2 dimensional plane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong Tyson says everything is a coded simulation
> 
> Why, because none of the math adds up, and math is never wrong, so the universe is wrong and there is no expansion happening.  Laughing
Click to expand...

It is a catchy analogy but that is still not what holographic theory states.  It is not saying that we do not exist or that the math proves the universe wrong, nor did Tyson allude to that in any way.  He just used something in common parlance to describe the idea.  What it does do is make the observation that the entirety of a black hole can be described by its surface area rather than its volume.  As a black hole is representative of the largest amount of matter, or stuff, that can occupy that volume of space then it follows that ALL of space time can be described with the 2 dimensional surface area of a sphere and the math described in string theory (which really is a hypothesis so that makes holographic theory even more of a conjecture) seems to support this.

All holographic theory really shows is that any dimension that includes gravity can actually be understood to have one fewer dimension than appears and can be mathematically understood as such.

Holographic principle - Wikipedia


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has been unable to establish what life came from ergo we do not know. That does not mean abiogenesis is fact, it means that we do not know.
> 
> 
> 
> But we do know a few things. We know there was once no life, then there was. So, we know life formed. And that's all we need to know in order to know that abiogensis is a fact. Life formed by some sort of process that follows all the same laws as every other process. Star formation, volcano formation, hurricane formation.... And formation of life. "Abiogensis" is just the name given the process. It's not any less a fact than is hurricane formation. "Hurrigenesis"...
Click to expand...

That is the most likely but is not all encompassing.

Life may have been seeded by another form of life.  Life may have come from an extra solar meteorite.  Perhaps there are extra dimensional beings involved and of course there is always the god did it excuse.

Each may be more unlikely than the last and certainly not a complete list but that does not equate to us KNOWING anything.  It strongly suggests such but that is not the same thing as a fact.  Abiogenesis is still a guess because science has been unable to establish any real framework as to how it works.  We do not even understand what original life looked like as it is now believed that DNA was not the starting point of life.  

The same thing goes for humans being nothing but deterministic systems, another claim of hard fact that you made.  While I ascribe to both Abiogenesis and determinism as physics strongly points to that direction there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems.  Science is very specific here and that is what makes it so damn effective - the answer I do not know is an acceptable one and the fact is that we do not know if either of those contention are, indeed, accurate.  The problem that arises with religions views often times is the assertion that it is known, God did it and that is that.  Science does not need to go down that same silly road.  We do not know if life arose form non life and we do not know that we are strictly deterministic machines.  Physics has shown that those are both extremely likely and scientists are working to prove those two hypotheses right now.  Abiogenesis has proven to be very difficult as we do not even understand what original form life may have taken on.  Consciousness is currently beyond our grasp as we have no understanding there but current research into AI may very well shed some light in that arena.


----------



## FA_Q2

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just, no. I have cognitive ability.
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes you not just a deterministic physical system, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a deterministic model, you will always get the same output from the same initial state.
> 
> Does that sound like humans to you?
Click to expand...

That is utterly false in quantum mechanics AND chaos theory also shows why highly complex deterministic systems look like they are not deterministic and are impossible to predict.

We know a pendulum is deterministic.  Put two of them together and suddenly their motion becomes utterly chaotic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s not a mutation that’s ever been beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do tell.
Click to expand...

I already did. So did another poster.  That's why your repetition of your incorrect comment was bizarre.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Life may have been seeded by another form of life. Life may have come from an extra solar meteorite.


...and then you're back to abiogenesis again, just at another location.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems


 That is not reason to believe it may not be deterministic. We don't look at things we dont fully understand and say they might not be deterministic. That's god of the gaps.


----------



## bripat9643

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has been unable to establish what life came from ergo we do not know. That does not mean abiogenesis is fact, it means that we do not know.
> 
> 
> 
> But we do know a few things. We know there was once no life, then there was. So, we know life formed. And that's all we need to know in order to know that abiogensis is a fact. Life formed by some sort of process that follows all the same laws as every other process. Star formation, volcano formation, hurricane formation.... And formation of life. "Abiogensis" is just the name given the process. It's not any less a fact than is hurricane formation. "Hurrigenesis"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the most likely but is not all encompassing.
> 
> Life may have been seeded by another form of life.  Life may have come from an extra solar meteorite.  Perhaps there are extra dimensional beings involved and of course there is always the god did it excuse.
> 
> Each may be more unlikely than the last and certainly not a complete list but that does not equate to us KNOWING anything.  It strongly suggests such but that is not the same thing as a fact.  Abiogenesis is still a guess because science has been unable to establish any real framework as to how it works.  We do not even understand what original life looked like as it is now believed that DNA was not the starting point of life.
> 
> The same thing goes for humans being nothing but deterministic systems, another claim of hard fact that you made.  While I ascribe to both Abiogenesis and determinism as physics strongly points to that direction there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems.  Science is very specific here and that is what makes it so damn effective - the answer I do not know is an acceptable one and the fact is that we do not know if either of those contention are, indeed, accurate.  The problem that arises with religions views often times is the assertion that it is known, God did it and that is that.  Science does not need to go down that same silly road.  We do not know if life arose form non life and we do not know that we are strictly deterministic machines.  Physics has shown that those are both extremely likely and scientists are working to prove those two hypotheses right now.  Abiogenesis has proven to be very difficult as we do not even understand what original form life may have taken on.  Consciousness is currently beyond our grasp as we have no understanding there but current research into AI may very well shed some light in that arena.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is a fact.  Once the universe had no life.  Now it does.  You simply can't get around those facts without resorting to magic.  The fact that we don't know how something occurred doesn't mean you get to claim that God did it.


----------



## Flash

If the universe is finite then that mean unique things can exist.

For all we know life is unique to earth.

Until we get another data point or until we can turn Chemistry into Biology and know the conditions exist for it elsewhere then all we are doing is speculating on something we know nothing or very little about.

Of course our speculation is clouded by 100 years of being brainwashed by Science Fiction but that is not going to stop us from_ absolutely knowing_ that life exist elsewhere, is it?.

The universe may very well be sterile except for our little planet where several amazing things just happen to come together at the right time to produce life.

Maybe microbial life exist elsewhere and advance life is rare or non existence except here on earth.  What if there aren't really any Green Orion Slave Girls for Capt Kirk to screw? Maybe the only thing we would ever find if we ever went star trekking across the universe is a little algae somewhere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> For all we know life is unique to earth.


I.E., it's possible. Sure it is. By the way, saying that means we are also saying its possible that life has formed other times in the universe.

And it seems unlikely that life would have formed exactly once, instead of at least twice.  But the evidence for this is circumstantial.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s not a mutation that’s ever been beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did. So did another poster.  That's why your repetition of your incorrect comment was bizarre.
Click to expand...

Not hard for you to link to, yet you don’t. Makes you look like a liar. Liar. 

Fact is a mutation in DNA is like a monkey making a random code change to Windows 10, and think the change will improve Windows 10. Except life is a trillion trillion times more complex.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Not hard for you to link to, yet you don’t. Makes you look like a liar.


Do you think i care if some religious goober who shits on all the evidence whines that i dont spoonfeed him evidence for him to shit on? Think again...

Hey professor: why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just, no. I have cognitive ability.
> 
> 
> 
> And that makes you not just a deterministic physical system, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a deterministic model, you will always get the same output from the same initial state.
> 
> Does that sound like humans to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is utterly false in quantum mechanics AND chaos theory also shows why highly complex deterministic systems look like they are not deterministic and are impossible to predict.
> 
> We know a pendulum is deterministic.  Put two of them together and suddenly their motion becomes utterly chaotic.
Click to expand...

Yep. Chaotic, but still deterministic. Even the wave functions of quantum mechanics follow deterministic laws.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hard for you to link to, yet you don’t. Makes you look like a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think i care if some religious goober who shits on all the evidence whines that i dont spoonfeed him evidence for him to shit on? Think again...
> 
> Hey professor: why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?
Click to expand...

The fact you need to lie displays where you are in the topic. 

Under water


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hard for you to link to, yet you don’t. Makes you look like a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think i care if some religious goober who shits on all the evidence whines that i dont spoonfeed him evidence for him to shit on? Think again...
> 
> Hey professor: why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact you need to lie displays where you are in the topic.
> 
> Under water
Click to expand...

Yep, just me and the global scientific community, all lying to try to fool the trailer park dwellers of america, who are obviously far too clever for us. Yessir, you got us...


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hard for you to link to, yet you don’t. Makes you look like a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think i care if some religious goober who shits on all the evidence whines that i dont spoonfeed him evidence for him to shit on? Think again...
> 
> Hey professor: why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact you need to lie displays where you are in the topic.
> 
> Under water
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, just me amd the global scientific community, all lying to fool the trailer park dwellers of america. Yessir, you got us...
Click to expand...

You’re down to a 16 year old high school dropout as your spokesperson.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hard for you to link to, yet you don’t. Makes you look like a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think i care if some religious goober who shits on all the evidence whines that i dont spoonfeed him evidence for him to shit on? Think again...
> 
> Hey professor: why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact you need to lie displays where you are in the topic.
> 
> Under water
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, just me amd the global scientific community, all lying to fool the trailer park dwellers of america. Yessir, you got us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re down to a 16 year old high school dropout as your spokesperson.
Click to expand...


It's preferable to your spokespeople, the westboro Baptists...
You should feel ashamed of how much smarter than you she is.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not hard for you to link to, yet you don’t. Makes you look like a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think i care if some religious goober who shits on all the evidence whines that i dont spoonfeed him evidence for him to shit on? Think again...
> 
> Hey professor: why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact you need to lie displays where you are in the topic.
> 
> Under water
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, just me amd the global scientific community, all lying to fool the trailer park dwellers of america. Yessir, you got us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re down to a 16 year old high school dropout as your spokesperson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's preferable to your spokespeople, the westboro Baptists...
> You should feel ashamed of how much smarter than you she is.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, you pull a cult of 15 people out as evidence!

Your desperation is HILARIOUS!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think i care if some religious goober who shits on all the evidence whines that i dont spoonfeed him evidence for him to shit on? Think again...
> 
> Hey professor: why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you need to lie displays where you are in the topic.
> 
> Under water
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, just me amd the global scientific community, all lying to fool the trailer park dwellers of america. Yessir, you got us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re down to a 16 year old high school dropout as your spokesperson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's preferable to your spokespeople, the westboro Baptists...
> You should feel ashamed of how much smarter than you she is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow, you pull a cult of 15 people out as evidence!
> 
> Your desperation is HILARIOUS!
Click to expand...




Weatherman2020 said:


> Oh wow, you pull a cult of 15 people out as evidence!


No, they align with your beliefs perfectly. 

Hey dummy... Why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you need to lie displays where you are in the topic.
> 
> Under water
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, just me amd the global scientific community, all lying to fool the trailer park dwellers of america. Yessir, you got us...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re down to a 16 year old high school dropout as your spokesperson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's preferable to your spokespeople, the westboro Baptists...
> You should feel ashamed of how much smarter than you she is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow, you pull a cult of 15 people out as evidence!
> 
> Your desperation is HILARIOUS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, you pull a cult of 15 people out as evidence!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they align with your beliefs perfectly.
> 
> Hey dummy... Why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?
Click to expand...

A 16 year old is your best spokesperson. 
You don’t have a clue about biology. 
Now it’s slander attacks. 

You lost a long time ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, just me amd the global scientific community, all lying to fool the trailer park dwellers of america. Yessir, you got us...
> 
> 
> 
> You’re down to a 16 year old high school dropout as your spokesperson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's preferable to your spokespeople, the westboro Baptists...
> You should feel ashamed of how much smarter than you she is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow, you pull a cult of 15 people out as evidence!
> 
> Your desperation is HILARIOUS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, you pull a cult of 15 people out as evidence!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they align with your beliefs perfectly.
> 
> Hey dummy... Why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A 16 year old is your best spokesperson.
> You don’t have a clue about biology.
> Now it’s slander attacks.
> 
> You lost a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Neat!

So...why do you suppose the flu vaccine is different every year?

How Do you suppose new, more dangerous strains of Lyme disease form?


----------



## fncceo

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fact is a mutation in DNA is like a monkey making a random code change to Windows 10,



You've obviously never met a programmer.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life may have been seeded by another form of life. Life may have come from an extra solar meteorite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and then you're back to abiogenesis again, just at another location.
Click to expand...

No, you are back to it is unknown.


----------



## FA_Q2

bripat9643 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has been unable to establish what life came from ergo we do not know. That does not mean abiogenesis is fact, it means that we do not know.
> 
> 
> 
> But we do know a few things. We know there was once no life, then there was. So, we know life formed. And that's all we need to know in order to know that abiogensis is a fact. Life formed by some sort of process that follows all the same laws as every other process. Star formation, volcano formation, hurricane formation.... And formation of life. "Abiogensis" is just the name given the process. It's not any less a fact than is hurricane formation. "Hurrigenesis"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the most likely but is not all encompassing.
> 
> Life may have been seeded by another form of life.  Life may have come from an extra solar meteorite.  Perhaps there are extra dimensional beings involved and of course there is always the god did it excuse.
> 
> Each may be more unlikely than the last and certainly not a complete list but that does not equate to us KNOWING anything.  It strongly suggests such but that is not the same thing as a fact.  Abiogenesis is still a guess because science has been unable to establish any real framework as to how it works.  We do not even understand what original life looked like as it is now believed that DNA was not the starting point of life.
> 
> The same thing goes for humans being nothing but deterministic systems, another claim of hard fact that you made.  While I ascribe to both Abiogenesis and determinism as physics strongly points to that direction there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems.  Science is very specific here and that is what makes it so damn effective - the answer I do not know is an acceptable one and the fact is that we do not know if either of those contention are, indeed, accurate.  The problem that arises with religions views often times is the assertion that it is known, God did it and that is that.  Science does not need to go down that same silly road.  We do not know if life arose form non life and we do not know that we are strictly deterministic machines.  Physics has shown that those are both extremely likely and scientists are working to prove those two hypotheses right now.  Abiogenesis has proven to be very difficult as we do not even understand what original form life may have taken on.  Consciousness is currently beyond our grasp as we have no understanding there but current research into AI may very well shed some light in that arena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis is a fact.  Once the universe had no life.  Now it does.  You simply can't get around those facts without resorting to magic.  The fact that we don't know how something occurred doesn't mean you get to claim that God did it.
Click to expand...

Again, that is not known.  That is supposed.  

That you KNOW something without actual evidence is resorting to 'god' no matter what that particular god is.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems
> 
> 
> 
> That is not reason to believe it may not be deterministic. We don't look at things we dont fully understand and say they might not be deterministic. That's god of the gaps.
Click to expand...

Yes, we actually do.  More correctly, we say that we do not know what they are.  Right now physics has no reason to see it as anything but deterministic but physics is also unable to even begin to explain it.  

Why is unknown such a difficult concept?


----------



## RWS

We don't kill over stuff we don't know. Unlike religions, who kill and rape and abduct children, because they were told to.


----------



## RWS

Science doesn't act on the unknown.

Only zealots do.


----------



## bripat9643

FA_Q2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has been unable to establish what life came from ergo we do not know. That does not mean abiogenesis is fact, it means that we do not know.
> 
> 
> 
> But we do know a few things. We know there was once no life, then there was. So, we know life formed. And that's all we need to know in order to know that abiogensis is a fact. Life formed by some sort of process that follows all the same laws as every other process. Star formation, volcano formation, hurricane formation.... And formation of life. "Abiogensis" is just the name given the process. It's not any less a fact than is hurricane formation. "Hurrigenesis"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the most likely but is not all encompassing.
> 
> Life may have been seeded by another form of life.  Life may have come from an extra solar meteorite.  Perhaps there are extra dimensional beings involved and of course there is always the god did it excuse.
> 
> Each may be more unlikely than the last and certainly not a complete list but that does not equate to us KNOWING anything.  It strongly suggests such but that is not the same thing as a fact.  Abiogenesis is still a guess because science has been unable to establish any real framework as to how it works.  We do not even understand what original life looked like as it is now believed that DNA was not the starting point of life.
> 
> The same thing goes for humans being nothing but deterministic systems, another claim of hard fact that you made.  While I ascribe to both Abiogenesis and determinism as physics strongly points to that direction there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems.  Science is very specific here and that is what makes it so damn effective - the answer I do not know is an acceptable one and the fact is that we do not know if either of those contention are, indeed, accurate.  The problem that arises with religions views often times is the assertion that it is known, God did it and that is that.  Science does not need to go down that same silly road.  We do not know if life arose form non life and we do not know that we are strictly deterministic machines.  Physics has shown that those are both extremely likely and scientists are working to prove those two hypotheses right now.  Abiogenesis has proven to be very difficult as we do not even understand what original form life may have taken on.  Consciousness is currently beyond our grasp as we have no understanding there but current research into AI may very well shed some light in that arena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abiogenesis is a fact.  Once the universe had no life.  Now it does.  You simply can't get around those facts without resorting to magic.  The fact that we don't know how something occurred doesn't mean you get to claim that God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that is not known.  That is supposed.
> 
> That you KNOW something without actual evidence is resorting to 'god' no matter what that particular god is.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  It's not supposed.  The alternative is magic, and we know that didn't happen.  We have tons of evidence.


----------



## bripat9643

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems
> 
> 
> 
> That is not reason to believe it may not be deterministic. We don't look at things we dont fully understand and say they might not be deterministic. That's god of the gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we actually do.  More correctly, we say that we do not know what they are.  Right now physics has no reason to see it as anything but deterministic but physics is also unable to even begin to explain it.
> 
> Why is unknown such a difficult concept?
Click to expand...


No, only fools and ignoramuses do that.

Not knowing doesn't give you the authority to propose magic as a possible explanation.


----------



## FA_Q2

bripat9643 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems
> 
> 
> 
> That is not reason to believe it may not be deterministic. We don't look at things we dont fully understand and say they might not be deterministic. That's god of the gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we actually do.  More correctly, we say that we do not know what they are.  Right now physics has no reason to see it as anything but deterministic but physics is also unable to even begin to explain it.
> 
> Why is unknown such a difficult concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, only fools and ignoramuses do that.
> 
> Not knowing doesn't give you the authority to propose magic as a possible explanation.
Click to expand...

I never proposed magic.


----------



## bripat9643

FA_Q2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is still absolutely zero understanding of what consciousness is or how it arises strictly from deterministic systems
> 
> 
> 
> That is not reason to believe it may not be deterministic. We don't look at things we dont fully understand and say they might not be deterministic. That's god of the gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we actually do.  More correctly, we say that we do not know what they are.  Right now physics has no reason to see it as anything but deterministic but physics is also unable to even begin to explain it.
> 
> Why is unknown such a difficult concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, only fools and ignoramuses do that.
> 
> Not knowing doesn't give you the authority to propose magic as a possible explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never proposed magic.
Click to expand...

Sure you have.  Every time you propose a creator, you're proposing magic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> No, you are back to it is unknown.


Not so. That life had to form somewhere, sometime, even if it came here via panspermia. That process of formation is called abiogenesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Again, that is not known. That is supposed.


Nonsense. Of course it is known that once there was no life as we know it, as we know there was once no atoms.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Yes, we actually do. More correctly, we say that we do not know what they are.


More nonsense. You cannot name a single example of this. Even when we don't know exactly how something happened, we do know it happened in the same, deterministoc universe in which everythi gnelse happens.


----------



## sealybobo

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



See that's the problem.  We look at other stars and what do we see?  We see the big planets surrounding them.






So if there is intelligent life on another star, are we sure we have the ability to see them?  

If they were looking at us would they see earth?  They'd see Jupiter and Saturn for sure.  Maybe they'd see Uranus and Neptune.  But they would not even realize Earth is there.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that's the problem.  We look at other stars and what do we see?  We see the big planets surrounding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if there is intelligent life on another star, are we sure we have the ability to see them?
> 
> If they were looking at us would they see earth?  They'd see Jupiter and Saturn for sure.  Maybe they'd see Uranus and Neptune.  But they would not even realize Earth is there.
Click to expand...

So what if we can't detect the planets that are likely to have life?   That's just a limitation on our tools that has no impact on anything being discussed in this thread.  Even so, we have already detected numerous planets that are well within the appropriate size range.  After we launch the Web space telescope, our ability to examine such planets will increase by many orders of magnitude.


----------



## RWS

Yes we can detect planets that have the ingredients for life, by using light.

 It should be obvious that life is abundant in the universe. What I want to learn is their observation of God, if there is one, but I really want to know their culture. 

Do they like Beethoven or Beatle music? What arts do they have that would impress us? Or that we could recognize? That's serious questions.


----------



## RWS

If I ever get abducted, all I want to know is their culture.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Natural Citizen said:


> I was reading some place where they're making plans to land on Europa.


The key is to spin slowly as you descend. It then naturally coils beneath you


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that's the problem.  We look at other stars and what do we see?  We see the big planets surrounding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if there is intelligent life on another star, are we sure we have the ability to see them?
> 
> If they were looking at us would they see earth?  They'd see Jupiter and Saturn for sure.  Maybe they'd see Uranus and Neptune.  But they would not even realize Earth is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what if we can't detect the planets that are likely to have life?   That's just a limitation on our tools that has no impact on anything being discussed in this thread.  Even so, we have already detected numerous planets that are well within the appropriate size range.  After we launch the Web space telescope, our ability to examine such planets will increase by many orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...


I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm saying that the people who say there is no life elsewhere because we can't see it don't understand that it might be the reason we can't see them is because like us they are hidden on a tiny rock 3rd from the sun.

On How the Universe Works they talk about all the hell worlds we see.  Yea, just like another civilization would look at our solar system and see Jupiter and Saturn.  Both would look like hell to them too.

We have detected numerous planets within the size range and distance to their star and we think they have water on them?  But how much do we actually know for sure.  I mean, pre web space telescope?  I think the scientists all agree we haven't found any planets that have life on them yet.  But I sort of don't think they have all the facts in order to determine that.  In fact I'm suggesting they might be missing planets that are small like earth that have life on them.  

But I don't tend to disagree with the scientists.  If they say they know there is no life circling another star, I'll go with that for now.  Because maybe they have answers to my questions and I just don't know how they came to their conclusions.  And I'm sure if I've asked these questions, they already have too and they've worked though them.  

But I believe they are looking at stars and they can't possibly know for sure no life is circling those other stars.  They think there isn't but what the hell do they know?


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> Yes we can detect planets that have the ingredients for life, by using light.
> 
> It should be obvious that life is abundant in the universe. What I want to learn is their observation of God, if there is one, but I really want to know their culture.
> 
> Do they like Beethoven or Beatle music? What arts do they have that would impress us? Or that we could recognize? That's serious questions.



And do they taste like chicken?


----------



## james bond

Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong .  I just read this page and the previous page to see where this thread has gone.  We're probably doomed to die on Earth due to an extinction event.  If you want to believe that a large asteroid will do it, then that's fine.  It's moot if we're all dead.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong .  I just read this page and the previous page to see where this thread has gone.  We're probably doomed to die on Earth due to an extinction event.  If you want to believe that a large asteroid will do it, then that's fine.  It's moot if we're all dead.



We are usually wrong?  Then creationists are always wrong.  At least we admit when we don't know something.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.



We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> There is no evidence of aliens


Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
Click to expand...


You just have a reflex reply. When you admitted you didn't read the thread. You are doomed to the same fate as us. 
Hopefully not for the the same reason.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
Click to expand...

We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.

How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.

I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.

But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.

Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.

You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.


----------



## sealybobo

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just have a reflex reply. When you admitted you didn't read the thread. You are doomed to the same fate as us.
> Hopefully not for the the same reason.
Click to expand...

He is so full of shit huh?  He says, "we provided the reasons why there are no aliens"  No he didn't.  First, God didn't say shit.  Some ancient goat herder wrote that god said something.  God never said anything to anyone on this planet.  

Then he says evolutionary thinking admits life is rare.  Rare?  That doesn't say life doesn't exist anywhere else.  What flawed thinking this religious retard has.  Sounds good in his head but is nonsense when I read it.  

And scientists never said we should have found life elsewhere by now.  They are disappointed they haven't found life somewhere else yet but I don't think they've looked close enough to make a conclusion.  What they haven't found is another planet exactly like ours with mammals and birds and atmosphere and water and a moon in the goldilocks zone.  But life might be in Europa so just because we haven't seen another star with an earth doesn't mean shit.  

Life certainly seems rare.  For example when life was on Mars, there was no life on any other planet in our solar system.  Marsians believed there was no other life in the universe.  Why?  Because God told them.  Or an ancient marsian goat herder wrote that.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
Click to expand...


RWS is a nut jobber.  One cannot discuss rationally these things with a kook.  I read a few pages back from the latest post and it's the worst of atheists' beliefs in aliens.  Not one argument for we would have found aliens already or use of Drake's equation.  The believers have Fermi's paradox, the great filter theory, SETI (no aliens found), Elon Musk, NASA's lack of finding, space probes, fine tuning facts, and more.

To answer your question, we know God didn't create aliens or he would have told us in Genesis.  The evidence is in my first paragraph.  That is how the f*ck I know.

If you find one microbe in the universe, then it won't destroy Christianity.  It could be possible due to panspermia from Earth.  However, it would be something to use against Christianity for sure.  Yet, we find the opposite is true.  Has it destroyed atheism and their belief for aliens.  It is a strange, but persistent belief.  All of you believe it due to the multitude of planets.  Occam's razor and other arguments do not sway you.  You just ignore the evidence of God.  You just ignore the evidence against evolution.

Again, God didn't create other civilizations.  He created what he created in the six days.  That is the only supernatural until Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel, Jesus' birth, and the prophecies to come.  That's why you won't find life or evidence of past like on 2 other planets in our solar system.  I know because God already told us.  All the other billions of stars and planets may as well be a mirage.  I doubt we'll make it off this planet.  We are not multi-planetary or it has been designed that way by God.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.



Your rubber ducky and other rubber toys, including adult ones, do not count haha.


----------



## FA_Q2

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
Click to expand...




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
Click to expand...

That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.

"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."

Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.

It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki


----------



## bripat9643

FA_Q2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.
> 
> It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki
Click to expand...

Life didn't start at the time of the big bang.  We haven't had intelligent life on this planet until 100,000 years ago.  That's not nearly enough time for life to spread throughout the entire universe, or even throughout the entire galaxy.


----------



## FA_Q2

bripat9643 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.
> 
> It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life didn't start at the time of the big bang.  We haven't had intelligent life on this planet until 100,000 years ago.  That's not nearly enough time for life to spread throughout the entire universe, or even throughout the entire galaxy.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that life would start sometime around when life started on this planet?

That is a hell of an assumption.  Even under that constraint, 50 million years earlier on the outside is a mere blink for life to have formed somewhere else with way more than enough time to accomplish saturation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> The Fermi Paradox is a very real one


Only if certain premises are accepted as always true. For example, the premise that a significant proportion of life systems will always evolve to produce a species capable of interstellar or intergalactic travel that also then survives and persists for millions or billions of years after acquiring this capability, and which is also interested in using that ability to colonize galaxies, and which successfully does so.

Lots of variables there. Would you assert all of the above with 100% confidence? I wouldn't.

So, if any of the premises of a paradox cannot be considered always to be true, then the paradox vanishes.


----------



## bripat9643

FA_Q2 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.
> 
> It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life didn't start at the time of the big bang.  We haven't had intelligent life on this planet until 100,000 years ago.  That's not nearly enough time for life to spread throughout the entire universe, or even throughout the entire galaxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you assume that life would start sometime around when life started on this planet?
> 
> That is a hell of an assumption.  Even under that constraint, 50 million years earlier on the outside is a mere blink for life to have formed somewhere else with way more than enough time to accomplish saturation.
Click to expand...

I don't, but that's a trillion times more reasonable than assuming that life started at the big bang, which is what you did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.
> 
> It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki
Click to expand...

Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:

If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility. 

You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Life didn't start at the time of the big bang. We haven't had intelligent life on this planet until 100,000 years ago. That's not nearly enough time for life to spread throughout the entire universe, or even throughout the entire galaxy.



No one has said life started with the big bang.  No one has explained how space time started.  The big bang hasn't explained how light or any stars, planets, gases, Higgs field, Higgs boson, Planck's constant, etc. was formed.  It's really a stupid hypothesis, but that's what atheists and their scientists believe were packed into a quantum particle.  They can't even explain waves and particles work in quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics needs space time.

Thus, life hasn't started on Earth or anywhere else according to QM and big bang.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> No one has explained how space time started


Uh...what? You religious goobers do that literally all day every day. Goddamn son, are you mentally ill?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:
> 
> If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.
> 
> You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.



He said your analysis was _silly_. That's being kind.

It's not just Fermi, but a lot of scientists think we should have been contacted by aliens if they are of superior intelligence.  They would have superior intelligence and likely would have started life on this planet then.  However, you have no evidence of that.  I don't think one of you has even claimed that.  You're still waiting for abiogenesis to happen .  I would think intelligent aliens starting life here is more realistic than abiogenesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's not just Fermi, but a lot of scientists think we should have been contacted by aliens if they are of superior intelligence.


And even more scientists believe evolution is a fact. Sorry moron, you dont get to have it both ways.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has explained how space time started
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...what? You religious goobers do that literally all day every day. Goddamn son, are you mentally ill?
Click to expand...


So, are you agreeing that God created space time on the first day?  What I meant was none of you atheist goobers and your goober scientists have explained how space time started along with the light and the rest.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And even more scientists believe evolution is a fact. Sorry moron, you dont get to have it both ways.



Evolution is a theory.  If it was a fact, then we can all use it.  An example of a guy who wants it both ways is ding.  He believes in Catholicism, theistic evolution, and his stupid made up stuff.

No aliens appears to be the fact.  Else you'd be beating us over the head with it.  No abiogenesis either.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life didn't start at the time of the big bang. We haven't had intelligent life on this planet until 100,000 years ago. That's not nearly enough time for life to spread throughout the entire universe, or even throughout the entire galaxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said life started with the big bang.  No one has explained how space time started.  The big bang hasn't explained how light or any stars, planets, gases, Higgs field, Higgs boson, Planck's constant, etc. was formed.  It's really a stupid hypothesis, but that's what atheists and their scientists believe were packed into a quantum particle.  They can't even explain waves and particles work in quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics needs space time.
> 
> Thus, life hasn't started on Earth or anywhere else according to QM and big bang.
Click to expand...


FA_Q2 said it did:

_



			"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
		
Click to expand...

_


> _ *Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with*, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy._



The fact that science can't explain something doesn't mean you get to assume magic caused it.


----------



## james bond

Instead of ding, I should've said Frances Collins and BioLogos.  They are theistic evolutionists.  Same with William Lane Craig.

Also, I was going by what the head of NASA said about finding evidence of past life on Mars by 2025.  I doubt we'll have abiogenesis by then.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> , I should've said Frances Collins and BioLogos. They are theistic evolutionists. Same with William Lane Craig.


So what? Any child can point at anything and say, "God did it!".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> No aliens appears to be the fact.


Damn that is so stupid. No rational peraon whose mind is not addled by iron aged, religious horseshit would say something so stupid and think it was smart.


----------



## the other mike

There's no question there is human-like and other forms of life, more or less advanced than ours, on other planets, in other solar systems and in other galaxies. Anyone who can't perceive this inevitability has no imagination and I feel sorry for you.

Are we smart enough to find it is another question.
We can't even keep ourselves from the brink of doom unto ourselves, much less
figure out how to travel through space.


----------



## RWS

Seriously, the Fermi paradox is null and void, if anyone thinks ETUFOs are possible.

They're possibly already here! That's bullpoo...

All evidence points that they may be here already.


----------



## RWS

And their stories made your ancient religions and were your ancient gods.

There were stories 2000 years before the OT... Way before. And religious people want to say it's wrong because they contradict...
Because they want to make a profit.


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> an intelligent species would know that gas giant planets are not good planets for life.  It would also know that a solar system, in addition to gas giants, would contain smaller planets that are good candidates for life.








Only for life as we know it.  Exotic lifeforms don't need to comply with our living conditions.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.
> 
> It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:
> 
> If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.
> 
> You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.
Click to expand...

Not really.

We have proof that life formed once.  That does not need to be proven.  We know for certain that life formed one time in the universe.  We have no idea if it formed more than once.  The fact that we have no idea at all how it formed here means that we cannot make an accurate conjecture as to how probable the event is.


----------



## FA_Q2

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life didn't start at the time of the big bang. We haven't had intelligent life on this planet until 100,000 years ago. That's not nearly enough time for life to spread throughout the entire universe, or even throughout the entire galaxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said life started with the big bang.  No one has explained how space time started.  The big bang hasn't explained how light or any stars, planets, gases, Higgs field, Higgs boson, Planck's constant, etc. was formed.  It's really a stupid hypothesis, but that's what atheists and their scientists believe were packed into a quantum particle.  They can't even explain waves and particles work in quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics needs space time.
> 
> Thus, life hasn't started on Earth or anywhere else according to QM and big bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said it did:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _ *Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with*, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that science can't explain something doesn't mean you get to assume magic caused it.
Click to expand...


That does not say that life formed at the big bang.  I said that we are working with a 13 billion year timeline.  To assume that life did not form outside of 50 million years of our own is a massive assumption given the length of time that we are working with.  Given that massive timeline, it is far more likely that there are civilizations much older than ours even if intelligent life is extremely rare.  The Fermi paradox points out that even limiting ourselves to sub light travel, those civilizations should be in evidence pretty much everywhere.  That it has not brings up some problems when considering interstellar travel ourselves.


----------



## sealybobo

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.
> 
> It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:
> 
> If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.
> 
> You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.
> 
> We have proof that life formed once.  That does not need to be proven.  We know for certain that life formed one time in the universe.  We have no idea if it formed more than once.  The fact that we have no idea at all how it formed here means that we cannot make an accurate conjecture as to how probable the event is.
Click to expand...

We know life could have come from an asteroid or comet or formed on pools of water or in water with lightening. 

It doesn’t matter how because regardless that life or building blocks for life came here to this solar system when an older star than ours blew up and went super nova spreading everything inside it out into the universe.

And not just one star. The atoms in your right eye may come from a different star than your left.

So life can and will form around other stars. It might not be as advance as we are. We are truly amazing. To think the contents of a star that blew up billions of years ago turned into creatures who are starting to understand what the universe is. The natural universe created us.


----------



## RWS

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.
> 
> It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:
> 
> If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.
> 
> You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.
> 
> We have proof that life formed once.  That does not need to be proven.  We know for certain that life formed one time in the universe.  We have no idea if it formed more than once.  The fact that we have no idea at all how it formed here means that we cannot make an accurate conjecture as to how probable the event is.
Click to expand...


Actually there may be evidence of a second genisus in some crazy lake in CA. Instead of potassium in it's DNA, this organism uses cyanide, which is obviously poisonous to all other life forms on Earth. Which could mean a separate genesis. Number two, on the same planet. I haven't followed up with that.

And then there's the tardigrade!


----------



## RWS

Sorry not cyanide, arsenic... But possiblity of new gen.

NASA Life Discovery: New Bacteria Makes DNA With Arsenic


----------



## RWS

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are right about no aliens.  There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't.  First and foremost is God did not create aliens.  Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago.  It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have found alien life many years ago?  Why SHOULD WE have?  We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.
> 
> How do you know God didn't create aliens?  You didn't prove anything.  That's not proof to say God did not create aliens.  How the fuck would you know that?  First of all we don't even know if God exists.  Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.
> 
> I love it that you said that.  Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit.  Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.
> 
> But that won't stop you guys.  You'll just say of course God created other civilizations.  The Bible is just for us here on earth.  I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere.  Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there.  I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.
> 
> Life is rare.  Just look at our solar system  The only life we see is on earth.  But there may have once been life on 2 other planets.  We just don't know yet.  So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.
> 
> You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments.  You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of aliens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a rather silly analysis though.  The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.
> 
> "If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
> 
> Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.  This includes our 'bathtub.'  That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.
> 
> It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy.  On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here?  That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible.  Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless.  Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
> The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:
> 
> If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.
> 
> You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really.
> 
> We have proof that life formed once.  That does not need to be proven.  We know for certain that life formed one time in the universe.  We have no idea if it formed more than once.  The fact that we have no idea at all how it formed here means that we cannot make an accurate conjecture as to how probable the event is.
Click to expand...


But religions kill others because they believe their form of genesis and subsequent beliefs are rght.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven.


I didnt say it needs to be proven. I said it has to match up with your arguments. You really didn't address my argument. Let me re-state it:

Any argument you make for the extreme rarity of life will also be an argument that the formation of life is impossible. You will be, quite speciously I may add, attempting to reduce the probability of the formation of life to ZERO. You would then be forced to argue reasons why the formationof life is possible, which will just become, accidentally,  an argument that the formation of life is frequent.

We can demonstrate this, if you like.


----------



## FA_Q2

RWS said:


> Sorry not cyanide, arsenic... But possiblity of new gen.
> 
> NASA Life Discovery: New Bacteria Makes DNA With Arsenic


From your link: 
"Despite their oddity, however, the bacteria are genetically too similar to ordinary life to truly be descendents of a second genesis.

"This is not Life 2.0," Davies said."

So it is not a second genesis though such a discovery would be truly massive.  It would show that life is somewhat common rather than rare.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven.
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say it needs to be proven. I said it has to match up with your arguments. You really didn't address my argument. Let me re-state it:
> 
> Any argument you make for the extreme rarity of life will also be an argument that the formation of life is impossible.
Click to expand...

No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible.  That is proven by our own existence.  If life is on order of 1 in 1 trillion in terms of rarity then that would mean that life likely only formed one time - here.  That we are not aware of how common life is means we cannot make a conjecture as to how common it is. 


> You will be, quite speciously I may add, attempting to reduce the probability of the formation of life to ZERO. You would then be forced to argue reasons why the formationof life is possible, which will just become, accidentally,  an argument that the formation of life is frequent.
> 
> We can demonstrate this, if you like.


What you are suggesting is that life is frequent period because any argument that life is rare means that life would not have formed.  IOW, your supposition has only one possible outcome, life is frequent.  That is nonsensical.

It is a hard fact that we know life has formed once.  We have absolutely zero evidence that life has formed more than once.  Of course, it would be silly to assume that we are unique and that life has not formed elsewhere.  We have already run into such silly assertions a la geocentric and heliocentric models.  HOWEVER, we do have some evidence that either intelligent life has not formed elsewhere OR that interstellar colonization is not possible in the Fermi paradox.  As I said earlier, that means that the formation of life elsewhere is irrelevant as it would have no meaning or impact on life here even though it would be very interesting.

That is, of course, not the ONLY possible solutions to the Fermi paradox but they are the most likely as much as I do not like those possibilities.


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven.
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say it needs to be proven. I said it has to match up with your arguments. You really didn't address my argument. Let me re-state it:
> 
> Any argument you make for the extreme rarity of life will also be an argument that the formation of life is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible.  That is proven by our own existence.  If life is on order of 1 in 1 trillion in terms of rarity then that would mean that life likely only formed one time - here.  That we are not aware of how common life is means we cannot make a conjecture as to how common it is.
> 
> 
> 
> You will be, quite speciously I may add, attempting to reduce the probability of the formation of life to ZERO. You would then be forced to argue reasons why the formationof life is possible, which will just become, accidentally,  an argument that the formation of life is frequent.
> 
> We can demonstrate this, if you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are suggesting is that life is frequent period because any argument that life is rare means that life would not have formed.  IOW, your supposition has only one possible outcome, life is frequent.  That is nonsensical.
> 
> It is a hard fact that we know life has formed once.  We have absolutely zero evidence that life has formed more than once.  Of course, it would be silly to assume that we are unique and that life has not formed elsewhere.  We have already run into such silly assertions a la geocentric and heliocentric models.  HOWEVER, we do have some evidence that either intelligent life has not formed elsewhere OR that interstellar colonization is not possible in the Fermi paradox.  As I said earlier, that means that the formation of life elsewhere is irrelevant as it would have no meaning or impact on life here even though it would be very interesting.
> 
> That is, of course, not the ONLY possible solutions to the Fermi paradox but they are the most likely as much as I do not like those possibilities.
Click to expand...


We do not know that life formed here...…………...Only that it is here


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible. That is proven by our own existence.


You are not following.

Any argument you could make for the rarity of life would be an argument for reducing its probability. You would have to take these arguments to the extreme to argue the possibility that life is so rare, it likely has only formed once in our universe. To keep these arguments from being the equivalent of arguing it is impossible in the lifetime of our universe, you would have to somehow qualify them with additional arguments that the possibility of life forming in the lifetime of our universe is non-zero (as we know this for a fact).

And,in doing so, you will have completely undermined your own prior arguments and actually will have argued that life has and will likely form many times.

This trap, from which you cannot escape, is brought to you by the vastness of the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> We do not know that life formed here...…………...Only that it is here


But we do know that it formed. This process is called "abiogenesis", the name we have given to this fact.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not know that life formed here...…………...Only that it is here
> 
> 
> 
> But we do know that it formed. This process is called "abiogenesis", the name we have given to this fact.
Click to expand...

Nothing about the genesis of life is known as it may well have come from outside our universe where everything is so different that it can not even be imagined.

The real fact is that there are billions of habitable planets in the universe and if and when we go there we will plant it and set up the ecosystems that we need to live.  And the past repeats in the future

And no one knows that life formed, atheist demand this because they do not want to seed new planets as God did here.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible. That is proven by our own existence.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not following.
> 
> Any argument you could make for the rarity of life would be an argument for reducing its probability. You would have to take these arguments to the extreme to argue the possibility that life is so rare, it may have only formed once in our universe. To keep these arguments from being the equivalent of arguing it is impossible in the lifetime of our universe, you would have to somehow qualify them with additional arguments that the possibility is non zero (as we know this for a fact).
> 
> And,in doing so, you will have completely undermined your own prior arguments and actually will have argued that life has and will likely form many times.
> 
> This trap, from which you cannot escape, is brought to you by the vastness of the universe.
Click to expand...

Yes, I follow and you are ignoring the rest of the post which directly addresses this.

Your assumption REQUIRES that life is frequent.  IOW you are stating that life forming just once in the galaxy is not possible.

That assumption is based on nothing at all.  Clearly life forming just one time is, indeed, a possibility.

Are you really stating that such an outcome is not possible?


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible. That is proven by our own existence.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not following.
> 
> Any argument you could make for the rarity of life would be an argument for reducing its probability. You would have to take these arguments to the extreme to argue the possibility that life is so rare, it may have only formed once in our universe. To keep these arguments from being the equivalent of arguing it is impossible in the lifetime of our universe, you would have to somehow qualify them with additional arguments that the possibility is non zero (as we know this for a fact).
> 
> And,in doing so, you will have completely undermined your own prior arguments and actually will have argued that life has and will likely form many times.
> 
> This trap, from which you cannot escape, is brought to you by the vastness of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I follow and you are ignoring the rest of the post which directly addresses this.
> 
> Your assumption REQUIRES that life is frequent.  IOW you are stating that life forming just once in the galaxy is not possible.
> 
> That assumption is based on nothing at all.  Clearly life forming just one time is, indeed, a possibility.
> 
> Are you really stating that such an outcome is not possible?
Click to expand...


Again you are assuming that life formed anywhere, there is no evidence of this.  What we do know that life does is spread, as do humans


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Nothing about the genesis of life is known as it may well have come from outside our universe where everything is so different that it can not even be imagined


And then entered our universe...how?

Why aren't you making this argument for volcanos, or hurricanes, or stars? Why would it not apply to those? Or are you unable to constrain this argument, and you insist it applies to everything, including stars, planets, hurricanes, etc...?

Furthermore, even if it entered our universe form another universe...why would it not be correct to just say, "it formed in that other universe"? Are you arguing that life may have no beginning? That it never "formed", but just always was?

Why isnt life from outside the universe still appearing on Earth? We would be able to tell by examining it, you know. 

You sure have a lot of explaining to do!


----------



## FA_Q2

Frannie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible. That is proven by our own existence.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not following.
> 
> Any argument you could make for the rarity of life would be an argument for reducing its probability. You would have to take these arguments to the extreme to argue the possibility that life is so rare, it may have only formed once in our universe. To keep these arguments from being the equivalent of arguing it is impossible in the lifetime of our universe, you would have to somehow qualify them with additional arguments that the possibility is non zero (as we know this for a fact).
> 
> And,in doing so, you will have completely undermined your own prior arguments and actually will have argued that life has and will likely form many times.
> 
> This trap, from which you cannot escape, is brought to you by the vastness of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I follow and you are ignoring the rest of the post which directly addresses this.
> 
> Your assumption REQUIRES that life is frequent.  IOW you are stating that life forming just once in the galaxy is not possible.
> 
> That assumption is based on nothing at all.  Clearly life forming just one time is, indeed, a possibility.
> 
> Are you really stating that such an outcome is not possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are assuming that life formed anywhere, there is no evidence of this.  What we do know that life does is spread, as do humans
Click to expand...

That assumption is not relevant to the point I was making anyway.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about the genesis of life is known as it may well have come from outside our universe where everything is so different that it can not even be imagined
> 
> 
> 
> And then entered our universe...how?
> 
> Why aren't you making this argument for volcanos, or hurricanes, or stars? Why would it not apply to those? Or are you unable to constrain this argument, and you insist it applies to everything, including stars, planets, hurricanes, etc...?
> 
> Furthermore, even if it entered our universe form another universe...why would it not be correct to just say, "it formed in that other universe"? Are you arguing that life may have no beginning? That it never "formed", but just always was?
> 
> Why isnt life from outside the universe still appearing on Earth? We would be able to tell by examining it, you know.
> 
> You sure have a lot of explaining to do!
Click to expand...

The newest theory of speeded expansion is that a pulling force from outside the universe is causing expansion and not the missing dark matter.  No one can say where the universe ends or starts and what if anything is outside it so the question can not be answered.

That said screaming that life formed in a dead pond because nothing felt like forming life because there is no better answer is like saying that earthquakes happen when a God is pissed.  Everyone believed that at one point in time because there was no better answer


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about the genesis of life is known as it may well have come from outside our universe where everything is so different that it can not even be imagined
> 
> 
> 
> And then entered our universe...how?
> 
> Why aren't you making this argument for volcanos, or hurricanes, or stars? Why would it not apply to those? Or are you unable to constrain this argument, and you insist it applies to everything, including stars, planets, hurricanes, etc...?
> 
> Furthermore, even if it entered our universe form another universe...why would it not be correct to just say, "it formed in that other universe"? Are you arguing that life may have no beginning? That it never "formed", but just always was?
> 
> Why isnt life from outside the universe still appearing on Earth? We would be able to tell by examining it, you know.
> 
> You sure have a lot of explaining to do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The newest theory of speeded expansion is that a pulling force from outside the universe is causing expansion and not the missing dark matter.  No one can say where the universe ends or starts and what if anything is outside it so the question can not be answered.
> 
> That said screaming that life formed in a dead pond because nothing felt like forming life because there is no better answer is like saying that earthquakes happen when a God is pissed.  Everyone believed that at one point in time because there was no better answer
Click to expand...

Actually, "everyone" ( <- note: Frannie's incorrect term used by me in the interest of furthering the discussion)  still believes that, as all the components necessary for life were here on Earth. And you still have the same problem of which you accuse others, as you still have to account for formation of life. Saying it formed elsewhere or at another time is still saying that it formed. Abiogenesis is still part and parcel of your speculative ideas.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about the genesis of life is known as it may well have come from outside our universe where everything is so different that it can not even be imagined
> 
> 
> 
> And then entered our universe...how?
> 
> Why aren't you making this argument for volcanos, or hurricanes, or stars? Why would it not apply to those? Or are you unable to constrain this argument, and you insist it applies to everything, including stars, planets, hurricanes, etc...?
> 
> Furthermore, even if it entered our universe form another universe...why would it not be correct to just say, "it formed in that other universe"? Are you arguing that life may have no beginning? That it never "formed", but just always was?
> 
> Why isnt life from outside the universe still appearing on Earth? We would be able to tell by examining it, you know.
> 
> You sure have a lot of explaining to do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The newest theory of speeded expansion is that a pulling force from outside the universe is causing expansion and not the missing dark matter.  No one can say where the universe ends or starts and what if anything is outside it so the question can not be answered.
> 
> That said screaming that life formed in a dead pond because nothing felt like forming life because there is no better answer is like saying that earthquakes happen when a God is pissed.  Everyone believed that at one point in time because there was no better answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually,everyone still believes that, as all the components necessary for life were here on Earth. And you still have the same problem of which you accuse others, as you still have to account for formation of life. Saying it formed elsewhere or at another time is still saying that it formed. Abiogenesis is still part and parcel of your speculative ideas.
Click to expand...


Actually everyone clearly does not believe what you do.

That is a third grade argument.

Everybody does it

Grow up


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Actually everyone clearly does not believe what you do.


That's a stupid response. You were the first to use the term "everybody". I was just keeping the discussion going. So, first you need to whine to yourself about the use of that term.  Can you please just act like an adult for a little while? Thanks.

I edited the post above for you, and for clarity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

For all the religious folks with the urge to chime in:

Saying god formed life from nonlife...

...is just one description of abiogenesis.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually everyone clearly does not believe what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stupid response. You were the first to use the term "everybody". I was just keeping the discussion going. So, first you need to whine to yourself about the use of that term.  Can you please just act like an adult for a little while? Thanks.
> 
> I edited the post above for you, and for clarity.
Click to expand...

What I said was

That said screaming that life formed in a dead pond because nothing felt like forming life because there is no better answer is like saying that earthquakes happen when a God is pissed.  Everyone believed that at one point in time because there was no better answer

Do you still believe that earthquakes are caused by angry Gods and that something can come from nothing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Everyone believed that at one point in time because there was no better answer


While, of course, your use of the word "everyone" is incorrect, it is worth nothing that there is still no better answer, and that abiogenesis here on Earth is still the prevailing theory. And it's not even close. Any claim to the contrary by you is a shameless lie brought on by the desperate hopes of a religious goober.

Furthermore, your tendency to stray away from the arguments and talk about what people believe is stupid and irrelevant and belies that your mind is addled by goofy religion. Only in the realm of your goofy, childish religion does "belief" speak to what is true or not true.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone believed that at one point in time because there was no better answer
> 
> 
> 
> While, of course, your use of the word "everyone" is incorrect, it is worth nothing that there is still no better answer, and that abiogenesis here on Earth is still the prevailing theory. And it's not even close. Any claim to the contrary by you is a shameless lie brought on by the desperate hopes of a religious goober.
> 
> Furthermore, your tendency to stray away from the arguments and talk about what people believe is stupid and irrelevant and belies that your mind is addled by goofy religion. Only in the realm of your goofy, childish religion does "belief" speak to what is true or not true.
Click to expand...

The abiogenesis theory predates the understanding of how massively complicated the genetic code is.

Furthermore when the human race moves life to another lifeless planet and sets up farming ecosystems, God is proved


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> The abiogenesis theory predates the understanding of how massively complicated the genetic code is.


Irrelevant. Every attempt to assert, mathematically, that DNA did not have time to form here has been thoroughly debunked. Yes, smarter people than you thought of this before you did, and smarter people than you tried and failed to assert this, mathematically.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The abiogenesis theory predates the understanding of how massively complicated the genetic code is.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. Every attempt to assert, mathematically, that DNA did not have time to form here has been thoroughly debunked. Yes, smarter people than you thought of this before you did, and smarter people than you tried and failed to assert this, mathematically.
Click to expand...

Actually kid every attempt to prove that DNA could have formed here has failed


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, by far the prevailing theory is that abiogensis occured here on Earth. (It's not even close)

 The fact that it would have done so in a span of only a few 10s or 100s of millions of years greatly strengthens the idea that separate instances of abiogenesis have occurred and will occur in our universe, given its sheer size and age.

So, how to check? Well, both our minds and our tech are relatively feeble, in this endeavor. Might the type of life that formed elsewhere not even be recognizable to us as life? How can we even begin to conduct a survey of other planets for life, given our technical constraints?

In order to deal with these problems, we search nearby planets for signs of life we would recognize. This is not an admission that life "has" to be a certain way, or that failure to find signs of life as we know it on nearby planets would say anything at all about the likelihood of the truth of the claim that life has formed at least one other time in our universe.

It's merely what we currently have to work with.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Actually kid every attempt to prove that DNA could have formed here has failed


False. Shameless lie. You literally just made that up on the spot. In fact, the opposite is true, as every testable idea of any step to its formation we have imagined and tested has been shown to be possible,on Earth.

I can see this discussion has now gone far over your head and has far exceeded your intellectual and emotional capabilities to grapple with this topic.  I will not be responding to your trolling attempts and shameless lies any further.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually kid every attempt to prove that DNA could have formed here has failed
> 
> 
> 
> False. Shameless lie. You literally just made that up on the spot. In fact, the opposite is true, as every testable idea of any step to its formation we have imagined and tested has been shown to be possible,on Earth.
> 
> I can see this discussion has now gone far over your head and has far exceeded your intellectual and emotional capabilities to grapple with this topic.  I will not be responding to your trolling attempts and shameless lies any further.
Click to expand...

There has never been an experiment that created life from completely nothing, no matter what was input.  I can not make up the truth, every experiment failed, if I was wrong you could have named the scientist who succeeded at this also named the life form he created.

Seriously you are a silly little boy living inside your delusions, you need medication if you believe these babbles


----------



## RWS

High five! I'll give you that one! I'm good that it's related! Arsenic and phosphorus are very similar chemically. 

But arsenic impersonating phosphorous in DNA, is unknown to us in life. As "life as we know it". 

But DNA that started replicating, had to go two ways. Phosphorus, or Arsenic. Almost all life went for phosphorus. So this bacteria, if not shown to be alive elsewhere, could be an indigenous species. Life 2.0...


----------



## RWS

But everything's cool.

I want to discuss life 3.0.... 

Who's ready? 

C'mon, let's do it! Don't be a dick!


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> High five! I'll give you that one! I'm good that it's related! Arsenic and phosphorus are very similar chemically.
> 
> But arsenic impersonating phosphorous in DNA, is unknown to us in life. As "life as we know it".
> 
> But DNA that started replicating, had to go two ways. Phosphorus, or Arsenic. Almost all life went for phosphorus. So this bacteria, if not shown to be alive elsewhere, could be an indigenous species. Life 2.0...


Arsinate metabolizing bacteria are certainly interesting.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> But everything's cool.
> 
> I want to discuss life 3.0....
> 
> Who's ready?
> 
> C'mon, let's do it! Don't be a dick!


Then start, what is life 3.0 to you?

I can't wait for a computer program to say hello and not have that be in the programming.


----------



## FA_Q2

RWS said:


> High five! I'll give you that one! I'm good that it's related! Arsenic and phosphorus are very similar chemically.
> 
> But arsenic impersonating phosphorous in DNA, is unknown to us in life. As "life as we know it".
> 
> But DNA that started replicating, had to go two ways. Phosphorus, or Arsenic. Almost all life went for phosphorus. So this bacteria, if not shown to be alive elsewhere, could be an indigenous species. Life 2.0...


That does not make it life 2.0.  It makes it an extremely old branching of DNA.  

Life 2.0 is referring to a second genesis which would teach us a ton about how life formed.  Anything that shares an ancestor does very little to help with how life formed.


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> High five! I'll give you that one! I'm good that it's related! Arsenic and phosphorus are very similar chemically.
> 
> But arsenic impersonating phosphorous in DNA, is unknown to us in life. As "life as we know it".
> 
> But DNA that started replicating, had to go two ways. Phosphorus, or Arsenic. Almost all life went for phosphorus. So this bacteria, if not shown to be alive elsewhere, could be an indigenous species. Life 2.0...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not make it life 2.0.  It makes it an extremely old branching of DNA.
> 
> Life 2.0 is referring to a second genesis which would teach us a ton about how life formed.  Anything that shares an ancestor does very little to help with how life formed.
Click to expand...

How do you know that you are not life 1,000,000 or more


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> High five! I'll give you that one! I'm good that it's related! Arsenic and phosphorus are very similar chemically.
> 
> But arsenic impersonating phosphorous in DNA, is unknown to us in life. As "life as we know it".
> 
> But DNA that started replicating, had to go two ways. Phosphorus, or Arsenic. Almost all life went for phosphorus. So this bacteria, if not shown to be alive elsewhere, could be an indigenous species. Life 2.0...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not make it life 2.0.  It makes it an extremely old branching of DNA.
> 
> Life 2.0 is referring to a second genesis which would teach us a ton about how life formed.  Anything that shares an ancestor does very little to help with how life formed.
Click to expand...

How did you conclude that this newly discovered strain is old?


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But everything's cool.
> 
> I want to discuss life 3.0....
> 
> Who's ready?
> 
> C'mon, let's do it! Don't be a dick!
> 
> 
> 
> Then start, what is life 3.0 to you?
> 
> I can't wait for a computer program to say hello and not have that be in the programming.
Click to expand...

The next level. Where we can drop religious bullshit, and ascend to a new level of spiritual and scientific awareness, and get to a new way of living and looking forward to the future.

That's what it is to me.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But everything's cool.
> 
> I want to discuss life 3.0....
> 
> Who's ready?
> 
> C'mon, let's do it! Don't be a dick!
> 
> 
> 
> Then start, what is life 3.0 to you?
> 
> I can't wait for a computer program to say hello and not have that be in the programming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The next level. Where we can drop religious bullshit, and ascend to a new level of spiritual and scientific awareness, and get to a new way of living and looking forward to the future.
> 
> That's what it is to me.
Click to expand...

That is the same thing I have now, you might be lacking this however.

I do agree with you however that religion is BS, God however is a scientific need unless you truly believe that life created itself one day because nothing just felt like creating life.

Nothing has no feelings, or ability to do anything except it's namesake, which is nothing.  So from nothing you get more nothing. Not 200 trillion operations per second supercomputers which is now raised to millions of times 200 trillion operations per second quantum computers.

See everything that man can achieve begins with man's DNA code, the most intelligent thing in the known universe that is not pond scum as fools believe

Most intelligent thing rhymes with God...……...


----------



## Wuwei

DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Scientists say NASA's 'new arsenic form of life' was untrue

Debunked


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> God however is a scientific need unless you truly believe that life created itself one day


Science has no need of God.

Nobody says life "created itself", except for you religious goobers. Why do you keep repeating that moronic talking point? You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> God however is a scientific need unless you truly believe that life created itself one day
> 
> 
> 
> Science has no need of God.
> 
> Nobody says life "created itself", except for you religious goobers. Why do you keep repeating that moronic talking point? You're embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

You said life created itself, that is what the abiogenesis nonsense that you babble about constantly means.

Jesus u r tupid


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.


All life has dna


----------



## RWS

Replicating RNA or DNA should be the definition of life.

Once that is discovered elsewhere that should end the creation debate. Just a matter of time.

Because it occurred elsewhere it could happen almost everywhere. And then we're not a unique creation of God. We are a product of chaos and natural selection over 3.5 billions of years.

Another society out there may be millions or billions of years ahead of us in terms of development. And they should rightfully be our gods should we meet them. But they started from the same primordial soup that we did.


----------



## RWS

You always have to ask... Where did god come from?

For human mythology and religion I argue that our gods were originally extraterrestrial. Later on they were just made up to suit the needs of the rulers.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> You always have to ask... Where did god come from?
> 
> For human mythology and religion I argue that our gods were originally extraterrestrial. Later on they were just made up to suit the needs of the rulers.


What one needs to ask is where are we taking life to in the future.  There are billions of planets that are dead but perfectly suited for life.  The moment we find one and open the door we are God.

So look ahead instead of to the dead past


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
Click to expand...

Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc. 
A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time. 
For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce. 

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact


----------



## OldLady

*“The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.”*

― Carl Sagan, Contact


----------



## Frannie

OldLady said:


> *“The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.”*
> 
> ― Carl Sagan, Contact


Carl never could accept that when we explore and find a new home that we are doing what God did here.

Sagan was a moron, he said that science was ending because everything was learned.  Intel researchers ignored the moron


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact
Click to expand...

I stated facts. Imagination is when you think life is started by by mythological entities.

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stated facts. Imagination is when you think life is started by by mythological entities.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

There are no facts about pre life woowoo, just your imagination imagining imaginary darwinian ponds that existed only in Darwin's imagination

Lol you have facts about pre life.....

Just stay away from the red button please


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stated facts. Imagination is when you think life is started by by mythological entities.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no facts about pre life woowoo, just your imagination imagining imaginary darwinian ponds that existed only in Darwin's imagination
> 
> Lol you have facts about pre life.....
> 
> Just stay away from the red button please
Click to expand...

I stated physical possibilities. A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities. The imagining of a mythical entity starting life is outside a physical possibility, and is therefore woowoo. You stay away from the red button.

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> 
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stated facts. Imagination is when you think life is started by by mythological entities.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no facts about pre life woowoo, just your imagination imagining imaginary darwinian ponds that existed only in Darwin's imagination
> 
> Lol you have facts about pre life.....
> 
> Just stay away from the red button please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stated physical possibilities. A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities. The imagining of a mythical entity starting life is outside a physical possibility, and is therefore woowoo. You stay away from the red button.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Again kid possibilities are not facts.

Please stay away from all buttons


----------



## Wuwei

Wuwei said:


> A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities.





Frannie said:


> Again kid possibilities are not facts.



It is a fact a specific radium atom has the possibility of decaying in the next minute. It probably won't. You haven't distinguished between possibilities and probabilities. Tell you mythical creator of instant man to stay away from buttons.

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again kid possibilities are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact a specific radium atom has the possibility of decaying in the next minute. It probably won't. You haven't distinguished between possibilities and probabilities. Tell you mythical creator of instant man to stay away from buttons.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Nothing in the above has anything to do with life genesis..... glad you gave up, or is life made of radium now

It's a fact that you need to be tied up and injected with thorazine if there are buttons to push


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again kid possibilities are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact a specific radium atom has the possibility of decaying in the next minute. It probably won't. You haven't distinguished between possibilities and probabilities. Tell you mythical creator of instant man to stay away from buttons.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the above has anything to do with life genesis..... glad you gave up, or is life made of radium now
> 
> It's a fact that you need to be tied up and injected with thorazine if there are buttons to push
Click to expand...


You lost track of the argument. I stated possibilities how life could form. You said it was imagination. I showed an example of how physical possibilities are not imagination. Now you are purposely confusing the example of radioactivity with life. Resorting to troll tricks means you gave up. You really really don't want to think life should exist on other planets and it's making you weird. I think you are ready for a frontal lobotomy.

.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again kid possibilities are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact a specific radium atom has the possibility of decaying in the next minute. It probably won't. You haven't distinguished between possibilities and probabilities. Tell you mythical creator of instant man to stay away from buttons.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the above has anything to do with life genesis..... glad you gave up, or is life made of radium now
> 
> It's a fact that you need to be tied up and injected with thorazine if there are buttons to push
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost track of the argument. I stated possibilities how life could form. You said it was imagination. I showed an example of how physical possibilities are not imagination. Now you are purposely confusing the example of radioactivity with life. Resorting to troll tricks means you gave up. You really really don't want to think life should exist on other planets and it's making you weird. I think you are ready for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No what happened is that you babbled about pre life which is clearly speculation, but then you referred to your speculations as fact.

I want you in the brig and heavily sedated as well

There are no buttons in the brig


----------



## G.T.

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again kid possibilities are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact a specific radium atom has the possibility of decaying in the next minute. It probably won't. You haven't distinguished between possibilities and probabilities. Tell you mythical creator of instant man to stay away from buttons.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the above has anything to do with life genesis..... glad you gave up, or is life made of radium now
> 
> It's a fact that you need to be tied up and injected with thorazine if there are buttons to push
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost track of the argument. I stated possibilities how life could form. You said it was imagination. I showed an example of how physical possibilities are not imagination. Now you are purposely confusing the example of radioactivity with life. Resorting to troll tricks means you gave up. You really really don't want to think life should exist on other planets and it's making you weird. I think you are ready for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.

Seems well adjusted, that one


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> No what happened is that you babbled about pre life which is clearly speculation, but then you referred to your speculations as fact.


The speculations were within the realm of physical possibility, and that is a fact. God instantly creating man 6000 years ago is clearly imagination outside the realm of physics. That is not a fact. Go ahead and believe you and your god don't want life on other planets, I really don't care anymore. 

.


----------



## Wuwei

G.T. said:


> Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.
> 
> Seems well adjusted, that one


Yeah, an ill-tempered one who is more interested in winning arguments at any cost than trying to understand anything.


----------



## Frannie

G.T. said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again kid possibilities are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact a specific radium atom has the possibility of decaying in the next minute. It probably won't. You haven't distinguished between possibilities and probabilities. Tell you mythical creator of instant man to stay away from buttons.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the above has anything to do with life genesis..... glad you gave up, or is life made of radium now
> 
> It's a fact that you need to be tied up and injected with thorazine if there are buttons to push
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost track of the argument. I stated possibilities how life could form. You said it was imagination. I showed an example of how physical possibilities are not imagination. Now you are purposely confusing the example of radioactivity with life. Resorting to troll tricks means you gave up. You really really don't want to think life should exist on other planets and it's making you weird. I think you are ready for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.
> 
> Seems well adjusted, that one
Click to expand...

Ask the feds who lost


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.
> 
> Seems well adjusted, that one
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, an ill-tempered one who is more interested in winning arguments at any cost than trying to understand anything.
Click to expand...

Ok woowoo, give us the facts about pre life once more.....

Tell us how did base 4 molecular codes write themselves.....


----------



## G.T.

Frannie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again kid possibilities are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact a specific radium atom has the possibility of decaying in the next minute. It probably won't. You haven't distinguished between possibilities and probabilities. Tell you mythical creator of instant man to stay away from buttons.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing in the above has anything to do with life genesis..... glad you gave up, or is life made of radium now
> 
> It's a fact that you need to be tied up and injected with thorazine if there are buttons to push
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost track of the argument. I stated possibilities how life could form. You said it was imagination. I showed an example of how physical possibilities are not imagination. Now you are purposely confusing the example of radioactivity with life. Resorting to troll tricks means you gave up. You really really don't want to think life should exist on other planets and it's making you weird. I think you are ready for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.
> 
> Seems well adjusted, that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the feds who lost
Click to expand...

Seems youve been banned quite a bit. No need to ask anyone anything, actions are there to evaluate...mister child that cant behave anonymously on a messageboard.


----------



## Frannie

G.T. said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact a specific radium atom has the possibility of decaying in the next minute. It probably won't. You haven't distinguished between possibilities and probabilities. Tell you mythical creator of instant man to stay away from buttons.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the above has anything to do with life genesis..... glad you gave up, or is life made of radium now
> 
> It's a fact that you need to be tied up and injected with thorazine if there are buttons to push
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost track of the argument. I stated possibilities how life could form. You said it was imagination. I showed an example of how physical possibilities are not imagination. Now you are purposely confusing the example of radioactivity with life. Resorting to troll tricks means you gave up. You really really don't want to think life should exist on other planets and it's making you weird. I think you are ready for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.
> 
> Seems well adjusted, that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the feds who lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems youve been banned quite a bit. No need to ask anyone anything, actions are there to evaluate...mister child that cant behave anonymously on a messageboard.
Click to expand...

You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.  Providing you understand codes that is... he he he

Or you can change the subject because woowoo.. believes he knows the facts about pre life on the earth.

CIAO


----------



## G.T.

Frannie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the above has anything to do with life genesis..... glad you gave up, or is life made of radium now
> 
> It's a fact that you need to be tied up and injected with thorazine if there are buttons to push
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost track of the argument. I stated possibilities how life could form. You said it was imagination. I showed an example of how physical possibilities are not imagination. Now you are purposely confusing the example of radioactivity with life. Resorting to troll tricks means you gave up. You really really don't want to think life should exist on other planets and it's making you weird. I think you are ready for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.
> 
> Seems well adjusted, that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the feds who lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems youve been banned quite a bit. No need to ask anyone anything, actions are there to evaluate...mister child that cant behave anonymously on a messageboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.
> 
> Or you can change the subject because woowoo.. believes he knows the facts about pre life on the earth.
> 
> CIAO
Click to expand...

You're irrational, no need to pretend youre capable of discussion...you just obfuscate, then melt like a snowflake and get banned.


----------



## Frannie

G.T. said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost track of the argument. I stated possibilities how life could form. You said it was imagination. I showed an example of how physical possibilities are not imagination. Now you are purposely confusing the example of radioactivity with life. Resorting to troll tricks means you gave up. You really really don't want to think life should exist on other planets and it's making you weird. I think you are ready for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.
> 
> Seems well adjusted, that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the feds who lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems youve been banned quite a bit. No need to ask anyone anything, actions are there to evaluate...mister child that cant behave anonymously on a messageboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.
> 
> Or you can change the subject because woowoo.. believes he knows the facts about pre life on the earth.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're irrational, no need to pretend youre capable of discussion...you just obfuscate, then melt like a snowflake and get banned.
Click to expand...

Actually you are the one who has no info to add, why?  Easy because everything you babble about the codes you will never comprehend is evident to all.

Do try to be pleasant in your obvious inability to retort.


----------



## G.T.

Frannie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie loses every debate and then melts down and gets banned.
> 
> Seems well adjusted, that one
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the feds who lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems youve been banned quite a bit. No need to ask anyone anything, actions are there to evaluate...mister child that cant behave anonymously on a messageboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.
> 
> Or you can change the subject because woowoo.. believes he knows the facts about pre life on the earth.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're irrational, no need to pretend youre capable of discussion...you just obfuscate, then melt like a snowflake and get banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the one who has no info to add, why?  Easy because everything you babble about the codes you will never comprehend is evident to all.
> 
> Do try to be pleasant in your obvious inability to retort.
Click to expand...

There there man with a female name. Go snowflake on someone with empathy.


----------



## Frannie

G.T. said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the feds who lost
> 
> 
> 
> Seems youve been banned quite a bit. No need to ask anyone anything, actions are there to evaluate...mister child that cant behave anonymously on a messageboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.
> 
> Or you can change the subject because woowoo.. believes he knows the facts about pre life on the earth.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're irrational, no need to pretend youre capable of discussion...you just obfuscate, then melt like a snowflake and get banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the one who has no info to add, why?  Easy because everything you babble about the codes you will never comprehend is evident to all.
> 
> Do try to be pleasant in your obvious inability to retort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There there man with a female name. Go snowflake on someone with empathy.
Click to expand...

Are you always so happy or are you all pissed that I took your buttons away 

At any rate since you have nothing to add to any intelligent discussion based on your potato peeler IQ, I regret that you are now being banned by me.

So see ya loser, remember to pick up all the peels


----------



## G.T.

Frannie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems youve been banned quite a bit. No need to ask anyone anything, actions are there to evaluate...mister child that cant behave anonymously on a messageboard.
> 
> 
> 
> You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.
> 
> Or you can change the subject because woowoo.. believes he knows the facts about pre life on the earth.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're irrational, no need to pretend youre capable of discussion...you just obfuscate, then melt like a snowflake and get banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the one who has no info to add, why?  Easy because everything you babble about the codes you will never comprehend is evident to all.
> 
> Do try to be pleasant in your obvious inability to retort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There there man with a female name. Go snowflake on someone with empathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you always so happy or are you all pissed that I took your buttons away
> 
> At any rate since you have nothing to add to any intelligent discussion based on your potato peeler IQ, I regret that you are now being banned by me.
> 
> So see ya loser, remember to pick up all the peels
Click to expand...

You dont know what an intelligent discussion would even look likex to even be able to recognize one.

"derp derp its stuff i cant figure out therefore GOD, hah got ya there, haha! epic."

fakkin fool.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.


It didn't write itself. The physical laws "wrote" it, via selection. Obviously. Just like everything else we observe.

Nobody says "it wrote itself", except for you. It's not getting smarter or more valid, with each repetition. In fact, your idiotic behavior just makes you look frustrated and ignorant.


----------



## Frannie

Frannie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems youve been banned quite a bit. No need to ask anyone anything, actions are there to evaluate...mister child that cant behave anonymously on a messageboard.
> 
> 
> 
> You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.
> 
> Or you can change the subject because woowoo.. believes he knows the facts about pre life on the earth.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're irrational, no need to pretend youre capable of discussion...you just obfuscate, then melt like a snowflake and get banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the one who has no info to add, why?  Easy because everything you babble about the codes you will never comprehend is evident to all.
> 
> Do try to be pleasant in your obvious inability to retort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There there man with a female name. Go snowflake on someone with empathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you always so happy or are you all pissed that I took your buttons away
> 
> At any rate since you have nothing to add to any intelligent discussion based on your potato peeler IQ, I regret that you are now being banned by me.
> 
> So see ya loser, remember to pick up all the peels
Click to expand...

Oh well, no more simple simon


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also weigh in as to how a base 4 molecular code wrote itself.
> 
> 
> 
> It didnt write itself. The physical laws wrote it, via selection. Obviously. Just like everything else we observe.
> 
> Nobody says "it wrote itself" except for you. Its not getting smarter or more valid, with each repetition. In fact, your idiotic behavior just makes you look frustrated and ignorant.
Click to expand...

What physical laws wrote windows 10 which is far simpler than dna....

PS Can you name the physical laws?

Just so we know


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have to ask... Where did god come from?
> 
> For human mythology and religion I argue that our gods were originally extraterrestrial. Later on they were just made up to suit the needs of the rulers.
> 
> 
> 
> What one needs to ask is where are we taking life to in the future.  There are billions of planets that are dead but perfectly suited for life.  The moment we find one and open the door we are God.
> 
> So look ahead instead of to the dead past
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with that.

But the underlying factor that keeps me posting, is people believing in a false god, and potentially getting us all killed in a religious war, before we can realize our potential with humanity.

We may become extinct before we realize our potential.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always have to ask... Where did god come from?
> 
> For human mythology and religion I argue that our gods were originally extraterrestrial. Later on they were just made up to suit the needs of the rulers.
> 
> 
> 
> What one needs to ask is where are we taking life to in the future.  There are billions of planets that are dead but perfectly suited for life.  The moment we find one and open the door we are God.
> 
> So look ahead instead of to the dead past
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I definitely agree with that.
> 
> But the underlying factor that keeps me posting, is people believing in a false god, and potentially getting us all killed in a religious war, before we can realize our potential with humanity.
> 
> We may become extinct before we realize our potential.
Click to expand...

That is the reason we must branch out just as we branched out on the Earth once.  It is possible that we are just a branch of those who came before us who we do not understand and as such refer to as God.


----------



## RWS

The real gods were the Sumerian Anunnaki.

All other religions are  based on them.


----------



## FA_Q2

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Not likely.  DNA, even in its simplest form, requires quite a bit of complexity to reproduce.  Further, reproduction does not make life on its own - stars technically reproduce.  They explode and spread material through the universe that recombines into other stars and planets.  What makes life different is reproduction that is subject to natural selection.

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf
"Times have changed, and several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.4 We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."

Long and rather complex read but that statement in the summery pretty much says it all.  DNA is unlikely to be where life originated but is such an effective method of natural selection that it essentially took over completely.


----------



## FA_Q2

Frannie said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
Click to expand...

All current known life has DNA.

That does not mean that all life has DNA.  It is unlikely that is the case.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Not likely. DNA, even in its simplest form, requires quite a bit of complexity to reproduce.


Right, he is talking about something that was'nt DNA yet. Because it wasn't the full four base nucleotides, or even any of them. And DNA and RNA are not the only self replicating proteins. So what other basis do you have for rejecting this out of hand?

I like the idea you talk about, though: life and DNA forming separately, then DNA dominating the path forward and "hijacking" life. 

But still, that summary in way says what you claim it says. It only talks about the complexity now. Your leap there is essentially the specious argument regarding "irreducible complexity".


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely.  DNA, even in its simplest form, requires quite a bit of complexity to reproduce.  Further, reproduction does not make life on its own - stars technically reproduce.  They explode and spread material through the universe that recombines into other stars and planets.  What makes life different is reproduction that is subject to natural selection.
> 
> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf
> "Times have changed, and several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.4 We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
> 
> Long and rather complex read but that statement in the summery pretty much says it all.  DNA is unlikely to be where life originated but is such an effective method of natural selection that it essentially took over completely.
Click to expand...


There is no origin of DNA to be read, wake up.

DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.  All the computer codes on Earth pale in complexity to DNA, but oddly all computer codes and all computers and supercomputers are the result of the DNA code.  The likelihood that even the simplest lifeform made of code came form nothing is not calculatable as it is null.

But you read about the origin of DNA and that makes it real.

Have you seen the page on the Chupacabra

Chupacabra


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All current known life has DNA.
> 
> That does not mean that all life has DNA.  It is unlikely that is the case.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly true, however if the aliens at area 51 have a head 2 eyes 2 arms and 2 legs they also have DNA and we are related.   This may be the real secret as it seriously upsets the belief that we came from an Earth pond.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.



So what?  Natural selection can't produce this>? According to what... your gut feeling?


----------



## RWS

They should based on my theories. That's the minimum needed for brain growth via evolution. When we meet an alien, that has the technology to get here, it should be humanoid form. That's how evolution would work.

That's to Frannie BTW

But it still will just show that it also evolved elsewhere. No god needed.


----------



## RWS

A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.

And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.


----------



## FA_Q2

Frannie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely.  DNA, even in its simplest form, requires quite a bit of complexity to reproduce.  Further, reproduction does not make life on its own - stars technically reproduce.  They explode and spread material through the universe that recombines into other stars and planets.  What makes life different is reproduction that is subject to natural selection.
> 
> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf
> "Times have changed, and several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.4 We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
> 
> Long and rather complex read but that statement in the summery pretty much says it all.  DNA is unlikely to be where life originated but is such an effective method of natural selection that it essentially took over completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no origin of DNA to be read, wake up.
> 
> DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.  All the computer codes on Earth pale in complexity to DNA, but oddly all computer codes and all computers and supercomputers are the result of the DNA code.  The likelihood that even the simplest lifeform made of code came form nothing is not calculatable as it is null.
Click to expand...

Hence why DNA is not the starting point.  


> But you read about the origin of DNA and that makes it real.
> 
> Have you seen the page on the Chupacabra
> 
> Chupacabra




Are you really comparing a blog post to a link from NCBI?

That really does not help your point.


----------



## FA_Q2

RWS said:


> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.


That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Natural selection can't produce this>? According to what... your gut feeling?
Click to expand...

No natural selection can not produce the life forms that are adapting to conditions.  The only thing that comes from nothing is nothing


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely.  DNA, even in its simplest form, requires quite a bit of complexity to reproduce.  Further, reproduction does not make life on its own - stars technically reproduce.  They explode and spread material through the universe that recombines into other stars and planets.  What makes life different is reproduction that is subject to natural selection.
> 
> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf
> "Times have changed, and several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.4 We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
> 
> Long and rather complex read but that statement in the summery pretty much says it all.  DNA is unlikely to be where life originated but is such an effective method of natural selection that it essentially took over completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no origin of DNA to be read, wake up.
> 
> DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.  All the computer codes on Earth pale in complexity to DNA, but oddly all computer codes and all computers and supercomputers are the result of the DNA code.  The likelihood that even the simplest lifeform made of code came form nothing is not calculatable as it is null.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence why DNA is not the starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> But you read about the origin of DNA and that makes it real.
> 
> Have you seen the page on the Chupacabra
> 
> Chupacabra
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really comparing a blog post to a link from NCBI?
> 
> That really does not help your point.
Click to expand...


Are you really saying that proof of where DNA comes from is found on the internet?  You totally missed the point, which is to be expected from a mental 8 year old who has no idea how to lead so they only follow.

DNA takes iron and instead of layering it by gravity to a low point as iron is heavy, DNA puts iron into a fluid and pumps it against gravity.  Saying that DNA formed in a pond without intervention from smaller parts is like saying that nature forms pens and pencils then uses them to wrote molecular code.

This idea is 100 percent anti science on every level


----------



## RWS

FA_Q2 said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
Click to expand...

It's taken a lot of thought actually.

Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.

All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.

Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.

Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.

The legs should be low to provide the most traction.

The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.

Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.


----------



## RWS

We should not expect a blob, or an eight armed, six legged creature, with it's head on the floor, to step out of a spaceship. Unless it's a nightmare. Or a B-movie.


----------



## G.T.

RWS said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
Click to expand...

Evolution never stops...I get what you are saying, that now both weak and dominant traits will be reproduced into our speciee because modern medicine allows them to survive...

but mutation never ceases.

In fact, our evolution is exascerbated by this because variations are all surviving... not only the "fittest" ones.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
Click to expand...

You clowns are seriously funny


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> We should not expect a blob, or an eight armed, six legged creature, with it's head on the floor, to step out of a spaceship. Unless it's a nightmare. Or a B-movie.


Actually all of what you mentioned is more likely than humanoids of any kind.  As for blobs a jellyfish would qualify as a blob.   Why would life from another planet develop like us?  If they do then we are clearly related


----------



## G.T.

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not expect a blob, or an eight armed, six legged creature, with it's head on the floor, to step out of a spaceship. Unless it's a nightmare. Or a B-movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually all of what you mentioned is more likely than humanoids of any kind.  As for blobs a jellyfish would qualify as a blob.   Why would life from another planet develop like us?  If they do then we are clearly related
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Physics dont stop on another planet..so survival of the fittest would still apply and our traits, intelligence namely, are the fittest and so over enough time it would make sense that many of the surviving organisms are JUST like us.


----------



## FA_Q2

Frannie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All life has dna
> 
> 
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not likely.  DNA, even in its simplest form, requires quite a bit of complexity to reproduce.  Further, reproduction does not make life on its own - stars technically reproduce.  They explode and spread material through the universe that recombines into other stars and planets.  What makes life different is reproduction that is subject to natural selection.
> 
> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf
> "Times have changed, and several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.4 We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
> 
> Long and rather complex read but that statement in the summery pretty much says it all.  DNA is unlikely to be where life originated but is such an effective method of natural selection that it essentially took over completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no origin of DNA to be read, wake up.
> 
> DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.  All the computer codes on Earth pale in complexity to DNA, but oddly all computer codes and all computers and supercomputers are the result of the DNA code.  The likelihood that even the simplest lifeform made of code came form nothing is not calculatable as it is null.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence why DNA is not the starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> But you read about the origin of DNA and that makes it real.
> 
> Have you seen the page on the Chupacabra
> 
> Chupacabra
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really comparing a blog post to a link from NCBI?
> 
> That really does not help your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really saying that proof of where DNA comes from is found on the internet?  You totally missed the point, which is to be expected from a mental 8 year old who has no idea how to lead so they only follow.
> 
> DNA takes iron and instead of layering it by gravity to a low point as iron is heavy, DNA puts iron into a fluid and pumps it against gravity.  Saying that DNA formed in a pond without intervention from smaller parts is like saying that nature forms pens and pencils then uses them to wrote molecular code.
> 
> This idea is 100 percent anti science on every level
Click to expand...

I never said DNA formed in a pond.  I said that DNA was not the starting point.  Where DNA actually formed is a mystery, we do not know how far RNA may have taken things before DNA came into the picture.


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
> A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
> For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Not likely.  DNA, even in its simplest form, requires quite a bit of complexity to reproduce.  Further, reproduction does not make life on its own - stars technically reproduce.  They explode and spread material through the universe that recombines into other stars and planets.  What makes life different is reproduction that is subject to natural selection.
> 
> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf
> "Times have changed, and several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.4 We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
> 
> Long and rather complex read but that statement in the summery pretty much says it all.  DNA is unlikely to be where life originated but is such an effective method of natural selection that it essentially took over completely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no origin of DNA to be read, wake up.
> 
> DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.  All the computer codes on Earth pale in complexity to DNA, but oddly all computer codes and all computers and supercomputers are the result of the DNA code.  The likelihood that even the simplest lifeform made of code came form nothing is not calculatable as it is null.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence why DNA is not the starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> But you read about the origin of DNA and that makes it real.
> 
> Have you seen the page on the Chupacabra
> 
> Chupacabra
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really comparing a blog post to a link from NCBI?
> 
> That really does not help your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really saying that proof of where DNA comes from is found on the internet?  You totally missed the point, which is to be expected from a mental 8 year old who has no idea how to lead so they only follow.
> 
> DNA takes iron and instead of layering it by gravity to a low point as iron is heavy, DNA puts iron into a fluid and pumps it against gravity.  Saying that DNA formed in a pond without intervention from smaller parts is like saying that nature forms pens and pencils then uses them to wrote molecular code.
> 
> This idea is 100 percent anti science on every level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said DNA formed in a pond.  I said that DNA was not the starting point.  Where DNA actually formed is a mystery, we do not know how far RNA may have taken things before DNA came into the picture.
Click to expand...


RNA could not form in a pond either, but if it did 3000 gene sequences are needed for the simplest bacteria, any 2 of them falling into the right spot is statistically null to happen by chance, and 2998 more need to be in exactly the right place.

Never happened, science and mathematical logic prohibit this.

You believe this out of faith for your atheist religion


----------



## FA_Q2

RWS said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
Click to expand...

Again, that is a ton of assumptions.  2 legs are not even the norm on this planet let alone on one that may have much higher gravity or a million other considerations.  If we are talking about an almost entirely aquatic planet then no legs at all would be the more likely outcome.  2 eyes for 3d vision only works on a planet that has a rather clear atmosphere.  If the atmosphere was dense or does not let much light through then something like echo location would be far superior.


----------



## FA_Q2

Frannie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not likely.  DNA, even in its simplest form, requires quite a bit of complexity to reproduce.  Further, reproduction does not make life on its own - stars technically reproduce.  They explode and spread material through the universe that recombines into other stars and planets.  What makes life different is reproduction that is subject to natural selection.
> 
> Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf
> "Times have changed, and several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.4 We are reasonably sure now that DNA and DNA replication mechanisms appeared late in early life history, and that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world."
> 
> Long and rather complex read but that statement in the summery pretty much says it all.  DNA is unlikely to be where life originated but is such an effective method of natural selection that it essentially took over completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no origin of DNA to be read, wake up.
> 
> DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.  All the computer codes on Earth pale in complexity to DNA, but oddly all computer codes and all computers and supercomputers are the result of the DNA code.  The likelihood that even the simplest lifeform made of code came form nothing is not calculatable as it is null.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hence why DNA is not the starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> But you read about the origin of DNA and that makes it real.
> 
> Have you seen the page on the Chupacabra
> 
> Chupacabra
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really comparing a blog post to a link from NCBI?
> 
> That really does not help your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really saying that proof of where DNA comes from is found on the internet?  You totally missed the point, which is to be expected from a mental 8 year old who has no idea how to lead so they only follow.
> 
> DNA takes iron and instead of layering it by gravity to a low point as iron is heavy, DNA puts iron into a fluid and pumps it against gravity.  Saying that DNA formed in a pond without intervention from smaller parts is like saying that nature forms pens and pencils then uses them to wrote molecular code.
> 
> This idea is 100 percent anti science on every level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said DNA formed in a pond.  I said that DNA was not the starting point.  Where DNA actually formed is a mystery, we do not know how far RNA may have taken things before DNA came into the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RNA could not form in a pond either, but if it did 3000 gene sequences are needed for the simplest bacteria, any 2 of them falling into the right spot is statistically null to happen by chance, and 2998 more need to be in exactly the right place.
> 
> Never happened, science and mathematical logic prohibit this.
> 
> You believe this out of faith for your atheist religion
Click to expand...

No, 3000 gene sequences are not needed.  That is an assumption based on the idea that the starting point of life must have been on a complexity level that we see today.  Life based on DNA that I just showed is not expected to even exist near the starting point.  The exact opposite that is actually hypothesized by any coherent abiogenesis hypothesis.


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no origin of DNA to be read, wake up.
> 
> DNA is not just proteins, it is proteins orchestrated into the most complicated code known.  All the computer codes on Earth pale in complexity to DNA, but oddly all computer codes and all computers and supercomputers are the result of the DNA code.  The likelihood that even the simplest lifeform made of code came form nothing is not calculatable as it is null.
> 
> 
> 
> Hence why DNA is not the starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> But you read about the origin of DNA and that makes it real.
> 
> Have you seen the page on the Chupacabra
> 
> Chupacabra
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really comparing a blog post to a link from NCBI?
> 
> That really does not help your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really saying that proof of where DNA comes from is found on the internet?  You totally missed the point, which is to be expected from a mental 8 year old who has no idea how to lead so they only follow.
> 
> DNA takes iron and instead of layering it by gravity to a low point as iron is heavy, DNA puts iron into a fluid and pumps it against gravity.  Saying that DNA formed in a pond without intervention from smaller parts is like saying that nature forms pens and pencils then uses them to wrote molecular code.
> 
> This idea is 100 percent anti science on every level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said DNA formed in a pond.  I said that DNA was not the starting point.  Where DNA actually formed is a mystery, we do not know how far RNA may have taken things before DNA came into the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RNA could not form in a pond either, but if it did 3000 gene sequences are needed for the simplest bacteria, any 2 of them falling into the right spot is statistically null to happen by chance, and 2998 more need to be in exactly the right place.
> 
> Never happened, science and mathematical logic prohibit this.
> 
> You believe this out of faith for your atheist religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, 3000 gene sequences are not needed.  That is an assumption based on the idea that the starting point of life must have been on a complexity level that we see today.  Life based on DNA that I just showed is not expected to even exist near the starting point.  The exact opposite that is actually hypothesized by any coherent abiogenesis hypothesis.
Click to expand...


How will life start on Mars if we take it there and engineer it for the planet?

Fact. The universe was at least 8 billion years old when the Earth was born...………………

Get used to it, the Earth is not the center of the universe or even important, it's just another place where life was dropped off.

Tell us how does sterile pond water write genetic codes? even the most simple one? even for one gene?

LOL can't happen and you have no evidence that it did, just your religion


----------



## FA_Q2

Frannie said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence why DNA is not the starting point.
> Are you really comparing a blog post to a link from NCBI?
> 
> That really does not help your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really saying that proof of where DNA comes from is found on the internet?  You totally missed the point, which is to be expected from a mental 8 year old who has no idea how to lead so they only follow.
> 
> DNA takes iron and instead of layering it by gravity to a low point as iron is heavy, DNA puts iron into a fluid and pumps it against gravity.  Saying that DNA formed in a pond without intervention from smaller parts is like saying that nature forms pens and pencils then uses them to wrote molecular code.
> 
> This idea is 100 percent anti science on every level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said DNA formed in a pond.  I said that DNA was not the starting point.  Where DNA actually formed is a mystery, we do not know how far RNA may have taken things before DNA came into the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RNA could not form in a pond either, but if it did 3000 gene sequences are needed for the simplest bacteria, any 2 of them falling into the right spot is statistically null to happen by chance, and 2998 more need to be in exactly the right place.
> 
> Never happened, science and mathematical logic prohibit this.
> 
> You believe this out of faith for your atheist religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, 3000 gene sequences are not needed.  That is an assumption based on the idea that the starting point of life must have been on a complexity level that we see today.  Life based on DNA that I just showed is not expected to even exist near the starting point.  The exact opposite that is actually hypothesized by any coherent abiogenesis hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How will life start on Mars if we take it there and engineer it for the planet?
> 
> Fact. The universe was at least 8 billion years old when the Earth was born...………………
> 
> Get used to it, the Earth is not the center of the universe or even important, it's just another place where life was dropped off.
> 
> Tell us how does sterile pond water write genetic codes? even the most simple one? even for one gene?
> 
> LOL can't happen and you have no evidence that it did, just your religion
Click to expand...

...

What does this rambling have to do with anything I stated?


----------



## Frannie

FA_Q2 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really saying that proof of where DNA comes from is found on the internet?  You totally missed the point, which is to be expected from a mental 8 year old who has no idea how to lead so they only follow.
> 
> DNA takes iron and instead of layering it by gravity to a low point as iron is heavy, DNA puts iron into a fluid and pumps it against gravity.  Saying that DNA formed in a pond without intervention from smaller parts is like saying that nature forms pens and pencils then uses them to wrote molecular code.
> 
> This idea is 100 percent anti science on every level
> 
> 
> 
> I never said DNA formed in a pond.  I said that DNA was not the starting point.  Where DNA actually formed is a mystery, we do not know how far RNA may have taken things before DNA came into the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RNA could not form in a pond either, but if it did 3000 gene sequences are needed for the simplest bacteria, any 2 of them falling into the right spot is statistically null to happen by chance, and 2998 more need to be in exactly the right place.
> 
> Never happened, science and mathematical logic prohibit this.
> 
> You believe this out of faith for your atheist religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, 3000 gene sequences are not needed.  That is an assumption based on the idea that the starting point of life must have been on a complexity level that we see today.  Life based on DNA that I just showed is not expected to even exist near the starting point.  The exact opposite that is actually hypothesized by any coherent abiogenesis hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How will life start on Mars if we take it there and engineer it for the planet?
> 
> Fact. The universe was at least 8 billion years old when the Earth was born...………………
> 
> Get used to it, the Earth is not the center of the universe or even important, it's just another place where life was dropped off.
> 
> Tell us how does sterile pond water write genetic codes? even the most simple one? even for one gene?
> 
> LOL can't happen and you have no evidence that it did, just your religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> What does this rambling have to do with anything I stated?
Click to expand...

Nothing you stated is fact......

Nothing I can say can alter this.....

Next


----------



## RWS

FA_Q2 said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that is a ton of assumptions.  2 legs are not even the norm on this planet let alone on one that may have much higher gravity or a million other considerations.  If we are talking about an almost entirely aquatic planet then no legs at all would be the more likely outcome.  2 eyes for 3d vision only works on a planet that has a rather clear atmosphere.  If the atmosphere was dense or does not let much light through then something like echo location would be far superior.
Click to expand...

Has to build a spaceship... Needs to make tools, and smelt metal. And protect itself above ground. Has to make electronic components, and get fuel from its natural resources.


----------



## RWS

A humanoid figure is ideal.


----------



## RWS

G.T. said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution never stops...I get what you are saying, that now both weak and dominant traits will be reproduced into our speciee because modern medicine allows them to survive...
> 
> but mutation never ceases.
> 
> In fact, our evolution is exascerbated by this because variations are all surviving... not only the "fittest" ones.
Click to expand...

Right, but they all humanoid. Remember we're talking about an alien with the intelligence and dexterity to build a spaceship capable of interstellar travel.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution never stops...I get what you are saying, that now both weak and dominant traits will be reproduced into our speciee because modern medicine allows them to survive...
> 
> but mutation never ceases.
> 
> In fact, our evolution is exascerbated by this because variations are all surviving... not only the "fittest" ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, but they all humanoid. Remember we're talking about an alien with the intelligence and dexterity to build a spaceship capable of interstellar travel.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't a race of non humanoids do that?

After all I have dogs smarter than you


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not expect a blob, or an eight armed, six legged creature, with it's head on the floor, to step out of a spaceship. Unless it's a nightmare. Or a B-movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually all of what you mentioned is more likely than humanoids of any kind.  As for blobs a jellyfish would qualify as a blob.   Why would life from another planet develop like us?  If they do then we are clearly related
Click to expand...

If we go to their planet, and find jellyfish-like life, that's understandable. But a jellyfish is never going to slither out of a UFO on Earth, because they couldn't have built the UFO.


----------



## RWS

It's gotta be humanoid to build the UFO


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution never stops...I get what you are saying, that now both weak and dominant traits will be reproduced into our speciee because modern medicine allows them to survive...
> 
> but mutation never ceases.
> 
> In fact, our evolution is exascerbated by this because variations are all surviving... not only the "fittest" ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, but they all humanoid. Remember we're talking about an alien with the intelligence and dexterity to build a spaceship capable of interstellar travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why couldn't a race of non humanoids do that?
> 
> After all I have dogs smarter than you
Click to expand...

Does a dog have the dexterity to build a spaceship?
What does the dog need to build it?
Let's see how smart you are.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not expect a blob, or an eight armed, six legged creature, with it's head on the floor, to step out of a spaceship. Unless it's a nightmare. Or a B-movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually all of what you mentioned is more likely than humanoids of any kind.  As for blobs a jellyfish would qualify as a blob.   Why would life from another planet develop like us?  If they do then we are clearly related
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to their planet, and find jellyfish-like life, that's understandable. But a jellyfish is never going to slither out of a UFO on Earth, because they couldn't have built the UFO.
Click to expand...

The universe is not stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.

I would love for aliens to be humanoid 
Because if they are then we are related and Darwin turns into a religious nut, every professor blows out their own brain and real learning can commence


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> 
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution never stops...I get what you are saying, that now both weak and dominant traits will be reproduced into our speciee because modern medicine allows them to survive...
> 
> but mutation never ceases.
> 
> In fact, our evolution is exascerbated by this because variations are all surviving... not only the "fittest" ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, but they all humanoid. Remember we're talking about an alien with the intelligence and dexterity to build a spaceship capable of interstellar travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why couldn't a race of non humanoids do that?
> 
> After all I have dogs smarter than you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does a dog have the dexterity to build a spaceship?
> What does the dog need to build it?
> Let's see how smart you are.
Click to expand...

Can a termite build a skyscraper


----------



## RWS

Let's say the dog is as smart as a human. 

What else does the dog need in order to build a spaceship?

Please list the requirements.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Let's say the dog is as smart as a human.
> 
> What else does the dog need in order to build a spaceship?
> 
> Please list the requirements.


Dude you do not know the requirements for alien technology

Stop babbling


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution never stops...I get what you are saying, that now both weak and dominant traits will be reproduced into our speciee because modern medicine allows them to survive...
> 
> but mutation never ceases.
> 
> In fact, our evolution is exascerbated by this because variations are all surviving... not only the "fittest" ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, but they all humanoid. Remember we're talking about an alien with the intelligence and dexterity to build a spaceship capable of interstellar travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why couldn't a race of non humanoids do that?
> 
> After all I have dogs smarter than you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does a dog have the dexterity to build a spaceship?
> What does the dog need to build it?
> Let's see how smart you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can a termite build a skyscraper
Click to expand...

Not one that can propel itself into orbit, and visit an alien environment. That requires a lot of tools and resources.


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say the dog is as smart as a human.
> 
> What else does the dog need in order to build a spaceship?
> 
> Please list the requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you do not know the requirements for alien technology
> 
> Stop babbling
Click to expand...

I know the logic of the requirements to be able to create a spaceship. It's not going to be a jellyfish like you suggested.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution never stops...I get what you are saying, that now both weak and dominant traits will be reproduced into our speciee because modern medicine allows them to survive...
> 
> but mutation never ceases.
> 
> In fact, our evolution is exascerbated by this because variations are all surviving... not only the "fittest" ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but they all humanoid. Remember we're talking about an alien with the intelligence and dexterity to build a spaceship capable of interstellar travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why couldn't a race of non humanoids do that?
> 
> After all I have dogs smarter than you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does a dog have the dexterity to build a spaceship?
> What does the dog need to build it?
> Let's see how smart you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can a termite build a skyscraper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one that can propel itself into orbit, and visit an alien environment. That requires a lot of tools and resources.
Click to expand...

What you are effectively saying is that humans are the only possible intelligent species possible in the universe.  You derive this by using the earth as the only possible model 

It's silly, like you


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say the dog is as smart as a human.
> 
> What else does the dog need in order to build a spaceship?
> 
> Please list the requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you do not know the requirements for alien technology
> 
> Stop babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know the logic of the requirements to be able to create a spaceship. It's not going to be a jellyfish like you suggested.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that the aliens use crafts as we know them

You can not win, the more PhD's you bring around the brighter I seem, so bring it on kids


----------



## RWS

FA_Q2 said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that is a ton of assumptions.  2 legs are not even the norm on this planet let alone on one that may have much higher gravity or a million other considerations.  If we are talking about an almost entirely aquatic planet then no legs at all would be the more likely outcome.  2 eyes for 3d vision only works on a planet that has a rather clear atmosphere.  If the atmosphere was dense or does not let much light through then something like echo location would be far superior.
Click to expand...

We're talking about an alien that built the UFO and travelled here. Why is this concept so difficult for everyone? I'm not talking about going to another planet and finding new life there.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mucous blob is not going to roll out of a spaceship. They need dexterity and building and  survival skills. And obviously extreme intelligence.
> 
> And evolution would dictate that they have a humanoid form.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather silly assertion.  What makes you think that the only body form that is dexterous and can be intelligent is the one we currently occupy?  That is false with even a modicum of thought.  The form that a particular intelligent life is going to take if there are some out there are going to depend on the conditions of the planet it evolves on and also on the other forms of life that it is competing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's taken a lot of thought actually.
> 
> Evolution works on limited resources. Almost all of our resources went to development of our brain. That's why we are weak physically. And why we don't have extra arms or legs or eight eyes. Resources were shifted to brain development. Once we were intelligent enough to invent medicine, we stopped evolving. Because survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us anymore.
> 
> All you need is two eyes, for 3d vision. Two ears for 3d hearing. Two legs for moving. And two arms with appendages with enough complex dexterity to make tools. That's a lot of resources! Not to mention our incredibly advanced brain.
> 
> Once you get to that point, evolution will stop, or at least slow down to a crawl.
> 
> Now obviously, the brain, eyes, and ears should be higher on the body to provide the most benefit.
> 
> The legs should be low to provide the most traction.
> 
> The arms should be midway to provide the most reach.
> 
> Add them all up, for an alien capable of building a spaceship, and you get a humanoid type body. Not exactly like us, but similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that is a ton of assumptions.  2 legs are not even the norm on this planet let alone on one that may have much higher gravity or a million other considerations.  If we are talking about an almost entirely aquatic planet then no legs at all would be the more likely outcome.  2 eyes for 3d vision only works on a planet that has a rather clear atmosphere.  If the atmosphere was dense or does not let much light through then something like echo location would be far superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about an alien that built the UFO and travelled here. Why is this concept so difficult for everyone? I'm not talking about going to another planet and finding new life there.
Click to expand...

I am not talking.

You are babbling

When your mind opens your mother will stop spoon feeding you


----------



## RWS

If a UFO lands on the white house lawn, and the door opens, it's probably going to be a humanoid figure that comes out.


----------



## RWS

It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.

And that's gonna screw up religion.


----------



## toobfreak

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.




THE LIKELY STORY:

More stars in the sky than grains of sand on the beaches and very likely most all of them not in binary systems have between a few to a dozen planets each.
Most likely conditions on several of them around each star sufficient to allow liquid water and elemental life.
But the conditions to allow animal life are extremely rare.
Out of those few extremely rare instances where animal life can develop are conditions ripe and stable long enough in but a minute fraction of those for technically advanced intelligent life to develop.
Out of the minute number of technical, intelligent living planets, only a minute number of those survive long enough either by natural disaster or self-destruction to ever communicate outward or explore space.
Out of the infinitesimal number of such species to reach outward into space in the few hundred or thousands of years they are active to do so, only an infinitesimal number of them are doing so AT THE SAME TIME across the millions and billions of years as a similarly advanced race in a nearby star system to ever recognize the other's efforts, meet or communicate.
Out of the microscopic spec of those intelligent species that survive truly long enough to grow out of war, self-destruction to spread out into space and avoid self-destruction, they may go on to evolve so far and so technologically advanced as to not even recognize nor care about our feeble efforts, much less want to talk to us.  They'd have nothing in common with us.
So while life abounds everywhere and will be found at some simple level in perhaps 2-3 places in our solar system other than here in the next few centuries if we survive, and in the coming millennia if we outgrow our childhood we might eventually discover evolved animal life around another star, the truly great, long-lived, advanced species will be galactic, spread among the globular clusters, maybe millions of years ahead of us, and likely will be rarely found unless we survive to evolve into being one of them.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.
> 
> And that's gonna screw up religion.


Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons?  Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity.  Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.

How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity


----------



## toobfreak

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.
> 
> And that's gonna screw up religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons?  Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity.  Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.
> 
> How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity
Click to expand...


I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong.  Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities.  So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.


----------



## Likkmee

RWS said:


> If a UFO lands on the white house lawn, and the door opens, it's probably going to be a humanoid figure that comes out.


Like a pumpkin with 2 arms, 2 legs and ceramic teeth ?


----------



## Frannie

toobfreak said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.
> 
> And that's gonna screw up religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons?  Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity.  Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.
> 
> How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong.  Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities.  So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.

Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?

You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.

This is foolishness


----------



## Frannie

Likkmee said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a UFO lands on the white house lawn, and the door opens, it's probably going to be a humanoid figure that comes out.
> 
> 
> 
> Like a pumpkin with 2 arms, 2 legs and ceramic teeth ?
Click to expand...

Just as likely as 2 arms 2 legs and empty head


----------



## westwall

RWS said:


> A humanoid figure is ideal.






Not really.   Multiple limbs is superior.


----------



## Flash

toobfreak said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIKELY STORY:
> 
> More stars in the sky than grains of sand on the beaches and very likely most all of them not in binary systems have between a few to a dozen planets each.
> Most likely conditions on several of them around each star sufficient to allow liquid water and elemental life.
> But the conditions to allow animal life are extremely rare.
> Out of those few extremely rare instances where animal life can develop are conditions ripe and stable long enough in but a minute fraction of those for technically advanced intelligent life to develop.
> Out of the minute number of technical, intelligent living planets, only a minute number of those survive long enough either by natural disaster or self-destruction to ever communicate outward or explore space.
> Out of the infinitesimal number of such species to reach outward into space in the few hundred or thousands of years they are active to do so, only an infinitesimal number of them are doing so AT THE SAME TIME across the millions and billions of years as a similarly advanced race in a nearby star system to ever recognize the other's efforts, meet or communicate.
> Out of the microscopic spec of those intelligent species that survive truly long enough to grow out of war, self-destruction to spread out into space and avoid self-destruction, they may go on to evolve so far and so technologically advanced as to not even recognize nor care about our feeble efforts, much less want to talk to us.  They'd have nothing in common with us.
> So while life abounds everywhere and will be found at some simple level in perhaps 2-3 places in our solar system other than here in the next few centuries if we survive, and in the coming millennia if we outgrow our childhood we might eventually discover evolved animal life around another star, the truly great, long-lived, advanced species will be galactic, spread among the globular clusters, maybe millions of years ahead of us, and likely will be rarely found unless we survive to evolve into being one of them.
Click to expand...



Or not.


----------



## Flash

Let me list everything that we know for certain about life in the universe.

1.  It exists on earth.


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A humanoid figure is ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   Multiple limbs is superior.
Click to expand...

How so?  If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.


----------



## bripat9643

RWS said:


> If a UFO lands on the white house lawn, and the door opens, it's probably going to be a humanoid figure that comes out.


That depends on how you define "humanoid."  Do the legs bend the same way?  Do the arms bend the same way?


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A humanoid figure is ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   Multiple limbs is superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.
Click to expand...






Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time.  Also, redundancy.   Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss.  Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A humanoid figure is ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   Multiple limbs is superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time.  Also, redundancy.   Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss.  Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.
Click to expand...

When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it.  Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time.  Can you name any?

The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two.  The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools.  Anything more is redundant.


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A humanoid figure is ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   Multiple limbs is superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time.  Also, redundancy.   Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss.  Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it.  Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time.  Can you name any?
> 
> The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two.  The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools.  Anything more is redundant.
Click to expand...







Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A humanoid figure is ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   Multiple limbs is superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time.  Also, redundancy.   Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss.  Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it.  Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time.  Can you name any?
> 
> The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two.  The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools.  Anything more is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?
Click to expand...

Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   Multiple limbs is superior.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time.  Also, redundancy.   Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss.  Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it.  Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time.  Can you name any?
> 
> The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two.  The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools.  Anything more is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
Click to expand...






True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?

That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.

That simply is not factual.


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  If we had four arms, two of the would rarely get used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time.  Also, redundancy.   Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss.  Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it.  Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time.  Can you name any?
> 
> The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two.  The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools.  Anything more is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
Click to expand...


At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.

When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.


That seems highly impractical.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.
> 
> 
> 
> That seems highly impractical.
Click to expand...

So does having our pleasure hole next to our poop hole. But there you have it...


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.
> 
> 
> 
> That seems highly impractical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does having our pleasure hole next to our poop hole. But there you have it...
Click to expand...

Where do you imagine a better place would be?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, a form of symbiosis that has not occured to us has evolved elsewhere. Like, via a type of communication, one species is the "hands" of another species. Think, intelligent birds that control chimpanzees. The chimps do the manual manipulation, at the direction of the birds.
> 
> 
> 
> That seems highly impractical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does having our pleasure hole next to our poop hole. But there you have it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you imagine a better place would be?
Click to expand...

Point being, i can imagine a better place. And someone else can then argue why the current location is,in fact, practical in some ways.

An intelligent bird that wants to know if the blobs in the sky he sees are nebulae or separate galaxies would find it practical to have a chimp build a telescope for him.


----------



## toobfreak

Frannie said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.
> 
> And that's gonna screw up religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons?  Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity.  Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.
> 
> How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong.  Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities.  So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.
> 
> Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?
> 
> You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.
> 
> This is foolishness
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time.  Also, redundancy.   Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss.  Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.
> 
> 
> 
> When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it.  Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time.  Can you name any?
> 
> The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two.  The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools.  Anything more is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
Click to expand...





Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.

Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it.  Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time.  Can you name any?
> 
> The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two.  The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools.  Anything more is redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
Click to expand...

How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.


----------



## Frannie

toobfreak said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.
> 
> And that's gonna screw up religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons?  Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity.  Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.
> 
> How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong.  Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities.  So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.
> 
> Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?
> 
> You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.
> 
> This is foolishness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.
Click to expand...

You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth

Tell us what info do you base this on?


----------



## toobfreak

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?
> 
> 
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
Click to expand...


Worth pointing out that you'd have no steel without iron and all iron is made in the center of stars without a bit of fire.  Just sayin'.


----------



## toobfreak

Frannie said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to be a friggin jellyfish, it's not going to be a friggin dog. It's going to be more like us.
> 
> And that's gonna screw up religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons?  Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity.  Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.
> 
> How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong.  Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities.  So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.
> 
> Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?
> 
> You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.
> 
> This is foolishness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
Click to expand...



Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.


----------



## Yarddog

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple limbs allow multiple jobs to be done at the same time.  Also, redundancy.   Lose a limb as a human and it is a significant loss.  Lose a limb as an octopus, and it is not nearly as significant.
> 
> 
> 
> When something is redundant, evolution tends to get rid of it.  Rarely are there occasions when multiple things need to be done at the same time.  Can you name any?
> 
> The minimum number of limbs required for walking is two.  The same number are needed to carry things or to manufacture tools.  Anything more is redundant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
Click to expand...




Never been to Bikini Bottoms eh sonny????


----------



## bripat9643

toobfreak said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worth pointing out that you'd have no steel without iron and all iron is made in the center of stars without a bit of fire.  Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Fire isn't what happens in the center of stars.  Nuclear fusion isn't fire, which is a chemical process.

So what does that fact have to do with intelligent life developing underwater?


----------



## toobfreak

bripat9643 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worth pointing out that you'd have no steel without iron and all iron is made in the center of stars without a bit of fire.  Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fire isn't what happens in the center of stars.  Nuclear fusion isn't fire, which is a chemical process.
> 
> So what does that fact have to do with intelligent life developing underwater?
Click to expand...


Nothing.  You missed my point.  You're agreeing with me.  There is no fire in stars, yet they make iron.  Just a little factoid that has nothing to do with underwater.  And yes, we already have intelligent life underwater, that's a proven fact.  And they may be even smarter than us because they want no part of people nor are destroying their environment over greed!


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do we have octopoids?  Who have been on this planet for far longer than man has?
> 
> 
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
Click to expand...






You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Octopoids don't have to deal with gravity.  Extra arms are not so much of physiological burden.  They are also cold blooded, which makes them even less of a burden.  Humans live on land, where fighting gravity consumes a lot of energy.  So does being warm blooded.  All land dwelling vertebrates have four limbs for a reason.  It's the most energy efficient configuration.  It's the same reason you seldom see cars with more than four wheels.  Some dinosaurs almost went to only two limbs, like T-Rex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.


----------



## bripat9643

toobfreak said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worth pointing out that you'd have no steel without iron and all iron is made in the center of stars without a bit of fire.  Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fire isn't what happens in the center of stars.  Nuclear fusion isn't fire, which is a chemical process.
> 
> So what does that fact have to do with intelligent life developing underwater?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing.  You missed my point.  You're agreeing with me.  There is no fire in stars, yet they make iron.  Just a little factoid that has nothing to do with underwater.  And yes, we already have intelligent life underwater, that's a proven fact.  And they may be even smarter than us because they want no part of people nor are destroying their environment over greed!
Click to expand...

Humans don't make iron atoms, so your example is absurd.

They may be intelligent, but they don't have any kind of technology.


----------



## Frannie

toobfreak said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe that all intelligent aliens must be humanoid, when most human aliens are morons?  Just from the diversity of life on Earth one would conclude your theory is foolish, as the diversity in the universe logically is trillions of times Earth diversity.  Your further demand that you know how alien vehicles or transport devises must be built is even more foolish now, isn't it.
> 
> How many years did you spend in school to demonstrate this much stupidity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong.  Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities.  So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.
> 
> Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?
> 
> You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.
> 
> This is foolishness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
Click to expand...

Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.

This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?

Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.

On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.


Nobody could say with absolute certainty that it is a "must". But it is fair., given what we know, to say that is very likely that any life is carbon based, as it both occurs everywhere and can make the most combinations of molecules. With carbon around in an environment, why would selection produce life based on something else?  I suppose you could find some planets with very little carbon. But, if that were the case, there would be very little of all the heavy elements, there. Another obstacle to life. Furthermore, if the heavy elements were in such short supply in a star system, there almost certainly wouldn't be any planets in the system in the first place. So all arrows point the same way, here.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody could say with absolute certainty that it is a "must". But it is fair., given what we know, to say that is very likely that any life is carbon based, as it both occurs everywhere and can make the most combinations of molecules. With carbon around in an environment, why would selection produce life based on something else?  I suppose you could find some planets with very little carbon. But, if that were the case, there would be very little of all the heavy elements, there. Another obstacle to life. Furthermore, if the heavy elements were in such short supply in a star system, there almost certainly wouldn't be any planets in the system in the first place. So all arrows point the same way, here.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to even speculate that all life is carbon based...……………

Earth is 1 of unknown trillions of planets

Silicon-based life may be more than just science fiction


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> There is no reason to even speculate that all life is carbon based..


But there is reason to speculate that it may, in fact, all be carbon based, for exactly the reasons I stated. 


Frannie said:


> Earth is 1 of unknown trillions of planets


All with lots of carbon. No heavy elements = no planets.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason to even speculate that all life is carbon based..
> 
> 
> 
> But there is reason to speculate that it may, in fact, all be carbon based, for exactly the reasons I stated.
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth is 1 of unknown trillions of planets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All with lots of carbon. No heavy elements = no planets.
Click to expand...

Which does not mean that life on all the trillions of planets would be the same.  In fact such a speculation implies something that science was supposed to have overcome which is the belief that the Earth is center and special in the universe.

It is not


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Which does not mean that life on all the trillions of planets would be the same.


Which speaks to nothing I said. I spoke to one commonality: carbon. You just used a bait and switch parlor trick to transpose that with the concept of "equivalent".

Its hard to imagine selection producing life based on something else with carbon around. How would that work? When people tell you carbon has the most combinations of stable molecules, that's nontrivial. It's not close, really. Selection by natural laws is what it is. Carbon dominates the environment in terms of stable, complex molecules. You cant get around that, unless you lock it all up somewhere.

So you would have a lot of explaining to do, should you hypothesize selection is somehow leaving the carbon behind.


----------



## Yarddog

here is someone who addresses the idea of silicon based life pretty well.  sort of interesting


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which does not mean that life on all the trillions of planets would be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Which speaks to nothing I said. I spoke to one commonality: carbon. You just used a bait and switch parlor trick to transpose that with the concept of "equivalent".
> 
> Its hard to imagine selection producing life based on something else with carbon around. How would that work? When people tell you carbon has the most combinations of stable molecules, that's nontrivial. It's not close, really. Selection by natural laws is what it is. Carbon dominates the environment in terms of stable, complex molecules. You cant get around that, unless you lock it all up somewhere.
> 
> So you would have a lot of explaining to do, should you hypothesize selection is somehow leaving the carbon behind.
Click to expand...

Again you are unconsciously labeling the Earth the center of the universe in that everything everywhere is like it is here.  There exist no where in science any basis for this.  There are more planets in the universe than there are grains of sand on the Earth (unconfirmed), separated by trillions and trillions of miles, the odds that everything evolved the same is actually impossible.  I am not sure how any adult could come to any different conclusion


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, they don't.   What makes you think there can't be an advanced creature that evolved in a ocean?
> 
> That is the problem with us humans.  Ultimately we are narrow minded and think a creature must look like us to be advanced.
> 
> That simply is not factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.
Click to expand...




There are volcanic eruptions on the sea floor that are continuous.


----------



## Yarddog

Frannie said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but actually Fran, you are wrong.  Carbon life is the natural result of the fact that carbon combines so easily in so many ways, and the condition which allow it, liquid water, temperature, gravity, light, etc., that the Earth enjoys, will necessarily be similar anywhere else carbon life develops, so science actually predicts that life will follow certain basic patterns and similarities.  So yes, variation, differences, but variations and differences based within a certain framework of biological necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.
> 
> Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?
> 
> You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.
> 
> This is foolishness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
Click to expand...




There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited. 

Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point, technology involves the use of fire.  That pretty much precludes creatures that live underwater.
> 
> When you apply logic to these issues, it rules out a lot of our fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are volcanic eruptions on the sea floor that are continuous.
Click to expand...

How would an intelligent life form even get near them?  Keep in mind that the melting point of iron is 2795.0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Then, where would they get the carbon to make steel?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Again you are unconsciously labeling the Earth the center of the universe in that everything everywhere is like it is here.


 Heavy elements are made in every star. That's a fact everywhere. And they are made in set proportions. And heavy elements are why we have planets. These are all facts based on the laws of nature that hold everywhere. Your silly attempt to frame this as "viewing the earth as the center of the universe" discredits you.

No heavy elements = no planets. Everywhere there are heavy elements, there is lots of carbon. These are simple facts. You can and will find varying levels of carbon in start systems, but it won't vary by much. 

So the work ahead of you is to hypothesize a way for all the carbon to be locked up in an environment, while selection works with what is remaining to it.


----------



## Frannie

Yarddog said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.
> 
> Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?
> 
> You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.
> 
> This is foolishness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
Click to expand...


There are no rules to make exceptions for in the universe concerning life structure.  All rules apply only to Earth


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are unconsciously labeling the Earth the center of the universe in that everything everywhere is like it is here.
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy elements are made in every star. Thats a fact everywhere. And they are made in set proportions. And heavy elements are why we have planets. These are all facts based on the laws of nature that hold everywhere. Your silly attempt to frame this as "viewing the earth as the center of the universe" discredits you.
Click to expand...

Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are volcanic eruptions on the sea floor that are continuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would an intelligent life form even get near them?  Keep in mind that the melting point of iron is 2795.0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Then, where would they get the carbon to make steel?
Click to expand...

Plasma fusion gravitational bubble


----------



## Yarddog

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are unconsciously labeling the Earth the center of the universe in that everything everywhere is like it is here.
> 
> 
> 
> Heavy elements are made in every star. Thats a fact everywhere. And they are made in set proportions. And heavy elements are why we have planets. These are all facts based on the laws of nature that hold everywhere. Your silly attempt to frame this as "viewing the earth as the center of the universe" discredits you.
Click to expand...



it seems right that there would be no planets .... at least solid ones, without heavy elements. Unless the laws of gravity and inertia are different somewhere else, but I dont see how that could be


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers


That appears to be completely irrelevant, and i have no idea why you said it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Yarddog said:


> it seems right that there would be no planets .... at least solid ones, without heavy elements. Unless the laws of gravity and inertia are different somewhere else, but I dont see how that could be


Which, they aren't. Thats our working assumption. It has to be. If we dont assume a uniformtiarian, deterministic universe, then cause and effect and observation lose all meaning.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers
> 
> 
> 
> That appears to be completely irrelevant, and i have no idea why you said it.
Click to expand...

Stars explode and the pieces form new stars.  There is no known way to make matter.  Matter and energy are in flux but constant in volume

Not sure why entropy eludes you


----------



## westwall

bripat9643 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  For mankind to advance he needs to manufacture things in a vacuum.   He can't live in it, but he needs it.
> 
> Like I said, our views on technology are fairly limited.   Who's to say an oceanic culture could not use lava as a replacement for fire?
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are volcanic eruptions on the sea floor that are continuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would an intelligent life form even get near them?  Keep in mind that the melting point of iron is 2795.0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Then, where would they get the carbon to make steel?
Click to expand...







I have no idea, but then I am not one of them.

The point is that there are many different types of creatures in the universe possible.


----------



## Yarddog

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers
> 
> 
> 
> That appears to be completely irrelevant, and i have no idea why you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stars explode and the pieces form new stars.  There is no known way to make matter.  Matter and energy are in flux but constant in volume
> 
> Not sure why entropy eludes you
Click to expand...



but then the mystery remains..... where did that constant volume of matter come from in the first place??


----------



## Frannie

westwall said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are volcanic eruptions on the sea floor that are continuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would an intelligent life form even get near them?  Keep in mind that the melting point of iron is 2795.0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Then, where would they get the carbon to make steel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea, but then I am not one of them.
> 
> The point is that there are many different types of creatures in the universe possible.
Click to expand...

Again a plasma fusion antigravity shell creating antigravity which repels matter.  Theoretically one could pass right thru a star.  See the speculation is easy, the building is tougher


----------



## Frannie

Yarddog said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers
> 
> 
> 
> That appears to be completely irrelevant, and i have no idea why you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stars explode and the pieces form new stars.  There is no known way to make matter.  Matter and energy are in flux but constant in volume
> 
> Not sure why entropy eludes you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but then the mystery remains..... where did that constant volume of matter come from in the first place??
Click to expand...

And the mystery is quite sad, because we may never know.  We might even meet up with another race billions of years older than us who also do not know.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers
> 
> 
> 
> That appears to be completely irrelevant, and i have no idea why you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stars explode and the pieces form new stars.  There is no known way to make matter.  Matter and energy are in flux but constant in volume
> 
> Not sure why entropy eludes you
Click to expand...

Again,that appears to be completely irrelevant. Everything I said still holds.

No heavy elements = no planets. Wherever there are heavy elements, there is lots of carbon. Simple facts.


----------



## bripat9643

Frannie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to make bronze or steel without fire?  No creature is going to advance past the stone age without the ability to use fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are volcanic eruptions on the sea floor that are continuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would an intelligent life form even get near them?  Keep in mind that the melting point of iron is 2795.0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Then, where would they get the carbon to make steel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plasma fusion gravitational bubble
Click to expand...

That implies it already has steel as well as other exotic metals. You put the cart before the horse.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers
> 
> 
> 
> That appears to be completely irrelevant, and i have no idea why you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stars explode and the pieces form new stars.  There is no known way to make matter.  Matter and energy are in flux but constant in volume
> 
> Not sure why entropy eludes you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,that appears to be completely irrelevant. Everything I said still holds.
> 
> No heavy elements = no planets. Wherever there are heavy elements, there is lots of carbon. Simple facts.
Click to expand...

Your stupidity reminds me of Carl Sagan who once said that the pace of scientific discovery was slowing and would come to a stop because everything had been learned.

Thankfully the engineers at Intel ignored the fuckwad


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are volcanic eruptions on the sea floor that are continuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would an intelligent life form even get near them?  Keep in mind that the melting point of iron is 2795.0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Then, where would they get the carbon to make steel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plasma fusion gravitational bubble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That implies it already has steel as well as other exotic metals. You put the cart before the horse.
Click to expand...

Why would a plasma fusion gravitational bubble need steel? Since the antigravity would be the repelling agent perhaps paper or plastic would work just fine


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers
> 
> 
> 
> That appears to be completely irrelevant, and i have no idea why you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stars explode and the pieces form new stars.  There is no known way to make matter.  Matter and energy are in flux but constant in volume
> 
> Not sure why entropy eludes you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,that appears to be completely irrelevant. Everything I said still holds.
> 
> No heavy elements = no planets. Wherever there are heavy elements, there is lots of carbon. Simple facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stupidity reminds me of Carl Sagan who once said that the pace of scientific discovery was slowing and would come to a stop because everything had been learned.
> 
> Thankfully the engineers at Intel ignored the fuckwad
Click to expand...

None of that is relevant, either. Grow up, son.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stars do not make elements they are made up of them, fusion only happens at the surface not in the centers
> 
> 
> 
> That appears to be completely irrelevant, and i have no idea why you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stars explode and the pieces form new stars.  There is no known way to make matter.  Matter and energy are in flux but constant in volume
> 
> Not sure why entropy eludes you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,that appears to be completely irrelevant. Everything I said still holds.
> 
> No heavy elements = no planets. Wherever there are heavy elements, there is lots of carbon. Simple facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stupidity reminds me of Carl Sagan who once said that the pace of scientific discovery was slowing and would come to a stop because everything had been learned.
> 
> Thankfully the engineers at Intel ignored the fuckwad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is relevant, either. Grow up, son.
Click to expand...

Your stupidity reminds me of Carl Sagan who once said that the pace of scientific discovery was slowing and would come to a stop because everything had been learned.

Thankfully the engineers at Intel ignored the fuckwad


----------



## Frannie

bripat9643 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need heat to make bronze or steel.   Heat from lava would work just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a practical solution.  Just wait for a volcano to erupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are volcanic eruptions on the sea floor that are continuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would an intelligent life form even get near them?  Keep in mind that the melting point of iron is 2795.0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Then, where would they get the carbon to make steel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plasma fusion gravitational bubble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That implies it already has steel as well as other exotic metals. You put the cart before the horse.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that steel is important for interstellar travel?

Spider silk is stronger than steel


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

An explanation of Frannie's bizarre behavior:

Frannie is here to try to sow doubt in anything and everything. He does this because he really, really wants to elevate his belief in magical sky daddies up to the same level as evidence-based determinations. Unable to actually elevate his magical ideas , he is left with one option: drag other ideas into the murk where his faith resides.

Frannie says he  believes that nothing can be known.  And he believes that, this being true, his magical ideas are as valid as any scientific idea.

Of course, the source of Frannie's frustration is that he knows neither of these are true.  but he really, really WISHES they were true, because he has to prop up his magical beliefs somehow.

So, he takes this all very personally.  Every time he says something stupid or makes up something false, then gets called on it, he has no other recourse than to throw a grade A hissy fit. Then, when people decide to leave him to it, he feels as though he has "won". In this way, he self-affirms.

Rinse, repeat.  Same thing, every time.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> An explanation of Frannie's bizarre behavior:
> 
> Frannie is here to try to sow doubt in anything and everything. He does this because he really, really wants to elevate his belief in magical sky daddies up to the same level as evidence-based determinations. Unable to actually elevate his magical ideas , he is left with one option: drag other ideas into the murk where his faith resides.
> 
> Frannie says he  believes that nothing can be known.  And he believes that, this being true, his magical ideas are as valid as any scientific idea.
> 
> Of course, the source of Frannie's frustration is that he knows neither of these are true.  but he really, really WISHES they were true, because he has to prop up his magical beliefs somehow.
> 
> So, he takes this all very personally.  Every time he says something stupid or makes up something false, then gets called on it, he has no other recourse than to throw a grade A hissy fit. Then, when people decide to leave him to it, he feels as though he has "won". In this way, he self-affirms.
> 
> Rinse, repeat.  Same thing, every time.


The only way there can be doubt about things that are not known is that some fool believes as fact what no one knows to be fact.

Like saying all life must be based on carbon because that is true on Earth.  There is just no scientific validity to the statement, the statement violates logic UNLESS you believe that the Earth is the life model for the universe, which again violates logic

Sorry I tried to be stupid once and accidentally dismantled the internet.

Not everyone was happy


----------



## Frannie

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> An explanation of Frannie's bizarre behavior:
> 
> Frannie is here to try to sow doubt in anything and everything. He does this because he really, really wants to elevate his belief in magical sky daddies up to the same level as evidence-based determinations. Unable to actually elevate his magical ideas , he is left with one option: drag other ideas into the murk where his faith resides.
> 
> Frannie says he  believes that nothing can be known.  And he believes that, this being true, his magical ideas are as valid as any scientific idea.
> 
> Of course, the source of Frannie's frustration is that he knows neither of these are true.  but he really, really WISHES they were true, because he has to prop up his magical beliefs somehow.
> 
> So, he takes this all very personally.  Every time he says something stupid or makes up something false, then gets called on it, he has no other recourse than to throw a grade A hissy fit. Then, when people decide to leave him to it, he feels as though he has "won". In this way, he self-affirms.
> 
> Rinse, repeat.  Same thing, every time.
> 
> 
> 
> The only way there can be doubt about things that are not known is that some fool believes as fact what no one knows to be fact.
> 
> Like saying all life must be based on carbon because that is true on Earth.  There is just no scientific validity to the statement, the statement violates logic UNLESS you believe that the Earth is the life model for the universe, which again violates logic
> 
> Sorry I tried to be stupid once and accidentally dismantled the internet.
> 
> Not everyone was happy
Click to expand...

And a quiet envelopes the orb of Jericho


----------



## Frannie

Frannie said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> An explanation of Frannie's bizarre behavior:
> 
> Frannie is here to try to sow doubt in anything and everything. He does this because he really, really wants to elevate his belief in magical sky daddies up to the same level as evidence-based determinations. Unable to actually elevate his magical ideas , he is left with one option: drag other ideas into the murk where his faith resides.
> 
> Frannie says he  believes that nothing can be known.  And he believes that, this being true, his magical ideas are as valid as any scientific idea.
> 
> Of course, the source of Frannie's frustration is that he knows neither of these are true.  but he really, really WISHES they were true, because he has to prop up his magical beliefs somehow.
> 
> So, he takes this all very personally.  Every time he says something stupid or makes up something false, then gets called on it, he has no other recourse than to throw a grade A hissy fit. Then, when people decide to leave him to it, he feels as though he has "won". In this way, he self-affirms.
> 
> Rinse, repeat.  Same thing, every time.
> 
> 
> 
> The only way there can be doubt about things that are not known is that some fool believes as fact what no one knows to be fact.
> 
> Like saying all life must be based on carbon because that is true on Earth.  There is just no scientific validity to the statement, the statement violates logic UNLESS you believe that the Earth is the life model for the universe, which again violates logic
> 
> Sorry I tried to be stupid once and accidentally dismantled the internet.
> 
> Not everyone was happy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a quiet envelopes the orb of Jericho
Click to expand...


----------



## toobfreak

bripat9643 said:


> Humans don't make iron atoms, so your example is absurd.


Who here said anything about making atoms?  For that matter, humans don't make any bronze or steel atoms either,  No one makes atoms.



> They may be intelligent, but they don't have any kind of technology.


What is the connection between intelligence and technology?  Chimpanzees have technology;  they makes tools.  There are insects that make tools.  Humankind has technology mainly as a matter of survival.  We are weak and cannot survive without it.  So our technological is more a matter of necessity rather than intelligence.  We created it to live, then it taught us things giving us more intelligence in reward.


----------



## toobfreak

Yarddog said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong, you are basing your ideas on all that you know and making an assumption that all you know is that all there is.
> 
> Are you aware that there is life on Earth that uses arsenic?
> 
> You are a little child that wants to be the center of the universe, everything great is just like you.
> 
> This is foolishness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
Click to expand...



Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.

It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.


----------



## Frannie

toobfreak said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
Click to expand...


Since you do not know anything about alien life you are completely babbling

Really you are insane


----------



## Yarddog

toobfreak said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about life that USES carbon, you idiot, I'm talking about carbon-BASED life.  There is no arsenic-based life on Earth.  You are honestly worse than talking to a 7 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least likely path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
Click to expand...




Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though. Apparently  silicon and carbon can be put into the same molecule in the lab, so one has to wonder what can be done with this in controlled situations, in the future. And now that we have bio 3-D printing, the imagination can go kind of crazy with that.


----------



## Frannie

Yarddog said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least likely path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though. Apparently  silicon and carbon can be put into the same molecule in the lab, so one has to wonder what can be done with this in controlled situations, in the future. And now that we have bio 3-D printing, the imagination can go kind of crazy with that.
Click to expand...


The first time a computer ask a question not in it's programming silicon life is proved

But but but but it didn't form in a pond


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Yarddog said:


> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though.


Yes, but where would all the carbon be, in such an environment?  Like toobfreak said when he talks about "the path of least resistance", and what I talk about, when I say "selection"... how are you sidelining the carbon, in this environment? Why wouldn't it supplant the silicone, if not sidelined?


----------



## Yarddog

Frannie said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually claiming in your own dumb way that everything everywhere must be like earth
> 
> Tell us what info do you base this on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you do not know anything about alien life you are completely babbling
> 
> Really you are insane
Click to expand...



 I think we can all come up with hypothesis without being called insane. His is actually pretty logical when you are talking about probability. Should we completely abandon other ideas? No, its always good to consider other possibilities. Science and discovery doesnt really have to be about our egos you know.


----------



## Yarddog

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but where would all the carbon be, in such an environment?  Like toobfreak said when he talks about "the path of least resistance", and what I talk about, when I say "selection"... how are you sidelining the carbon, in this environment? Why wouldn't it supplant the silicone, if not sidelined?
Click to expand...



Right. I understand that, I was pretty much talking about controlled situations in that post. I mean, the possibility of hybrid life forms being created in the lab. 

As far as natural selection goes, yes it makes sense that when both carbon and silicon are readily available that law would come into effect.


----------



## Frannie

Yarddog said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fran, Honey, you have NO IDEA what I am claiming!  Just take a pill and go sit down while you are still ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you do not know anything about alien life you are completely babbling
> 
> Really you are insane
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all come up with hypothesis without being called insane. His is actually pretty logical when you are talking about probability. Should we completely abandon other ideas? No, its always good to consider other possibilities. Science and discovery doesnt really have to be about our egos you know.
Click to expand...


Nope, the fact is this clown knows everything about how life that is completely unknown in a galaxy far far away is made.  This delusional belief is quite possibly based in schizophrenia.  I dare this clown to describe his babbles to a shrink


----------



## Frannie

Yarddog said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but where would all the carbon be, in such an environment?  Like toobfreak said when he talks about "the path of least resistance", and what I talk about, when I say "selection"... how are you sidelining the carbon, in this environment? Why wouldn't it supplant the silicone, if not sidelined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I understand that, I was pretty much talking about controlled situations in that post. I mean, the possibility of hybrid life forms being created in the lab.
> 
> As far as natural selection goes, yes it makes sense that when both carbon and silicon are readily available that law would come into effect.
Click to expand...

Some life already uses LSD for blood


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Yarddog said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but where would all the carbon be, in such an environment?  Like toobfreak said when he talks about "the path of least resistance", and what I talk about, when I say "selection"... how are you sidelining the carbon, in this environment? Why wouldn't it supplant the silicone, if not sidelined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I understand that, I was pretty much talking about controlled situations in that post. I mean, the possibility of hybrid life forms being created in the lab.
> 
> As far as natural selection goes, yes it makes sense that when both carbon and silicon are readily available that law would come into effect.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And, really, liquid is a must, so that the trillions of interactions per second can happen and that must eventually occur for selection to operate on a system and create life.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but where would all the carbon be, in such an environment?  Like toobfreak said when he talks about "the path of least resistance", and what I talk about, when I say "selection"... how are you sidelining the carbon, in this environment? Why wouldn't it supplant the silicone, if not sidelined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I understand that, I was pretty much talking about controlled situations in that post. I mean, the possibility of hybrid life forms being created in the lab.
> 
> As far as natural selection goes, yes it makes sense that when both carbon and silicon are readily available that law would come into effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And, really, liquid is a must, so that the trillions of intereactions per second cam happen and that must occur for selection to operate on a system and create life.
Click to expand...

LOL as if a bacteria has trillions of interactions per second

Take your pills


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> LOL as if a bacteria has trillions of interactions per second


Not what was meant. I was referring to chemical interactions over the whole system, pre-life. And even if I were referring to bacteria, I would have been referring to the entire system, I.E.,all of earth, in the case of our bacteria on earth. And yes, all the bacteria on earth easily have trillions of interactions per second, all together. So you would still be wrong.


----------



## Yarddog

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but where would all the carbon be, in such an environment?  Like toobfreak said when he talks about "the path of least resistance", and what I talk about, when I say "selection"... how are you sidelining the carbon, in this environment? Why wouldn't it supplant the silicone, if not sidelined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I understand that, I was pretty much talking about controlled situations in that post. I mean, the possibility of hybrid life forms being created in the lab.
> 
> As far as natural selection goes, yes it makes sense that when both carbon and silicon are readily available that law would come into effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And, really, liquid is a must, so that the trillions of interactions per second can happen and that must eventually occur for selection to operate on a system and create life.
Click to expand...




And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Yarddog said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but where would all the carbon be, in such an environment?  Like toobfreak said when he talks about "the path of least resistance", and what I talk about, when I say "selection"... how are you sidelining the carbon, in this environment? Why wouldn't it supplant the silicone, if not sidelined?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I understand that, I was pretty much talking about controlled situations in that post. I mean, the possibility of hybrid life forms being created in the lab.
> 
> As far as natural selection goes, yes it makes sense that when both carbon and silicon are readily available that law would come into effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And, really, liquid is a must, so that the trillions of interactions per second can happen and that must eventually occur for selection to operate on a system and create life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
Click to expand...

Yep. Water is polar, while methane is not. Life in a liquid methane environment would be very different from that on earth. DNA is probably out of the picture. That's intriguing to scientists. All of them have this innate fear that they find life on Mars, and it is DNA based. "Fear" is overstating it, as they would still be thrilled with the discovery,  but they understand this would greatly limit the number of questions answered by such a find.

So, to find non-DNA life in Titan's methane seas, for instance, would forever cement the idea that life exists and has existed uncountable times in the universe.


----------



## Yarddog

Frannie said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell us why is Carbon a must for all life including the speculative life from other planets.
> 
> This ought to be good, and add in do all other planets that have life need to also have Darwin's mythical pond?
> 
> Seriously you are too ignorant and childish to know that you are making unsubstantiated claims, stating them as facts with no basis in reality.
> 
> On the plus side, at least you know you are a freak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you do not know anything about alien life you are completely babbling
> 
> Really you are insane
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all come up with hypothesis without being called insane. His is actually pretty logical when you are talking about probability. Should we completely abandon other ideas? No, its always good to consider other possibilities. Science and discovery doesnt really have to be about our egos you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the fact is this clown knows everything about how life that is completely unknown in a galaxy far far away is made.  This delusional belief is quite possibly based in schizophrenia.  I dare this clown to describe his babbles to a shrink
Click to expand...




Well, surely the universe, being what it is,.... like we don't know the end of it if there even is one, probably no doubt contains things unknown to our science. What I really wonder is if there are other elements out there in another solar system that we are completely unaware of. Maybe our little corner of the universe doesn't contain every elemental material that there is. It might be possible there is a life form made of something other than carbon or silicon perhaps .... but what makes carbon so special is its ability to fit in place in so many varied combinations. I think that is what people are getting at here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Yarddog said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you do not know anything about alien life you are completely babbling
> 
> Really you are insane
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all come up with hypothesis without being called insane. His is actually pretty logical when you are talking about probability. Should we completely abandon other ideas? No, its always good to consider other possibilities. Science and discovery doesnt really have to be about our egos you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the fact is this clown knows everything about how life that is completely unknown in a galaxy far far away is made.  This delusional belief is quite possibly based in schizophrenia.  I dare this clown to describe his babbles to a shrink
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, surely the universe, being what it is,.... like we don't know the end of it if there even is one, probably no doubt contains things unknown to our science. What I really wonder is if there are other elements out there in another solar system that we are completely unaware of. Maybe our little corner of the universe doesn't contain every elemental material that there is. It might be possible there is a life form made of something other than carbon or silicon perhaps .... but what makes carbon so special is its ability to fit in place in so many varied combinations. I think that is what people are getting at here.
Click to expand...

We know there are places where our physics break down: black holes. Some mathematicians and physicists are trying to show it possoble ( maybe just for fun) that white holes happen (the inverse) and could possibly generate space with different laws of physics. They say it may be possible resolve this to our universe by saying the space diffuses into our spacetime, lessening the effect of the differing laws of physics.

There, of course, is no evidence of this. Its just mathematical wizardry, and still under construction. Give it a few years. White Holes will become a thing.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon based life forms is an intriguing thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but where would all the carbon be, in such an environment?  Like toobfreak said when he talks about "the path of least resistance", and what I talk about, when I say "selection"... how are you sidelining the carbon, in this environment? Why wouldn't it supplant the silicone, if not sidelined?
Click to expand...


Agreed.  The Earth is full of carbon and silicon.  In fact, the crust is like 60% silica and rocks closer to 95%.  In the 4.5 billion years, Earth has been hot, cold, wet, dry, frozen, methane rich atmosphere, CO2 rich, oxygen rich, short days, long days , high tides, low tides, no ocean, all ocean, so where is the silicon life?  Why is there not even a single fossil of one?

Because it just doesn't naturally occur very easily, it is an unlikely event, meantime, carbon based life develops like a weed given the slightest chance at all.  We are the crabgrass of life.


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say the dog is as smart as a human.
> 
> What else does the dog need in order to build a spaceship?
> 
> Please list the requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you do not know the requirements for alien technology
> 
> Stop babbling
Click to expand...

What are the obvious requirements to build a spaceship?

Answer that first.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL as if a bacteria has trillions of interactions per second
> 
> 
> 
> Not what was meant. I was referring to chemical interactions over the whole system, pre-life. And even if I were referring to bacteria, I would have been referring to the entire system, I.E.,all of earth, in the case of our bacteria on earth. And yes, all the bacteria on earth easily have trillions of interactions per second, all together. So you would still be wrong.
Click to expand...

Bacteria is life, on the simple side, you have no clue what even constitutes life on Earth yet you clowns believe you know what the rest of the universe holds

Precious


----------



## Frannie

Yarddog said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is alway a chance that there is something we have not seen before here, yes,  but from what I could see in the video I posted, silicon based molecules are more limited than carbon based ones and whereas carbon type molecules commonly form long chains and double bonds, silicon molecules are very limited.
> 
> Unless of course there are some exceptions to that somewhere in the universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you do not know anything about alien life you are completely babbling
> 
> Really you are insane
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all come up with hypothesis without being called insane. His is actually pretty logical when you are talking about probability. Should we completely abandon other ideas? No, its always good to consider other possibilities. Science and discovery doesnt really have to be about our egos you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the fact is this clown knows everything about how life that is completely unknown in a galaxy far far away is made.  This delusional belief is quite possibly based in schizophrenia.  I dare this clown to describe his babbles to a shrink
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, surely the universe, being what it is,.... like we don't know the end of it if there even is one, probably no doubt contains things unknown to our science. What I really wonder is if there are other elements out there in another solar system that we are completely unaware of. Maybe our little corner of the universe doesn't contain every elemental material that there is. It might be possible there is a life form made of something other than carbon or silicon perhaps .... but what makes carbon so special is its ability to fit in place in so many varied combinations. I think that is what people are getting at here.
Click to expand...


The Earth itself could have an inner core of an element too heavy to be anywhere except the center.  This element could even be so heavy as to create the gravity that we feel, the Sun could have this element at it's core or an even heavier one.  Point being that the Earth is still not fully explored, did Columbus tell the queen what the new world held before seeing it.  Describing life unseen is silly


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say the dog is as smart as a human.
> 
> What else does the dog need in order to build a spaceship?
> 
> Please list the requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you do not know the requirements for alien technology
> 
> Stop babbling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the obvious requirements to build a spaceship?
> 
> Answer that first.
Click to expand...

Depends upon the type of ship, your brain is automatically defaulting to what we consider a ship.  Space travel could involve gravity bending and one might want non magnetic or even light elements.  The speculations are endless.  Now the ship you are envisioning made of steel can't actually get out of Earths gravity at a speed fast enough to take it anywhere out of this solar system in less than tens of thousands of years.  So what we do know is that your steel ship is useless.

Now as for a superior race of jellyfish, the dumbest one still has more foresight than you do now.  In fact these jellyfish could take over the minds of other creatures and have them build for them, much like the education system has taken over your mind so that you remain a poor servant

You will never see what you are


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put simply, carbon is one of the most universal, basic elements out there.  Found in abundance, able to combine in limitless ways to form amino acids, proteins, hydrocarbons, complex organic chains, everything needed to form life.  Silicon on the other hand is a much more complex metaloid, with vastly less ability to combine with other elements.
> 
> It's a case of carbon life being so naturally likely anywhere there is liquid water to almost be a certainty whereas with silicon, it is more a case of simply saying it is a hypothetically possibly which cannot be ruled out as having zero chance.  Nature is a machine of the least path of resistance, it goes with what works based on suitability, adaptability and survivability and carbon offers far far more chances of hitting the numbers right.  Life in space is almost certain, and it is nearly certain it will be carbon based.  And as carbon based, its life will follow basic similarities and patterns to our own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you do not know anything about alien life you are completely babbling
> 
> Really you are insane
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all come up with hypothesis without being called insane. His is actually pretty logical when you are talking about probability. Should we completely abandon other ideas? No, its always good to consider other possibilities. Science and discovery doesnt really have to be about our egos you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the fact is this clown knows everything about how life that is completely unknown in a galaxy far far away is made.  This delusional belief is quite possibly based in schizophrenia.  I dare this clown to describe his babbles to a shrink
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, surely the universe, being what it is,.... like we don't know the end of it if there even is one, probably no doubt contains things unknown to our science. What I really wonder is if there are other elements out there in another solar system that we are completely unaware of. Maybe our little corner of the universe doesn't contain every elemental material that there is. It might be possible there is a life form made of something other than carbon or silicon perhaps .... but what makes carbon so special is its ability to fit in place in so many varied combinations. I think that is what people are getting at here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know there are places where our physics break down: black holes. Some mathematicians and physicists are trying to show it possoble ( maybe just for fun) that white holes happen (the inverse) and could possibly generate space with different laws of physics. They say it may be possible resolve this to our universe by saying the space diffuses into our spacetime, lessening the effect of the differing laws of physics.
> 
> There, of course, is no evidence of this. Its just mathematical wizardry, and still under construction. Give it a few years. White Holes will become a thing.
Click to expand...


Physics never breaks down, the only thing that can break down is human understanding.  It is impossible for the rules of matter to break down, the rules continue inside a black hole just in ambiguity


----------



## RWS

Omg that's so funny. The jellyfish, or whowever they enslave, has to have the bone structure and dexterity to mine and construct metal tools to build a spaceship, and create the fuel.

It's not going to be a jellyfish! Lol!


----------



## RWS

They're going to have bones, like us.
 They're going to be big brained like us. They're going to be very similar to us in a humanoid way. For an alien capable of visiting us. Not an alien that we find elsewhere. One that arrives here.


----------



## DOTR

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



yet we are obviously alone. Real scientists think so. 

Dissolving the Fermi Paradox

   The Drake equation is based on the Mediocrity Principle which is a philosophical construct rather than a scientific one. Take that away and it all falls apart. 
  Or don’t. In that case you have to explain why they aren’t here.


----------



## RWS

They also could have been here a long time. And it's hidden from us. 

A 'turning point' on UFOs: Physicist Michio Kaku tells ufology conference the truth is out there


----------



## james bond

Yarddog said:


> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.



No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> They also could have been here a long time. And it's hidden from us.



Creation scientists know what UFOs are, and that they have been with us for a long time, but we rather just keep it to ourselves.  Why?  It comes out the same anyway the way secular/atheist scientists believe them and treat them.

The only difference I can see is that we know they won't land.  We know they won't abduct any humans (although they may have before the flood ).  We also know they won't be explained.  They'll remain unidentified, i.e. _hidden_.  Isn't that what you just said?  We just agreed .


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Omg that's so funny. The jellyfish, or whowever they enslave, has to have the bone structure and dexterity to mine and construct metal tools to build a spaceship, and create the fuel.
> 
> It's not going to be a jellyfish! Lol!


There you go again insisting that aliens will use the same steel as humans to build some sort of craft that you imagine they would.

In reality the universe is not stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.


----------



## Frannie

james bond said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
Click to expand...

How do you know any of this


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> yet we are obviously alone. Real scientists think so.


Don't say dumb shit like this in the science section.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet we are obviously alone. Real scientists think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't say dumb shit like this in the science section.
Click to expand...

Irony personified


----------



## Wuwei

Frannie said:


> Irony personified


Troll personified.


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irony personified
> 
> 
> 
> Troll personified.
Click to expand...

Must be embarrassing getting a particle physics  lecture from a troll

Have you accepted that entanglement is instant yet and that instant is certainly faster than light?

No matter you will, peel potatoes


----------



## james bond

Frannie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know any of this
Click to expand...


Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.


----------



## toobfreak

james bond said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
Click to expand...



Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.


----------



## Frannie

james bond said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
Click to expand...

God I hate to to agree with you, however you are clearly correct.


----------



## Frannie

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.
Click to expand...

Sterile water has a zero ability to form either complicated or even very simple codes that compose life


----------



## Frannie

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.
Click to expand...

Hey numbnuts tidal pools are only stable for a short period until the next high tide when they are flushed clean.

You are actually incapable of rationality

Make up another babble


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I'm positive that we will find octopi-type creatures in the waters of Europa, Enceladus and Ganymede.  

They are absolutely every bit as "intelligent" as humans


----------



## james bond

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.
Click to expand...


You have some weird science.  Amino acids do not form in water.  They were suppose to form in space due to lightning and volcanic gas mixture and fall into the oceans, lakes, and ponds in order form primordial soup, but the water dissolves them.  Thus, the new theory is life formed in the air just above the water and then fell into the water.  We do not see any of this happen today, nor has anyone demonstrated this via experiment.  You can talk about all the DNA chains that you want, but amino acids do not form in water.  Even if you did form amino acids which is doubtful, then it would be even more of a stretch for them to become proteins.  Experiments have debunked formation of amino acids, but evolutionists still believe that they form in the atmosphere or geysers or air layers.


----------



## toobfreak

james bond said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have some weird science.  Amino acids do not form in water.  They were suppose to form in space due to lightning and volcanic gas mixture and fall into the oceans, lakes, and ponds in order form primordial soup, but the water dissolves them.  Thus, the new theory is life formed in the air just above the water and then fell into the water.  We do not see any of this happen today, nor has anyone demonstrated this via experiment.  You can talk about all the DNA chains that you want, but amino acids do not form in water.  Even if you did form amino acids which is doubtful, then it would be even more of a stretch for them to become proteins.  Experiments have debunked formation of amino acids, but evolutionists still believe that they form in the atmosphere or geysers or air layers.
Click to expand...



Funny, I always thought "my" science was just science!  And I never knew there were volcanoes and lightning in space!  And I never knew water destroyed aminos considering that half of them form in your body (mostly water) and the other half form in the foods we eat (also full of water).  Boy, you are just so far ahead of the rest of us you should write a book.  It was always my understanding that the first aminos likely formed in the ocean (water again) in a process involving certain types of rocks and sea water called serpentization.  But what would I know, I don't have your grasp of (real) science.


----------



## james bond

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have some weird science.  Amino acids do not form in water.  They were suppose to form in space due to lightning and volcanic gas mixture and fall into the oceans, lakes, and ponds in order form primordial soup, but the water dissolves them.  Thus, the new theory is life formed in the air just above the water and then fell into the water.  We do not see any of this happen today, nor has anyone demonstrated this via experiment.  You can talk about all the DNA chains that you want, but amino acids do not form in water.  Even if you did form amino acids which is doubtful, then it would be even more of a stretch for them to become proteins.  Experiments have debunked formation of amino acids, but evolutionists still believe that they form in the atmosphere or geysers or air layers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I always thought "my" science was just science!  And I never knew there were volcanoes and lightning in space!  And I never knew water destroyed aminos considering that half of them form in your body (mostly water) and the other half form in the foods we eat (also full of water).  Boy, you are just so far ahead of the rest of us you should write a book.  It was always my understanding that the first aminos likely formed in the ocean (water again) in a process involving certain types of rocks and sea water called serpentization.  But what would I know, I don't have your grasp of (real) science.
Click to expand...


If you think abiogenesis is real, then you are subscribing to fake science.  It has been debunked already.  I just called it _weird_ science because you believe what you described when there is no evidence and we do not see it happen.  If you had something, then you would be able to describe how amino acids form in wherever you said, how it forms proteins, and how they end up becoming life.  Creation scientists have explained how this happens in the cell.  What do you know -- science backs up the Bible.

There should be experiments to back abiogenesis up.  Instead, what us skeptics are subjected to is "faith based" science.  Maybe you believe volcanoes and lightning in space.  You're the one who described it as such .  Secular science with its big bang and explanations of what happened is insufficient.  It does not describe how we got to where we are today, i.e. the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  Even the quantum scientists like Hawking thought we shouldn't be here.  Besides abiogenesis, do you believe in multiverses, too?  There is no evidence for that either.  Maybe you just believe whatever the secular/atheist scientists make up (influenced by the other sky fairy, Satan).


----------



## toobfreak

james bond said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have some weird science.  Amino acids do not form in water.  They were suppose to form in space due to lightning and volcanic gas mixture and fall into the oceans, lakes, and ponds in order form primordial soup, but the water dissolves them.  Thus, the new theory is life formed in the air just above the water and then fell into the water.  We do not see any of this happen today, nor has anyone demonstrated this via experiment.  You can talk about all the DNA chains that you want, but amino acids do not form in water.  Even if you did form amino acids which is doubtful, then it would be even more of a stretch for them to become proteins.  Experiments have debunked formation of amino acids, but evolutionists still believe that they form in the atmosphere or geysers or air layers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I always thought "my" science was just science!  And I never knew there were volcanoes and lightning in space!  And I never knew water destroyed aminos considering that half of them form in your body (mostly water) and the other half form in the foods we eat (also full of water).  Boy, you are just so far ahead of the rest of us you should write a book.  It was always my understanding that the first aminos likely formed in the ocean (water again) in a process involving certain types of rocks and sea water called serpentization.  But what would I know, I don't have your grasp of (real) science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think abiogenesis is real, then you are subscribing to fake science.  It has been debunked already.  I just called it _weird_ science because you believe what you described when there is no evidence and we do not see it happen.  If you had something, then you would be able to describe how amino acids form in wherever you said, how it forms proteins, and how they end up becoming life.  Creation scientists have explained how this happens in the cell.  What do you know -- science backs up the Bible.
> 
> There should be experiments to back abiogenesis up.  Instead, what us skeptics are subjected to is "faith based" science.  Maybe you believe volcanoes and lightning in space.  You're the one who described it as such .  Secular science with its big bang and explanations of what happened is insufficient.  It does not describe how we got to where we are today, i.e. the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  Even the quantum scientists like Hawking thought we shouldn't be here.  Besides abiogenesis, do you believe in multiverses, too?  There is no evidence for that either.  Maybe you just believe whatever the secular/atheist scientists make up (influenced by the other sky fairy, Satan).
Click to expand...


Bond, you are just one more USMB idiot who parades himself around claiming far more than you really know.

SHOW ME where I said I believed in volcanoes and lightning in space.  YOU said that.
Show me where I said anything about Creationism.
It is pointless talking about theories of universal creation, other universes, etc., when by their very nature, one cannot "prove" other universes outside their own, it is all theory, just as is theist vs. atheist.  Though I believe in God, no one can prove or disprove him.  Same with YOUR theory:  you can no more prove aminos formed over water than at the bottom of the ocean because that was a long time ago and those conditions don't exist anymore.

THE ONE THING WE DO KNOW is that at one time there was no life.  There was a time before there was life on this planet, then slowly, microbial life began and evolved into more complex levels, so life came from non-life.  You don't have to be an atheist to know that.

That and every scientist on the planet now believes in the strong likelihood of there being life in the subsurface oceans on Europa and Enceladus, where there is no choice but it having formed in the deep ocean near smokers.


----------



## james bond

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have some weird science.  Amino acids do not form in water.  They were suppose to form in space due to lightning and volcanic gas mixture and fall into the oceans, lakes, and ponds in order form primordial soup, but the water dissolves them.  Thus, the new theory is life formed in the air just above the water and then fell into the water.  We do not see any of this happen today, nor has anyone demonstrated this via experiment.  You can talk about all the DNA chains that you want, but amino acids do not form in water.  Even if you did form amino acids which is doubtful, then it would be even more of a stretch for them to become proteins.  Experiments have debunked formation of amino acids, but evolutionists still believe that they form in the atmosphere or geysers or air layers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I always thought "my" science was just science!  And I never knew there were volcanoes and lightning in space!  And I never knew water destroyed aminos considering that half of them form in your body (mostly water) and the other half form in the foods we eat (also full of water).  Boy, you are just so far ahead of the rest of us you should write a book.  It was always my understanding that the first aminos likely formed in the ocean (water again) in a process involving certain types of rocks and sea water called serpentization.  But what would I know, I don't have your grasp of (real) science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think abiogenesis is real, then you are subscribing to fake science.  It has been debunked already.  I just called it _weird_ science because you believe what you described when there is no evidence and we do not see it happen.  If you had something, then you would be able to describe how amino acids form in wherever you said, how it forms proteins, and how they end up becoming life.  Creation scientists have explained how this happens in the cell.  What do you know -- science backs up the Bible.
> 
> There should be experiments to back abiogenesis up.  Instead, what us skeptics are subjected to is "faith based" science.  Maybe you believe volcanoes and lightning in space.  You're the one who described it as such .  Secular science with its big bang and explanations of what happened is insufficient.  It does not describe how we got to where we are today, i.e. the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  Even the quantum scientists like Hawking thought we shouldn't be here.  Besides abiogenesis, do you believe in multiverses, too?  There is no evidence for that either.  Maybe you just believe whatever the secular/atheist scientists make up (influenced by the other sky fairy, Satan).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bond, you are just one more USMB idiot who parades himself around claiming far more than you really know.
> 
> SHOW ME where I said I believed in volcanoes and lightning in space.  YOU said that.
> Show me where I said anything about Creationism.
> It is pointless talking about theories of universal creation, other universes, etc., when by their very nature, one cannot "prove" other universes outside their own, it is all theory, just as is theist vs. atheist.  Though I believe in God, no one can prove or disprove him.  Same with YOUR theory:  you can no more prove aminos formed over water than at the bottom of the ocean because that was a long time ago and those conditions don't exist anymore.
> 
> THE ONE THING WE DO KNOW is that at one time there was no life.  There was a time before there was life on this planet, then slowly, microbial life began and evolved into more complex levels, so life came from non-life.  You don't have to be an atheist to know that.
> 
> That and every scientist on the planet now believes in the strong likelihood of there being life in the subsurface oceans on Europa and Enceladus, where there is no choice but it having formed in the deep ocean near smokers.
Click to expand...


Let's compare what we said:

Amino acids dissolve in water - Hydrophilic amino acids dissolve in water.  1 point for jb
No primordial soup in the ocean - First, here is definition of primordial soup from biased wiki, "*Primordial soup*, or *prebiotic soup* (also sometimes referred as prebiotic broth), is the hypothetical set of conditions present on the Earth around 4.2 to 4.0 billions of years ago. It is a fundamental aspect to the heterotrophic theory of the origin of life, first proposed by Alexander Oparin in 1924, and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane in 1929."  Primordial soup - Wikipedia"  

Next, based on the definition, "The "primordial soup" idea came about when Russian scientist Alexander Oparin and English geneticist John Haldane each came up with the idea independently. It had been theorized that life started in the oceans. Oparin and Haldane thought that with the mix of gases in the atmosphere and the energy from lightning strikes, amino acids could spontaneously form in the oceans. This idea is now known as "primordial soup."  What Is Primordial Soup?

Oparin and Haldane thought amino acids could form in the oceans (!).  I'm contradicting this haha.  9 amino acids are hydrophobic, so do not form in water.  +1 for jb.

What Are Hydrophilic Amino Acids? - aminoco

atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  - peptide bond article - In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water–air interface +1 for jb

tf:  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  Wrong.  No hydrophobic ones.

tf:  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.  Also contradicts Oparin and Haldane.  +1 for tb

However, no evidence of primordial soup in tidal pools as thesis is based on:


lots of water (oceans).
hot (no free O2).
lots ionizing (e.g., X, &#x03B3;" role="presentation">γ
) radiation from space, (no protective ozone layer).
frequent ionizing (electrical) storms generated in an unstable atmosphere.
volcanic and thermal vent activity.
+0 for tf.

20.3: Formation of Organic Molecules in an Earthly Reducing Atmosphere

tf:  I always thought "my" science was just science! - Your weird science backing abiongenesis has no evidence +0 for tf

tf:  It was always my understanding that the first aminos likely formed in the ocean (water again) in a process involving certain types of rocks and sea water called serpentization. - Now, you're back to formed in the ocean instead of tidal pools.  Confusing.  -1 for tb.  What does serpentization have to do with this?

Anyway, this has not gone well for you.


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg that's so funny. The jellyfish, or whowever they enslave, has to have the bone structure and dexterity to mine and construct metal tools to build a spaceship, and create the fuel.
> 
> It's not going to be a jellyfish! Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again insisting that aliens will use the same steel as humans to build some sort of craft that you imagine they would.
> 
> In reality the universe is not stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.
Click to expand...

Their spaceships are not going to be made out of jelly. It is going to take some sort of metal. And if not for the exterior, the electronics will take metal.

Are you not aware of what if takes? Or are you just pulling my chain?

A jellyfish will not be able to do the physical work necessary to build a spaceship, no matter how smart it is.


----------



## RWS

Remember, the first time you leave the planet, you have to make the metals, gather the fuel,


james bond said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, I dont know if there is another liquid that we know of that is better than our H2-O , being an unstable molecule it breaks down other things through oxidation to the point that organisms can feed off them. As i understand it a sea of liquid methane for example couldn't support life because its a stable molecule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question, water is necessary for life, but not abiogenesis.  Many times, I've had a shot of Jack for example, and a water back.  Water is an universal solvent, so it works against abiogenesis.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know any of this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
Click to expand...

I guess there's no fish in the ocean then. And all the other organisms in the ocean... 

They're all just put there by the devil. To fool us.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg that's so funny. The jellyfish, or whowever they enslave, has to have the bone structure and dexterity to mine and construct metal tools to build a spaceship, and create the fuel.
> 
> It's not going to be a jellyfish! Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again insisting that aliens will use the same steel as humans to build some sort of craft that you imagine they would.
> 
> In reality the universe is not stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their spaceships are not going to be made out of jelly. It is going to take some sort of metal. And if not for the exterior, the electronics will take metal.
> 
> Are you not aware of what if takes? Or are you just pulling my chain?
> 
> A jellyfish will not be able to do the physical work necessary to build a spaceship, no matter how smart it is.
Click to expand...


No evidence of aliens, let alone them being able to build a spaceship.  The lib scientists at NASA are desperate and would settle for a microbe on Mars by 2025.  Fortunately, Trump replaced the previous head of NASA who wanted to look for aliens or past history of aliens on Mars with someone smarter.  First, she talked about colonizing Mars and then went to finding aliens.  What an idiot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg that's so funny. The jellyfish, or whowever they enslave, has to have the bone structure and dexterity to mine and construct metal tools to build a spaceship, and create the fuel.
> 
> It's not going to be a jellyfish! Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again insisting that aliens will use the same steel as humans to build some sort of craft that you imagine they would.
> 
> In reality the universe is not stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their spaceships are not going to be made out of jelly. It is going to take some sort of metal. And if not for the exterior, the electronics will take metal.
> 
> Are you not aware of what if takes? Or are you just pulling my chain?
> 
> A jellyfish will not be able to do the physical work necessary to build a spaceship, no matter how smart it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence of aliens, let alone them being able to build a spaceship.  The lib scientists at NASA are desperate and would settle for a microbe on Mars by 2025.  Fortunately, Trump replaced the previous head of NASA who wanted to look for aliens or past history of aliens on Mars with someone smarter.  First, she talked about colonizing Mars and then went to finding aliens.  What an idiot.
Click to expand...

Oooh, sorry, you're delusional. NASA is still searching for life elsewhere.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg that's so funny. The jellyfish, or whowever they enslave, has to have the bone structure and dexterity to mine and construct metal tools to build a spaceship, and create the fuel.
> 
> It's not going to be a jellyfish! Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again insisting that aliens will use the same steel as humans to build some sort of craft that you imagine they would.
> 
> In reality the universe is not stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their spaceships are not going to be made out of jelly. It is going to take some sort of metal. And if not for the exterior, the electronics will take metal.
> 
> Are you not aware of what if takes? Or are you just pulling my chain?
> 
> A jellyfish will not be able to do the physical work necessary to build a spaceship, no matter how smart it is.
Click to expand...

Dude, I can pull any bit of information right out of the air in front of me instantly with a smart phone.  No one 50 years ago could even have seriously proposed this.  Your feeble intellect building steel ships for interstellar travel is interesting.  Too bad your model is a locomotive that like your steel ship can't barely get off the earth.

Your ship is going no where.  Living ships are the way to go, this way any structural fatigue is regenerated along the voyage and the structure can evolve to current conditions.  After all you can't really dry dock and rebuild in the middle of space where the nearest object is thousands of years away and all one is likely to find is nothing

Dream it, then build it.

130


----------



## Frannie

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irony personified
> 
> 
> 
> Troll personified.
Click to expand...

Must be embarrassing getting a particle physics lecture from a troll

Have you accepted that entanglement is instant yet and that instant is certainly faster than light?

Hey is it true that the hospital is switching to powdered potatoes to avoid peeling accidents?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Have you accepted that entanglement is instant yet and that instant is certainly faster than light?


"Instantss" arent faster or slower than anything. They are instants.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you accepted that entanglement is instant yet and that instant is certainly faster than light?
> 
> 
> 
> "Instantss" arent faster or slower than anything. They are instants.
Click to expand...

Do try to keep up Fort Funny

Entanglement has been measured as being at least 10000 times faster than light and or 3 trillion meters per second.  Which is almost as fast as my Katerina witt.

Chinese physicists measure speed of Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance': At least 10,000 times faster than light - ExtremeTech


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Entanglement has been measured as being at least 10000 times faster than light and or 3 trillion meters per second.


Therefore, not an instant. Words mean things, you know.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entanglement has been measured as being at least 10000 times faster than light and or 3 trillion meters per second.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, not an instant. Words mean things, you know.
Click to expand...

Actually if you could travel 3 trillion meters from Earth you could observe a 1 seconds entanglement time, since the moon is under 406 million meters from Earth the time of entanglement could not be rationalized by humans and it would always be evident before one checked or instantly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entanglement has been measured as being at least 10000 times faster than light and or 3 trillion meters per second.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, not an instant. Words mean things, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually if you could travel 3 trillion meters from Earth you could observe a 1 seconds entanglement time, since the moon is under 406 million meters from Earth the time of entanglement could not be rationalized by humans and it would always be evident before one checked or instantly.
Click to expand...

So, "seemingly instant" to us. But it takes time.

Got it.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entanglement has been measured as being at least 10000 times faster than light and or 3 trillion meters per second.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, not an instant. Words mean things, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually if you could travel 3 trillion meters from Earth you could observe a 1 seconds entanglement time, since the moon is under 406 million meters from Earth the time of entanglement could not be rationalized by humans and it would always be evident before one checked or instantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, "seemingly instant" to us. But it takes time.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...

Not defined as the time required can not be tested by any devise created by man the Voyager probes being the farthest away and not set up for entanglement experiments, so the 10000 times the speed of light is just an estimate that allows our brains to rationalize instant.  Clearly instant defies all known science, so new science is needed.  Curious that quantum computers are currently working using at least partly unknown physics, but this has happened through all of human time.


----------



## RWS

A mucous form of life will not produce a hard enough element to withstand lift off and land down. They'll just be a bottle of well mixed jelly when they land.


----------



## RWS

An alien that travels here, is going to look something like us.


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg that's so funny. The jellyfish, or whowever they enslave, has to have the bone structure and dexterity to mine and construct metal tools to build a spaceship, and create the fuel.
> 
> It's not going to be a jellyfish! Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again insisting that aliens will use the same steel as humans to build some sort of craft that you imagine they would.
> 
> In reality the universe is not stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their spaceships are not going to be made out of jelly. It is going to take some sort of metal. And if not for the exterior, the electronics will take metal.
> 
> Are you not aware of what if takes? Or are you just pulling my chain?
> 
> A jellyfish will not be able to do the physical work necessary to build a spaceship, no matter how smart it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I can pull any bit of information right out of the air in front of me instantly with a smart phone.  No one 50 years ago could even have seriously proposed this.  Your feeble intellect building steel ships for interstellar travel is interesting.  Too bad your model is a locomotive that like your steel ship can't barely get off the earth.
> 
> Your ship is going no where.  Living ships are the way to go, this way any structural fatigue is regenerated along the voyage and the structure can evolve to current conditions.  After all you can't really dry dock and rebuild in the middle of space where the nearest object is thousands of years away and all one is likely to find is nothing
> 
> Dream it, then build it.
> 
> 130
Click to expand...

 And a spaceship built by a jelly, will have the disastrous effect of being soft, and not able to withstand initial efforts of liftoff and landing. They would never be able to get to a technology hard enough to handle chemical fuel. Unless they can somehow bypass chemical and go straight to antigravity. I can't see that happening.


----------



## RWS

That would take an alien intervention on their part...


----------



## RWS

Why is it so hard to think that it will be a humanoid type figure to arrive here?


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Omg that's so funny. The jellyfish, or whowever they enslave, has to have the bone structure and dexterity to mine and construct metal tools to build a spaceship, and create the fuel.
> 
> It's not going to be a jellyfish! Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again insisting that aliens will use the same steel as humans to build some sort of craft that you imagine they would.
> 
> In reality the universe is not stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their spaceships are not going to be made out of jelly. It is going to take some sort of metal. And if not for the exterior, the electronics will take metal.
> 
> Are you not aware of what if takes? Or are you just pulling my chain?
> 
> A jellyfish will not be able to do the physical work necessary to build a spaceship, no matter how smart it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I can pull any bit of information right out of the air in front of me instantly with a smart phone.  No one 50 years ago could even have seriously proposed this.  Your feeble intellect building steel ships for interstellar travel is interesting.  Too bad your model is a locomotive that like your steel ship can't barely get off the earth.
> 
> Your ship is going no where.  Living ships are the way to go, this way any structural fatigue is regenerated along the voyage and the structure can evolve to current conditions.  After all you can't really dry dock and rebuild in the middle of space where the nearest object is thousands of years away and all one is likely to find is nothing
> 
> Dream it, then build it.
> 
> 130
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a spaceship built by a jelly, will have the disastrous effect of being soft, and not able to withstand initial efforts of liftoff and landing. They would never be able to get to a technology hard enough to handle chemical fuel. Unless they can somehow bypass chemical and go straight to antigravity. I can't see that happening.
Click to expand...

Who says there will be a liftoff?


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Why is it so hard to think that it will be a humanoid type figure to arrive here?


It's not hard, however if a humanoid shows up we are related before the test is taken as there is a universe of possibilities that are everything except like us


----------



## RWS

I guess you believe in creation and not evolution.

Because with evolution, we don't have endless unlimited resources to make organisms with a high level brain like us, plus humanoid features, and eight more arms, 4 more legs, and maybe about another 12 eyes. And 2 more noses!

We have to compete with the rest of the biosystem for the little resources we have. And they're all competing with us. A BLOB will not be able to build a spaceship. You need a form, that is able to make tools, mine the materials, develop the tech, organize the planning, and successfully lift off their world with a specific goal of reaching Earth from a different solar system.

So the minimum you should expect from an alien travelling here, is that it will look like us. And that's the only expectation you should have.

Anything else, is that god created humans. And created all the other beings that are capable of travelling here, and then, those should also look like us! It's all in his image!


----------



## RWS

Either way.... looks like us!


----------



## RWS

So that's where we get into the Anunnaki.

AN.UN.NA.KI

That actually means something more relevant than the stupid god word your religions depend on...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> I guess you believe in creation and not evolution.
> 
> Because with evolution, we don't have endless unlimited resources to make organisms with a high level brain like us, plus humanoid features, and eight more arms, 4 more legs, and maybe about another 12 eyes. And 2 more noses!
> 
> We have to compete with the rest of the biosystem for the little resources we have. And they're all competing with us. A BLOB will not be able to build a spaceship. You need a form, that is able to make tools, mine the materials, develop the tech, organize the planning, and successfully lift off their world with a specific goal of reaching Earth from a different solar system.
> 
> So the minimum you should expect from an alien travelling here, is that it will look like us. And that's the only expectation you should have.
> 
> Anything else, is that god created humans. And created all the other beings that are capable of travelling here, and then, those should also look like us! It's all in his image!



What endless unlimited resources?  It's your idiot side that believes in infinite multiverses.  You burn up one universe, then wormhole to another.  Also, one of them must contain God to send you to the fire.

As for the rest, you must've had a drunken rampage on last night.


----------



## RWS

You're kinda like Negan. 

You are evil, and want to sway others...

I am Spartacus. I am true, and will fight for the truth till I die. 

I never say anything that is intentionally wrong. 

When I say say shit, trust me, it's honest.

Because I am Spartacus.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Because I am Spartacus.



"Refers to a scene in the movie "Spartacus" starring Kirk Douglas as Spartacus. After the army of former Roman slaves led by Spartacus is defeated in battle by legions of the Roman army, a Roman general stands before the captured surviving members of the slave army and demands that they turn over Spartacus, or else all of the former slaves will be executed. Upon hearing this and not wanting his friends to be executed, Spartacus stands up and says "I am Spartacus." However, the loyalty of his friends is so great that each of them stands forward in succession, shouting "I am Spartacus!" until the shouts dissolve into a cacophony of thousands of former slaves each insisting "I am Spartacus!" Bewildered and still not knowing which of them is Spartacus, but impressed by the loyalty he inspires in his army, the Roman general has all of the slaves crucified in a miles-long display alongside the Appian Way leading back to Rome.

Thus the phrase "I am Spartacus!" is often used to humorously start a chorus of responses of "No, I am Spartacus" among a group."

It means you're a commie, so the death was fitting.

Another drinking night ?


----------



## RWS

No, I am Spartacus aka Andy Whitfield version! The best Spartacus! And I live by those ideals. RIP Andy...


----------



## RWS




----------



## james bond

You live by this ?

"Spartard
Someone addicted to Starz's original series, "Spartacus: Gods of the Arena" and "Spartacus: Blood and Sand". Said person will exhibit such symptoms as: Yelling at the scream while watching the program and reruns of said program; Quoting lines from said program; Dreaming about characters of said program, etc..."

I can see you _yelling_ at the screen while posting.

"You are evil, and want to sway others...

I am Spartacus. I am true, and will fight for the truth till I die.

I never say anything that is intentionally wrong.

When I say say shit, trust me, it's honest.

Because I am Spartacus."


----------



## RWS

I'm a warrior, looking to free the people, and remove the wicked rulers.

You support those evil ideas.

So guess what?  I am Spartacus!


----------



## james bond

I AM A WINNER!


----------



## RWS

Very nice song! I love it!

Thing is, it doesn't mean what you think it means... 

Your "destiny" is not what the song is talking about, and is something we don't want. Your destiny is destruction and conquering. You want to rule the world using your religion as your weapon. Kill everyone else, and have everyone look and think like you... Believe the same shit, and obey... 

I just want everyone to be themselves and get along. We're all good!


----------



## james bond

Yours is the world of _rebellion_.  It won't let you accept the word and the truth.  All it will lead to is death, pain, and suffering.

You are a commie.  Atheism leads to communism and you are well on your way.  You want to rule the world with fascism and intolerance.


----------



## anynameyouwish

rightwinger said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most planets with life on them would have creatures of the complexity of slime
Click to expand...



"Most planets with life on them would have creatures of the complexity of slime"

like trump and his supporters.


----------



## toobfreak

RWS said:


> You're kinda like Negan.
> You are evil, and want to sway others...
> I am Spartacus. I am true, and will fight for the truth till I die.
> I never say anything that is intentionally wrong.
> When I say say shit, trust me, it's honest.
> Because I am Spartacus.



Spartacus and his followers were mercilessly butchered.

You know, I gotta say reading some of your theories on life and other claims here that I must wholly agree-- -- -- you ARE honest.  Honestly a stupid and pathetic little man so full of yourself and your little keyboard world.

Now off to the battle with you, Spartacus!  You haven't any fricking idea the biological conditions which might govern life on other worlds.


----------



## RWS

Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?

You need to calm down!


Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.

I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.

Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.


So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?


----------



## RWS

Mick Jagger said this was his fav ever cover of this song! He would supposedly dance around. I can picture it!

But yeah, waiting on mr know-it-all to say something different...  ;-)

(click to watch it on youtube when prompted)


----------



## toobfreak

RWS said:


> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?



Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!


----------



## percysunshine




----------



## james bond

My hope is we can send the atheists/commies to Canada .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
Click to expand...

Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
Click to expand...



I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?


I would think so. But these would form differentiated structures. Even eukaryotes had organelles. And these structures would still be vulnerable to acceleration forces. Its hard to imagine such creatures building and researching the tech.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?
> 
> 
> 
> I would think so. But these would form differentiated structures. Even eukaryotes had organelles. And these structures would still be vulnerable to acceleration forces. Its hard to imagine such creatures building and researching the tech.
Click to expand...


I would think it better to have organelles in a gelatinous mass than our bodies which can change shape or smoosh very little without destruction.  But like I said, with so little to go by than ourselves and other life on Earth all formed under identical general conditions, people can only speculate.  People have speculated to the possibility of living animals existing even in certain outer layers of Jupiter's atmosphere!  I suppose it's possible!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?
> 
> 
> 
> I would think so. But these would form differentiated structures. Even eukaryotes had organelles. And these structures would still be vulnerable to acceleration forces. Its hard to imagine such creatures building and researching the tech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think it better to have organelles in a gelatinous mass than our bodies which can change shape or smoosh very little without destruction.  But like I said, with so little to go by than ourselves and other life on Earth all formed under identical general conditions, people can only speculate.  People have speculated to the possibility of living animals existing even in certain outer layers of Jupiter's atmosphere!  I suppose it's possible!
Click to expand...

Right....like, would we even recognize alien life if we saw it?


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?
> 
> 
> 
> I would think so. But these would form differentiated structures. Even eukaryotes had organelles. And these structures would still be vulnerable to acceleration forces. Its hard to imagine such creatures building and researching the tech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think it better to have organelles in a gelatinous mass than our bodies which can change shape or smoosh very little without destruction.  But like I said, with so little to go by than ourselves and other life on Earth all formed under identical general conditions, people can only speculate.  People have speculated to the possibility of living animals existing even in certain outer layers of Jupiter's atmosphere!  I suppose it's possible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....like, would we even recognize alien life if we saw it?
Click to expand...

Possibly not.  Some life on Earth is almost unrecognizable.  And chances are any life capable of coming here from another star system will be so far over us that we might not recognize them as life and they may only see us as we see pond scum.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?
> 
> 
> 
> I would think so. But these would form differentiated structures. Even eukaryotes had organelles. And these structures would still be vulnerable to acceleration forces. Its hard to imagine such creatures building and researching the tech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think it better to have organelles in a gelatinous mass than our bodies which can change shape or smoosh very little without destruction.  But like I said, with so little to go by than ourselves and other life on Earth all formed under identical general conditions, people can only speculate.  People have speculated to the possibility of living animals existing even in certain outer layers of Jupiter's atmosphere!  I suppose it's possible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....like, would we even recognize alien life if we saw it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Possibly not.  Some life on Earth is almost unrecognizable.  And chances are any life capable of coming here from another star system will be so far over us that we might not recognize them as life and they may only see us as we see pond scum.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But i think it more likely they woould recognize our sentience and not be cruel to us. Look at the beds gorillas construct. Compare them to skyscrapers. But we still recognize that it is not okay to be cruel to them.


----------



## DOTR

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Experiment.  Amino acids dissolve in water.  Kaput.  No primordial soup in the ocean.  Now, Fort Fun Indiana and the atheist scientists are focusing they formed over the air just above the ocean.  They believe anything their magic sky fairy Satan tells them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.  The fact that water is such a perfect solvent which allows a myriad chemical reactions in the first place is what allowed amino acids to form, in a world chemistry quite different from today.  And the primordial soup did not occur in the ocean per se, it occurred in discrete tidal pools under fixed, stable conditions which eventually allowed the beginnings of life, the first prokaryotes to appear and eventually spread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have some weird science.  Amino acids do not form in water.  They were suppose to form in space due to lightning and volcanic gas mixture and fall into the oceans, lakes, and ponds in order form primordial soup, but the water dissolves them.  Thus, the new theory is life formed in the air just above the water and then fell into the water.  We do not see any of this happen today, nor has anyone demonstrated this via experiment.  You can talk about all the DNA chains that you want, but amino acids do not form in water.  Even if you did form amino acids which is doubtful, then it would be even more of a stretch for them to become proteins.  Experiments have debunked formation of amino acids, but evolutionists still believe that they form in the atmosphere or geysers or air layers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I always thought "my" science was just science!  And I never knew there were volcanoes and lightning in space!  And I never knew water destroyed aminos considering that half of them form in your body (mostly water) and the other half form in the foods we eat (also full of water).  Boy, you are just so far ahead of the rest of us you should write a book.  It was always my understanding that the first aminos likely formed in the ocean (water again) in a process involving certain types of rocks and sea water called serpentization.  But what would I know, I don't have your grasp of (real) science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think abiogenesis is real, then you are subscribing to fake science.  It has been debunked already.  I just called it _weird_ science because you believe what you described when there is no evidence and we do not see it happen.  If you had something, then you would be able to describe how amino acids form in wherever you said, how it forms proteins, and how they end up becoming life.  Creation scientists have explained how this happens in the cell.  What do you know -- science backs up the Bible.
> 
> There should be experiments to back abiogenesis up.  Instead, what us skeptics are subjected to is "faith based" science.  Maybe you believe volcanoes and lightning in space.  You're the one who described it as such .  Secular science with its big bang and explanations of what happened is insufficient.  It does not describe how we got to where we are today, i.e. the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  Even the quantum scientists like Hawking thought we shouldn't be here.  Besides abiogenesis, do you believe in multiverses, too?  There is no evidence for that either.  Maybe you just believe whatever the secular/atheist scientists make up (influenced by the other sky fairy, Satan).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bond, you are just one more USMB idiot who parades himself around claiming far more than you really know.
> 
> SHOW ME where I said I believed in volcanoes and lightning in space.  YOU said that.
> Show me where I said anything about Creationism.
> It is pointless talking about theories of universal creation, other universes, etc., when by their very nature, one cannot "prove" other universes outside their own, it is all theory, just as is theist vs. atheist.  Though I believe in God, no one can prove or disprove him.  Same with YOUR theory:  you can no more prove aminos formed over water than at the bottom of the ocean because that was a long time ago and those conditions don't exist anymore.
> 
> THE ONE THING WE DO KNOW is that at one time there was no life.  There was a time before there was life on this planet, then slowly, microbial life began and evolved into more complex levels, so life came from non-life.  You don't have to be an atheist to know that.
> 
> That and every scientist on the planet now believes in the strong likelihood of there being life in the subsurface oceans on Europa and Enceladus, where there is no choice but it having formed in the deep ocean near smokers.
Click to expand...



    You started out good. We do all have to agree that there was no life...and then life. 
   But why was there nothing after that? Not a shred of evidence over billions of years that life happened twice....even on this world which we *know* is conducive to life. 
Why would that be? And what does it mean for other worlds?


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?
> 
> 
> 
> I would think so. But these would form differentiated structures. Even eukaryotes had organelles. And these structures would still be vulnerable to acceleration forces. Its hard to imagine such creatures building and researching the tech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think it better to have organelles in a gelatinous mass than our bodies which can change shape or smoosh very little without destruction.  But like I said, with so little to go by than ourselves and other life on Earth all formed under identical general conditions, people can only speculate.  People have speculated to the possibility of living animals existing even in certain outer layers of Jupiter's atmosphere!  I suppose it's possible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....like, would we even recognize alien life if we saw it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Possibly not.  Some life on Earth is almost unrecognizable.  And chances are any life capable of coming here from another star system will be so far over us that we might not recognize them as life and they may only see us as we see pond scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe. But i think it more likely they woould recognize our sentience and not be cruel to us. Look at the beds gorillas construct. Compare them to skyscrapers. But we still recognize that it is not okay to be cruel to them.
Click to expand...


For a society to survive millions of years to travel the stars, they may have given up all emotions, maybe be part machine or run by machines and driven by pure logic.  At a certain dispassionate level, we are like a virus to the Earth that could be wiped out and neither Earth nor other species would blink.  I can't think of a single other species in our biosphere that "depends" on us other than maybe rats.  Indeed, the Earth may be far better off without man.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> Not a shred of evidence over billions of years that life happened twice....even on this world which we *know* is conducive to life.
> Why would that be?


Because the universe is so large. And the idea that it "only happened once here" only makes sense. Once DNA life spread across the globe, it dominated the available materials. It would be harder for a second type of life to arise, when the process is disturbed by existing life, and the available materials are either biomass or being eaten by biomass.


----------



## talksalot

There's probably microscopic organisms out there, but probably not like life on earth.  Too many things have to come together perfectly to reproduce an environment like ours.


----------



## Wuwei

I can easily see us developing AI and robotics within a thousand years to the extent that they can do human functions. AI can play at master level chess, go, and Jeopardy. These robots from a Boston Dynamics video demonstrate dexterity.



We need to eventually get beyond the custom specialty AI programming and figure out how to power the robots with the efficiency of potato chips and Hershey bars rather than lithium. They can survive in space and be sent to Mars or other stars to procreate. They may not have consciousness, but is that necessary for it to be called "life"?


----------



## RWS

toobfreak said:


> I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.



Thank you.

All you were saying is that you were being an ass. But you agree with the general principle of a race capable of building a spaceship.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> My hope is we can send the atheists/commies to Canada .



I'm Cuban, and I'm an atheist. And I would love to be Communist. But I can't...

My version of Communism is different than yours though.


----------



## RWS

Open O Sesame....


----------



## RWS

Cuban music for you to enjoy.


----------



## zaangalewa

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



Scientology is not a religion. Scientology is a criminal organisation, nothing else. Second: 250times smarter ETs with an individual lifespan of 10,000 years are doing wars  on planets in the size of Jupiter with populations of hundreds of billions? Smart? What means smart? Third: The universe is damned big. And I do not have the feeling in a radius of 1000 lightyears around the Earth we noticed anything, what we could call an artificial signal. Fourth: What says  your classification "a nearly endless number of planets"(10^21 planets when I counted right - and your link is btw without relevance). Also in our own solar system is practically all matter dead - the mass of the biosphere of planet Earth is nearly nothing.

Your problem is the calculation "~0*~oo". The calculaion "nearly no chance times nearly endless possibilities" gives a concrete result. But which one? No one is able to know this. We know that we exist, so we know intelligent life is possible. That's all what we know. Everything else is science fiction.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Scientology is not a religion.


Says you. The people in it say it is.


----------



## RWS

I'm an UFO enthusiast, but I don't believe Scientology. That's crazy....


----------



## RWS

But actually it's better than the the trilogy religions


----------



## RWS

When deciding upon your religion, you have to decide if you're really smart or really dumb. It's tough to do that as a baby, but later on you should be able to make a decision...

If you're really smart, you're going to make up your own stuff that makes sense for your intelligence level and your observations.

If you're really dumb, you're just going to follow the shit that's been spoon-fed to you since birth and ignore the observations.


----------



## RWS

What is this?!? When did it exist? And did humans exist at the same time? Are you really smart? Or really dumb? 

Let's figure it out!


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientology is not a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. The people in it say it is.
Click to expand...


What changes nothing in the fact, that scientology is not a religion but a criminal organisation - and only a criminal organisation - and nothing else. That victims of mind manipulations feel guilty for the crimes they have to suffer on their own, is only one of the brainwashing antihuman slavery methods of the criminal organisation scientology. Scientologists are in general the worst slave holders - whether they are slaves on their own or not. But the very worst criminals are in leading positions of scientology. Every leading idiot of scientology - on whatever  level - knows very well on his own that he speaks and is doing a criminal bullshit only on reason to get the money and manpower of their victims and to make them to slaves of scientology.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> What is this?!? When did it exist? And did humans exist at the same time? Are you really smart? Or really dumb?
> 
> Let's figure it out!



This is Hugo. A nice guy, says his girlfriend. You and he have a common ancestor. And other descendents of the common ancestor with this creature honored him by founding the band T-Rex. And again others of the descendents of the common ancestor tried to flee this whole situation with a Zeppelin.


----------



## zaangalewa

percysunshine said:


> View attachment 288910



Oh by the way: The oldest campfire ever was found was 1.5 million years old. Could be even about 2 million years ago our ancestors started to use camp fires.


----------



## zaangalewa

toobfreak said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
Click to expand...


Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.

And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> that scientology is not a religion but a criminal organisation


Oh, it's both...


----------



## Flash

talksalot said:


> There's probably microscopic organisms out there, but probably not like life on earth.  Too many things have to come together perfectly to reproduce an environment like ours.




There is a very good book that talks about that.

Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia

_*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*_

The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. The book also suggests that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.

The book also argues that due to the immense size of the universe, even if another habitable planet like Earth _does_ exist elsewhere, and that the Earth is not the _only_ planet in the universe with complex life, such planets would still only appear in relatively small numbers compared to planets that are habitable only to bacteria, and would most likely be too far away for any intelligent life, if they exist, to make contact with each other as well as with our own planet, as the vast distances between those planets would essentially isolate them, and by the time any signals reach their destination, the planet the signal originated from may no longer be habitable anymore except for at least bacteria, and whatever life that sent said signal may already be extinct, making any form of contact with each other useless. Finally, the book serves as a warning about the current degradation of the Earth's biosphere due to human activities, where it suggests that if humans destroy a significant portion of animal life on Earth, then they would also destroy that same amount of that kind of life in the entire universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> talksalot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's probably microscopic organisms out there, but probably not like life on earth.  Too many things have to come together perfectly to reproduce an environment like ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very good book that talks about that.
> 
> Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia
> 
> _*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*_
> 
> The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. The book also suggests that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
> 
> The book also argues that due to the immense size of the universe, even if another habitable planet like Earth _does_ exist elsewhere, and that the Earth is not the _only_ planet in the universe with complex life, such planets would still only appear in relatively small numbers compared to planets that are habitable only to bacteria, and would most likely be too far away for any intelligent life, if they exist, to make contact with each other as well as with our own planet, as the vast distances between those planets would essentially isolate them, and by the time any signals reach their destination, the planet the signal originated from may no longer be habitable anymore except for at least bacteria, and whatever life that sent said signal may already be extinct, making any form of contact with each other useless. Finally, the book serves as a warning about the current degradation of the Earth's biosphere due to human activities, where it suggests that if humans destroy a significant portion of animal life on Earth, then they would also destroy that same amount of that kind of life in the entire universe.
Click to expand...

Even if "rare", that could still mean literally trillions of examples of complex life in the history of our universe.


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.
> 
> And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.
Click to expand...




zaangalewa said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.
> 
> And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.
Click to expand...

But that body formation has to be capable of building the things necessary to create a spaceship. A mass of lump cells can't do that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

I don't care whether there is life on other planets, can't we ship the democrats to one anyway?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> I don't care whether there is life on other planets, can't we ship the democrats to one anyway?


Good god you freak, are 5 billion crybaby right wing jackass threads not enough for you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> talksalot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's probably microscopic organisms out there, but probably not like life on earth.  Too many things have to come together perfectly to reproduce an environment like ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very good book that talks about that.
> 
> Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia
> 
> _*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*_
> 
> The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. The book also suggests that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
> 
> The book also argues that due to the immense size of the universe, even if another habitable planet like Earth _does_ exist elsewhere, and that the Earth is not the _only_ planet in the universe with complex life, such planets would still only appear in relatively small numbers compared to planets that are habitable only to bacteria, and would most likely be too far away for any intelligent life, if they exist, to make contact with each other as well as with our own planet, as the vast distances between those planets would essentially isolate them, and by the time any signals reach their destination, the planet the signal originated from may no longer be habitable anymore except for at least bacteria, and whatever life that sent said signal may already be extinct, making any form of contact with each other useless. Finally, the book serves as a warning about the current degradation of the Earth's biosphere due to human activities, where it suggests that if humans destroy a significant portion of animal life on Earth, then they would also destroy that same amount of that kind of life in the entire universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if "rare", that could still mean literally trillions of examples of complex life in the history of our universe.
Click to expand...


Yep, and zero chance you or anyone else would ever know of them.

Aliens have replaced angels in the weak minded.


----------



## RWS

Seems far more obvious than angels.

Why do angels have a halo? A bright glowing circle above them?


----------



## RWS

What are they trying to represent?


----------



## RWS




----------



## RWS

This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.


----------



## RWS




----------



## RWS

Notice the two serpents, epithets of Enki.


----------



## RWS

Flying disc, with intertwining serpents representing our Lord and Creator Enki. The Lord of Science and Medicine. In a DNA formation. This is not new knowledge, it is old knowledge. Predating the Bible by a few thousand years. But it is the symbol of medicine in modern  and ancient times.


----------



## RWS

This is Enki in Sumerian texts....the intertwining snake that created us...


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> that scientology is not a religion but a criminal organisation
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's both...
Click to expand...


Scientology is a criminal organisation - and nothing else.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.
> 
> And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.
> 
> And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that body formation has to be capable of building the things necessary to create a spaceship. A mass of lump cells can't do that.
Click to expand...


?


----------



## toobfreak

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.
> 
> And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toob, you like to parade yourself like you're mister science expert, and insulting people left and right who haven't done shit to you yet. Who the fuck made you the science guru on this board?
> 
> You need to calm down!
> 
> Sometimes I say things in jest, they're not to be taken seriously. But shit... you not only attack me, but you attack everyone! As much as Bond and I disagree and insult each other, at least we have a history.
> 
> I don't really care how smart you think you are, the reality is you sound like a pompous ass, using your keyboard muscles to make your penis seem bigger.
> 
> Keep in mind you have 16,000 more posts than me, and I've been here 4 years longer than you. So as far as pathetic keyboard worlds, you win that category.
> 
> So, tell me what your idea of what an alien life-form that traveled to Earth in a spaceship would possibly look like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.
> 
> And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that body formation has to be capable of building the things necessary to create a spaceship. A mass of lump cells can't do that.
Click to expand...


How do you KNOW that?  Isn't that just the height of hubris?  You say that only because the only material science and technology we know for building ships is OURS, based on what is ideal for our bodies.  Did you ever stop to think that a totally different intelligent lifeform would develop a totally different material science and technology-------- ESPECIALLY if its physical environment which made it totally alien was so different as well from ours to begin with?


----------



## Flash

RWS said:


> Seems far more obvious than angels.
> 
> Why do angels have a halo? A bright glowing circle above them?



Because Medieval artists painted pictures of them having the halos.


----------



## james bond

Uncensored2008 said:


> I don't care whether there is life on other planets, can't we ship the democrats to one anyway?



The technology isn't there to send colonies to another planet.  I'd settle for Canada; it's perfect for them.  What would be even better is to East Canada and West Canada and ship them to the East.


----------



## james bond

toobfreak said:


> How do you KNOW that? Isn't that just the height of hubris? You say that only because the only material science and technology we know for building ships is OURS, based on what is ideal for our bodies. Did you ever stop to think that a totally different intelligent lifeform would develop a totally different material science and technology-------- ESPECIALLY if its physical environment which made it totally alien was so different as well from ours to begin with?



Both of you are ignoring the fine tuning facts.  These are life conditions that the evolution scientists found when exploring the big bang.  It means life is rare or non-existent even in our universe.  Theories cannot override facts.  Look at the evidence.  We have not found any semblance of life elsewhere in over 70 years of sending probes and SETI.  There are also theories on why intelligent life hasn't been found.  If there were, then we would've been contacted or found them by now.  Thus, the theorietical physicists have already gone to the multiverse hypothesis.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


>



You are getting carried away (not literally ) by this stuff.  Halos are not in the Bible, but human depictions of supernatural figures that caught on with the artists.

As for the UFO/UAPs depicted if that's what they are, they are evidence what creation scientists consider as works of Satan and demons.


----------



## luchitociencia

I think a new planet has been discovered recently, so now the counting is 1000000000000000000001

Religion -at least the bible- won't mention about life in other planets because such is not the purpose of those writings, like traffic laws won't mention about worms or roaches.

The situation here is that scientists are looking life in other places of the universe using our living existence as their base for comparison. 

Big mistake.

Worst is when they base their search in good for nothing theories, like saying the big bang, a theory which really makes no sense at all. This theory has as its genesis the existence of a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing which -who knows how- started to "expand" by itself.

A microscopic particle from which galaxies have been formed is the most delightful fantasy ever been invented as "the beginning of the universe". Every time a see a dust particle I'm afraid it will expand by itself and its growing will expels me out of my room.

Scientists also look for other civilizations which will see like we do, or read like we do, use mathematics like we do, and etc. In other words, not only they have the rule of humanizing the possible appearance and behavior of beings from other places but also they expect for them to use the same methods for reaching a culture.

And more important than anything. Traveling to outer space harms the human body. Contrary to what superfluous theories claim that space traveling will dilate time and astronauts will live "longer", even when the assumption that the astronaut who stayed almost a complete year in the space station has returned "a thousandth of a second younger, the truth is that he returned much older than if he stays living normally on earth. He was forced to retire after that trip, his body was no longer healthy enough for going to space neither for 30 minutes. 

As average, a 40 years healthy astronaut who stays 6 months at the space station returns with osteoporosis of a 70 years old man. And this is nothing, they came back also with several diseases and health conditions, like poor production of red blood cells and more.

We have this main problem which is practically the main reason of why this travel to Mars is just a nice dream, nothing but a nice dream.

If we love this style of comparing ourselves when looking for other civilizations beyond our solar system, then we must understand that those beings have exactly the same problem like us with space traveling.

Reality is telling us that we are isolated by some reason, but surely we are isolated. By now can't go further than the space station around earth and survive healthy and be capable to continue living thru generations..


----------



## RWS

toobfreak said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.
> 
> And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down little jellybean.    It doesn't take a "science expert" to know your theories on life in space are garbage!  Or that being a "Jello" life form would be an advantage over us, where jello can deform under G force with no harm to any shape while we would be splatter on the wall.  There are two kinds of people in this world RWS, those that know more than they tell, and the many found on this board like you who tell more than they know!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...but i would like to know how an undifferentiated blob forms thoughts, or metabolizes food, or performs specific functions without differentiated structures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said an undifferentiated blob was a space alien ship traveler.  Eukaryotes formed here over 2 billion years ago.  Why can't a space alien be a blob without a spine (kind of like Yaphit on The Orville) and still have specialized cells?  You are asking questions no one can answer without having traveled all over the galaxy to see many advanced life forms elsewhere.  I think most will take on a general pattern similar to ours;  there is a reason why nature chose our form.  All I was saying is that being a blob might make it easier not harder to endure space travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our descendants could for example become a kind of cellular lumps without any intelligence - but with the ability to resist in a poisened environment. That's as possible as anything else. Evolution has no targets.
> 
> And multicellular organisms exist since about 600 million years on Earth. Single cells existed before yet about 3.6 billion years. So the first 6 days of the life of life on planet Earth we were single cells, but since Sunday - or better to say since Sabbat - we are multi-cellular organisms. An I'm sure god would say:_ "And so it is good." _Today a single cell needs_ - _with the help of another single cell - only 9 month to create the body of a new multicellular human being during gestation.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that body formation has to be capable of building the things necessary to create a spaceship. A mass of lump cells can't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you KNOW that?  Isn't that just the height of hubris?  You say that only because the only material science and technology we know for building ships is OURS, based on what is ideal for our bodies.  Did you ever stop to think that a totally different intelligent lifeform would develop a totally different material science and technology-------- ESPECIALLY if its physical environment which made it totally alien was so different as well from ours to begin with?
Click to expand...


----------



## RWS

You said yourself before that nature (evolution) would prefer a body type like ours to be able to build a spaceship. We're talking about building a spaceship, not just random life. They need some requisites in order to dig up, mine, and forge metal in order to make the electronics and exterior of the spaceship.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are getting carried away (not literally ) by this stuff.  Halos are not in the Bible, but human depictions of supernatural figures that caught on with the artists.
> 
> As for the UFO/UAPs depicted if that's what they are, they are evidence what creation scientists consider as works of Satan and demons.
Click to expand...

Lol


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> You said yourself before that nature (evolution) would prefer a body type like ours to be able to build a spaceship. We're talking about building a spaceship, not just random life.



We talk about the possibility of life in the universe. Voyager 1+2 (had started in 1977 and 4 years later, when I remember well) had left the solar system (helioshere) and had passed the heliopause. Now they are in the interstellar space. Astonishing results sent us their nearly blind "eyes". Whatever. The interstellar space and its particles seem to be much more deadly than it is the heliosphere. So we can say we need a minimum of three shields for our survival: The heliosphere, our own magnetic field and the atmosphere. But we need also Jupiter as a sheild - and who knows how many other unkown shields we may need. Could be for example an intelligent species - if it exists, what no one knows  - needs a home planet with a sun in the size of our own sun or greater. Most suns are more little, I heard.



> They need some requisites in order to dig up, mine, and forge metal in order to make the electronics and exterior of the spaceship.



The science fiction ideas of US-Americans are often very violent (=western in space) and militaristic (=commando structure of a submarine). In case of this science fiction, which I read a very long time ago, mankind just simple degenerated genetically, because of the own mistakes, which it made in context with the environment of planet Earth - and another species found this out. Such a story is not able to be a film, because while reading the whole time you will think you are a human being of the future, who studies the history and mistakes of aliens - but in the end you will find out, you are an alien, who studies, what will happen with us in the future of our own planet.


----------



## RWS

I like your comment but it has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial race that can build a spaceship capable of traveling here.

The point is that that race will probably be humanoid in form, in order to do the things necessary to build a spaceship and still follow evolutionary principles of conservation.

I don't even think that "gray aliens" (as depicted) can do it as they're much too skinny. Unless they're at the point where production is all machined and  automated and they can lose muscle mass.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> I like your comment but it has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial race that can build a spaceship capable of traveling here.
> 
> The point is that that race will probably be humanoid in form, in order to do the things necessary to build a spaceship and still follow evolutionary principles of conservation.
> 
> I don't even think that "gray aliens" (as depicted) can do it as they're much too skinny. Unless they're at the point where production is all machined and  automated and they can lose muscle mass.


Why would aliens be humanoid?


----------



## Flash

Uncensored2008 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> talksalot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's probably microscopic organisms out there, but probably not like life on earth.  Too many things have to come together perfectly to reproduce an environment like ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very good book that talks about that.
> 
> Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia
> 
> _*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*_
> 
> The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. The book also suggests that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
> 
> The book also argues that due to the immense size of the universe, even if another habitable planet like Earth _does_ exist elsewhere, and that the Earth is not the _only_ planet in the universe with complex life, such planets would still only appear in relatively small numbers compared to planets that are habitable only to bacteria, and would most likely be too far away for any intelligent life, if they exist, to make contact with each other as well as with our own planet, as the vast distances between those planets would essentially isolate them, and by the time any signals reach their destination, the planet the signal originated from may no longer be habitable anymore except for at least bacteria, and whatever life that sent said signal may already be extinct, making any form of contact with each other useless. Finally, the book serves as a warning about the current degradation of the Earth's biosphere due to human activities, where it suggests that if humans destroy a significant portion of animal life on Earth, then they would also destroy that same amount of that kind of life in the entire universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if "rare", that could still mean literally trillions of examples of complex life in the history of our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and zero chance you or anyone else would ever know of them.
> 
> Aliens have replaced angels in the weak minded.
Click to expand...



It is because of 100 years of being brainwashed by Science Fiction.

You can hardly turn on the TV and not see at least three or four shows about aliens.  Anytime you go to a movie theater with multiple screens at least one movie will be  Science Fiction.  Thousands and thousands of books.

With all the exposure to this fictitious idea of aliens it is no wonder everybody believes in crap like that.

The harsh reality is that the universe seems to be pretty hostile to life.  In addition the distances between stars presents a formidable barrier to any possible exploration of other star systems.  At least with the technology we know of now.


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> talksalot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's probably microscopic organisms out there, but probably not like life on earth.  Too many things have to come together perfectly to reproduce an environment like ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very good book that talks about that.
> 
> Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia
> 
> _*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*_
> 
> The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. The book also suggests that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
> 
> The book also argues that due to the immense size of the universe, even if another habitable planet like Earth _does_ exist elsewhere, and that the Earth is not the _only_ planet in the universe with complex life, such planets would still only appear in relatively small numbers compared to planets that are habitable only to bacteria, and would most likely be too far away for any intelligent life, if they exist, to make contact with each other as well as with our own planet, as the vast distances between those planets would essentially isolate them, and by the time any signals reach their destination, the planet the signal originated from may no longer be habitable anymore except for at least bacteria, and whatever life that sent said signal may already be extinct, making any form of contact with each other useless. Finally, the book serves as a warning about the current degradation of the Earth's biosphere due to human activities, where it suggests that if humans destroy a significant portion of animal life on Earth, then they would also destroy that same amount of that kind of life in the entire universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if "rare", that could still mean literally trillions of examples of complex life in the history of our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and zero chance you or anyone else would ever know of them.
> 
> Aliens have replaced angels in the weak minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is because of 100 years of being brainwashed by Science Fiction.
> 
> You can hardly turn on the TV and not see at least three or four shows about aliens.  Anytime you go to a movie theater with multiple screens at least one movie will be  Science Fiction.  Thousands and thousands of books.
> 
> With all the exposure to this fictitious idea of aliens it is no wonder everybody believes in crap like that.
> 
> The harsh reality is that the universe seems to be pretty hostile to life.  In addition the distances between stars presents a formidable barrier to any possible exploration of other star systems.  At least with the technology we know of now.
Click to expand...


We are the aliens


----------



## Flash

Frannie said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> We are the aliens



This is my planet of origin.


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> We are the aliens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my planet of origin.
Click to expand...

But was your origin this planet?

No one knows.

Do you believe you are the product of a dna writing pond


----------



## Flash

Frannie said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> We are the aliens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my planet of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But was your origin this planet?
> 
> No one knows.
> 
> Do you believe you are the product of a dna writing pond
Click to expand...



I know Democrats are all from Pluto but as far as I know I was born on Earth.  At least that is what my parents told me.


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> We are the aliens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my planet of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But was your origin this planet?
> 
> No one knows.
> 
> Do you believe you are the product of a dna writing pond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know Democrats are all from Pluto but as far as I know I was born on Earth.  At least that is what my parents told me.
Click to expand...

But did humans evolve entirely on Earth? 

I know you understand the question, so why are you avoiding facing your thoughts


----------



## Flash

Frannie said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> We are the aliens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my planet of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But was your origin this planet?
> 
> No one knows.
> 
> Do you believe you are the product of a dna writing pond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know Democrats are all from Pluto but as far as I know I was born on Earth.  At least that is what my parents told me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But did humans evolve entirely on Earth?
> 
> I know you understand the question, so why are you avoiding facing your thoughts
Click to expand...



Everything that I know says they did.  Do you know something I don't?


----------



## justoffal

fncceo said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
Click to expand...


Beat me to it ...

It's all nonsense anyway.
It would take us two hundred thousand years to travel to the nearest star system nevermind the nearest galaxy.

You're quite correct about Jupiter what the top poster  forgot to mention is that of that number of discovered or actually estimated planets most of them are the uninhabitable type; only a very small percentage are Earth-like.  Those are so far away there's a good chance they don't even exist anymore. People seem to forget then when something is a billion light years away that means you're seeing it today as it was a billion years ago. 

Until we solve the dilemma of the extreme distance factor in the cosmos around us we might as well settle on the fact that for all intents and purposes we are alone and will remain that way.

Jo


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> We are the aliens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my planet of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But was your origin this planet?
> 
> No one knows.
> 
> Do you believe you are the product of a dna writing pond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know Democrats are all from Pluto but as far as I know I was born on Earth.  At least that is what my parents told me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But did humans evolve entirely on Earth?
> 
> I know you understand the question, so why are you avoiding facing your thoughts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everything that I know says they did.  Do you know something I don't?
Click to expand...


Yes I do know something that you don't, which is that you know nothing.  I am not being rude just pointing out that no one knows anything about this topic and nothing you can claim will change this


----------



## Flash

Frannie said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Yes I do know something that you don't, which is that you know nothing.  I am not being rude just pointing out that no one knows anything about this topic and nothing you can claim will change this




I have been told by Biologists that I share 90+% of my DNA with most other animal life on earth.

Are they lying to me?

What is that you know that I don't?


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> Yes I do know something that you don't, which is that you know nothing.  I am not being rude just pointing out that no one knows anything about this topic and nothing you can claim will change this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been told by Biologists that I share 90+% of my DNA with most other animal life on earth.
> 
> Are they lying to me?
> 
> What is that you know that I don't?
Click to expand...

That just means we were all made from the same stuff by the same maker.

All cars have round rubber tires, why? Because the part works.

You still miss the point which is that no one has an explanation for how DNA wrote itself in a dead pond as the simplest life form has several thousand genes and not even 1 could ever form at random


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> That just means we were all made from the same stuff by the same maker.


No it doesn't. 

Frannie the Sock Troll: "we dont know anything about this"

Also Frannie the Sock Troll: "i know everything about this"

 Frannie, your idiotic trolling has not been missed.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just means we were all made from the same stuff by the same maker.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> Frannie the Sock Troll: "we dont know anything about this"
> 
> Also Frannie the Sock Troll: "i know everything about this"
> 
> Frannie, your idiotic trolling has not been missed.
Click to expand...

Ok genius tell us what you believe you know about the initial origin of life on Earth.

Be specific?

The truth piss you off kiddy


----------



## Uncensored2008

james bond said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care whether there is life on other planets, can't we ship the democrats to one anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The technology isn't there to send colonies to another planet.  I'd settle for Canada; it's perfect for them.  What would be even better is to East Canada and West Canada and ship them to the East.
Click to expand...


Load Lying Schitt and the other Communists in the house on a rocket to mars with a hammer and a pile of cardboard. Let them make the best of it.... Hey, mice are cute, democrats are expendable.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just means we were all made from the same stuff by the same maker.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> Frannie the Sock Troll: "we dont know anything about this"
> 
> Also Frannie the Sock Troll: "i know everything about this"
> 
> Frannie, your idiotic trolling has not been missed.
Click to expand...


Simple.

People want to believe in angels. 

We have just recast angels as aliens.

Same mindset behind both - and both are complete fantasy.
If there is life on other planets, we'll never know it. Life elsewhere may be so alien we couldn't even recognize it as life. Life may not even exist in our dimension. Star Trek is just fantasy to replace religion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> Simple.
> 
> People want to believe in angels.
> 
> We have just recast angels as aliens.


No, that's A stupid guess.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> People want to believe in angels.
> 
> We have just recast angels as aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's A stupid guess.
Click to expand...


No, that's an obvious fact.

The desire to believe in superior beings is strong in people.


----------



## Flash

Frannie said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> Yes I do know something that you don't, which is that you know nothing.  I am not being rude just pointing out that no one knows anything about this topic and nothing you can claim will change this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been told by Biologists that I share 90+% of my DNA with most other animal life on earth.
> 
> Are they lying to me?
> 
> What is that you know that I don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means we were all made from the same stuff by the same maker.
> 
> All cars have round rubber tires, why? Because the part works.
> 
> You still miss the point which is that no one has an explanation for how DNA wrote itself in a dead pond as the simplest life form has several thousand genes and not even 1 could ever form at random
Click to expand...



I agree that we don't know how life was created out of chemistry.

If that is the point you are trying to make then we have no disagreement.

However, if your point is that some alien planted human DNA on earth then we are not in agreement.


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> Yes I do know something that you don't, which is that you know nothing.  I am not being rude just pointing out that no one knows anything about this topic and nothing you can claim will change this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been told by Biologists that I share 90+% of my DNA with most other animal life on earth.
> 
> Are they lying to me?
> 
> What is that you know that I don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means we were all made from the same stuff by the same maker.
> 
> All cars have round rubber tires, why? Because the part works.
> 
> You still miss the point which is that no one has an explanation for how DNA wrote itself in a dead pond as the simplest life form has several thousand genes and not even 1 could ever form at random
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we don't know how life was created out of chemistry.
> 
> If that is the point you are trying to make then we have no disagreement.
> 
> However, if your point is that some alien planted human DNA on earth then we are not in agreement.
Click to expand...

Why do aliens seem strange to you.  After all wherever we go we will be the alien life and we must set up new ecosystems to provide food.

Can you find any fault in this?

Also dna is not really chemistry as we know it.  DNA is chemistry controlled by a molecular code that actually controls the reactions


----------



## Flash

Frannie said:


> [
> 
> Why do aliens seem strange to you.  After all wherever we go we will be the alien life and we must set up new ecosystems to provide food.
> 
> Can you find any fault in this?
> 
> Also dna is not really chemistry as we know it.  DNA is chemistry controlled by a molecular code that actually controls the reactions



I have never seen an alien.  

The only life that I know exist in the universe is here on earth.

If you have proof it exist elsewhere then please post the proof.

How Chemistry turns into Biology is one of the great mysteries of science right now.    We may never figure it out for all we know.


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your comment but it has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial race that can build a spaceship capable of traveling here.
> 
> The point is that that race will probably be humanoid in form, in order to do the things necessary to build a spaceship and still follow evolutionary principles of conservation.
> 
> I don't even think that "gray aliens" (as depicted) can do it as they're much too skinny. Unless they're at the point where production is all machined and  automated and they can lose muscle mass.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would aliens be humanoid?
Click to expand...

Frannie, you gotta read, I'm not gonna repeat stuff for you because it's already been done several times.


----------



## RWS

Flash said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> talksalot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's probably microscopic organisms out there, but probably not like life on earth.  Too many things have to come together perfectly to reproduce an environment like ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very good book that talks about that.
> 
> Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia
> 
> _*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*_
> 
> The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. The book also suggests that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
> 
> The book also argues that due to the immense size of the universe, even if another habitable planet like Earth _does_ exist elsewhere, and that the Earth is not the _only_ planet in the universe with complex life, such planets would still only appear in relatively small numbers compared to planets that are habitable only to bacteria, and would most likely be too far away for any intelligent life, if they exist, to make contact with each other as well as with our own planet, as the vast distances between those planets would essentially isolate them, and by the time any signals reach their destination, the planet the signal originated from may no longer be habitable anymore except for at least bacteria, and whatever life that sent said signal may already be extinct, making any form of contact with each other useless. Finally, the book serves as a warning about the current degradation of the Earth's biosphere due to human activities, where it suggests that if humans destroy a significant portion of animal life on Earth, then they would also destroy that same amount of that kind of life in the entire universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if "rare", that could still mean literally trillions of examples of complex life in the history of our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and zero chance you or anyone else would ever know of them.
> 
> Aliens have replaced angels in the weak minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is because of 100 years of being brainwashed by Science Fiction.
> 
> You can hardly turn on the TV and not see at least three or four shows about aliens.  Anytime you go to a movie theater with multiple screens at least one movie will be  Science Fiction.  Thousands and thousands of books.
> 
> With all the exposure to this fictitious idea of aliens it is no wonder everybody believes in crap like that.
> 
> The harsh reality is that the universe seems to be pretty hostile to life.  In addition the distances between stars presents a formidable barrier to any possible exploration of other star systems.  At least with the technology we know of now.
Click to expand...

The fact that people prefer aliens over god, should be a sign.

Because our gods were alien. No matter what religion you believe. They're not from this planet.


----------



## Flash

RWS said:


> [
> 
> 
> Because our gods were alien. No matter what religion you believe. They're not from this planet.



The concept of God is that of the maker of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.

Aliens, well they are just something out of a Science Fiction book.  The key word there being fiction.

Kinda different.


----------



## captkaos

rightwinger said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most planets with life on them would have creatures of the complexity of slime
Click to expand...


So you have been to Washington D.C. lots of slimy swamp creatures there but the number is dwindling before our eyes. "Career Diplomats" are being exposed as the power brokers in the Deep State.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your comment but it has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial race that can build a spaceship capable of traveling here.
> 
> The point is that that race will probably be humanoid in form, in order to do the things necessary to build a spaceship and still follow evolutionary principles of conservation.
> 
> I don't even think that "gray aliens" (as depicted) can do it as they're much too skinny. Unless they're at the point where production is all machined and  automated and they can lose muscle mass.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would aliens be humanoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frannie, you gotta read, I'm not gonna repeat stuff for you because it's already been done several times.
Click to expand...

Actually I would be a moron if I read the ramblings of a lunatic who knows what aliens are.

CIAO


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Why do aliens seem strange to you.  After all wherever we go we will be the alien life and we must set up new ecosystems to provide food.
> 
> Can you find any fault in this?
> 
> Also dna is not really chemistry as we know it.  DNA is chemistry controlled by a molecular code that actually controls the reactions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen an alien.
> 
> The only life that I know exist in the universe is here on earth.
> 
> If you have proof it exist elsewhere then please post the proof.
> 
> How Chemistry turns into Biology is one of the great mysteries of science right now.    We may never figure it out for all we know.
Click to expand...

You have seen an alien, this man was an alien to the moon...…………

Really

See it's all perspective


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Because our gods were alien. No matter what religion you believe. They're not from this planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of God is that of the maker of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.
> 
> Aliens, well they are just something out of a Science Fiction book.  The key word there being fiction.
> 
> Kinda different.
Click to expand...

Again this man was an alien to the moon, when we find another planet we are the aliens.

Grow up you are shortsighted and wrong


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your comment but it has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial race that can build a spaceship capable of traveling here.
> 
> The point is that that race will probably be humanoid in form, in order to do the things necessary to build a spaceship and still follow evolutionary principles of conservation.
> 
> I don't even think that "gray aliens" (as depicted) can do it as they're much too skinny. Unless they're at the point where production is all machined and  automated and they can lose muscle mass.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would aliens be humanoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frannie, you gotta read, I'm not gonna repeat stuff for you because it's already been done several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I would be a moron if I read the ramblings of a lunatic who knows what aliens are.
> 
> CIAO
Click to expand...


The discussion of why they would be humanoid in shape has already been discussed and settled. The fact that you don't want to read it, is your problem. I'm not your slave. Asshole...


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Why do aliens seem strange to you.  After all wherever we go we will be the alien life and we must set up new ecosystems to provide food.
> 
> Can you find any fault in this?
> 
> Also dna is not really chemistry as we know it.  DNA is chemistry controlled by a molecular code that actually controls the reactions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen an alien.
> 
> The only life that I know exist in the universe is here on earth.
> 
> If you have proof it exist elsewhere then please post the proof.
> 
> How Chemistry turns into Biology is one of the great mysteries of science right now.    We may never figure it out for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have seen an alien, this man was an alien to the moon...…………
> 
> Really
> 
> See it's all perspective
Click to expand...

lol, just let bond and the other person speak for you.... No need to join this conversation based on that post. I don't want to be mean....


----------



## Unkotare

Uncensored2008 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> People want to believe in angels.
> 
> We have just recast angels as aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's A stupid guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's an obvious fact.
> 
> The desire to believe in superior beings is strong in people.
Click to expand...



That’s why I’m here.


----------



## RWS

Unkotare said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> People want to believe in angels.
> 
> We have just recast angels as aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's A stupid guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's an obvious fact.
> 
> The desire to believe in superior beings is strong in people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I’m here.
Click to expand...


LOL! Alright, alright! 

Finally God appears on the board to answer all questions we have! 

Question 1: Why did the Beatles break up?


----------



## MAGAman

rightwinger said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="rightwinger
> Superman, like a lot of other Jews, is really good at theoretical physics.
> 
> 
> 
> He could fly around the earth counterclockwise and turn back time
> 
> Superman was not a Jew. He is impossible to circumcise
Click to expand...

You know that's a great observation. 

If he wasn't circumcised on Krypton,  he's got a hoodie after all.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your comment but it has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial race that can build a spaceship capable of traveling here.
> 
> The point is that that race will probably be humanoid in form, in order to do the things necessary to build a spaceship and still follow evolutionary principles of conservation.
> 
> I don't even think that "gray aliens" (as depicted) can do it as they're much too skinny. Unless they're at the point where production is all machined and  automated and they can lose muscle mass.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would aliens be humanoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frannie, you gotta read, I'm not gonna repeat stuff for you because it's already been done several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I would be a moron if I read the ramblings of a lunatic who knows what aliens are.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion of why they would be humanoid in shape has already been discussed and settled. The fact that you don't want to read it, is your problem. I'm not your slave. Asshole...
Click to expand...

LOL you have the shape of aliens settled, is that like accepted science

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Dude take your pills


----------



## MAGAman

RWS said:


> LOL! Alright, alright!
> 
> Finally God appears on the board to answer all questions we have!
> 
> Question 1: Why did the Beatles break up?


Yoko Know.


----------



## Frannie

Unkotare said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> People want to believe in angels.
> 
> We have just recast angels as aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's A stupid guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's an obvious fact.
> 
> The desire to believe in superior beings is strong in people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I’m here.
Click to expand...

Hey the third grade art teacher is back


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Why do aliens seem strange to you.  After all wherever we go we will be the alien life and we must set up new ecosystems to provide food.
> 
> Can you find any fault in this?
> 
> Also dna is not really chemistry as we know it.  DNA is chemistry controlled by a molecular code that actually controls the reactions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen an alien.
> 
> The only life that I know exist in the universe is here on earth.
> 
> If you have proof it exist elsewhere then please post the proof.
> 
> How Chemistry turns into Biology is one of the great mysteries of science right now.    We may never figure it out for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have seen an alien, this man was an alien to the moon...…………
> 
> Really
> 
> See it's all perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, just let bond and the other person speak for you.... No need to join this conversation based on that post. I don't want to be mean....
Click to expand...


So in your anal opinion when humans go to another planet they are not alien there?

Can you explain this concept?

Nope you are humiliated, or would be if you were rational which you can never be

Tell us more about what the aliens look like?


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your comment but it has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial race that can build a spaceship capable of traveling here.
> 
> The point is that that race will probably be humanoid in form, in order to do the things necessary to build a spaceship and still follow evolutionary principles of conservation.
> 
> I don't even think that "gray aliens" (as depicted) can do it as they're much too skinny. Unless they're at the point where production is all machined and  automated and they can lose muscle mass.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would aliens be humanoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frannie, you gotta read, I'm not gonna repeat stuff for you because it's already been done several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I would be a moron if I read the ramblings of a lunatic who knows what aliens are.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion of why they would be humanoid in shape has already been discussed and settled. The fact that you don't want to read it, is your problem. I'm not your slave. Asshole...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you have the shape of aliens settled, is that like accepted science
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Dude take your pills
Click to expand...

Well, read some shit and reply if you disagree.  Don't make me repeat it to you. I'm not your slave. Stop being a lazy religious dickhead...


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Why do aliens seem strange to you.  After all wherever we go we will be the alien life and we must set up new ecosystems to provide food.
> 
> Can you find any fault in this?
> 
> Also dna is not really chemistry as we know it.  DNA is chemistry controlled by a molecular code that actually controls the reactions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen an alien.
> 
> The only life that I know exist in the universe is here on earth.
> 
> If you have proof it exist elsewhere then please post the proof.
> 
> How Chemistry turns into Biology is one of the great mysteries of science right now.    We may never figure it out for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have seen an alien, this man was an alien to the moon...…………
> 
> Really
> 
> See it's all perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, just let bond and the other person speak for you.... No need to join this conversation based on that post. I don't want to be mean....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your anal opinion when humans go to another planet they are not alien there?
> 
> Can you explain this concept?
> 
> Nope you are humiliated, or would be if you were rational which you can never be
> 
> Tell us more about what the aliens look like?
Click to expand...

You're going a little bit out of whack there. All that was said is that aliens, capable of building spaceships and travelling to earth, would probably have a humanoid form. 

Whatever it is that you are bringing this to, means that you're probably a bit whacko. You know, I'm tired of dealing with Bond and ding butt-buddies. 

Attack the theory, not me.


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would aliens be humanoid?
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie, you gotta read, I'm not gonna repeat stuff for you because it's already been done several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I would be a moron if I read the ramblings of a lunatic who knows what aliens are.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion of why they would be humanoid in shape has already been discussed and settled. The fact that you don't want to read it, is your problem. I'm not your slave. Asshole...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you have the shape of aliens settled, is that like accepted science
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Dude take your pills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, read some shit and reply if you disagree.  Don't make me repeat it to you. I'm not your slave. Stop being a lazy religious dickhead...
Click to expand...


So you believe that you are a great writer and that people have to read what you have written in order to be educated.

That is an example of delusional thinking

Delusions of grandeur: Types and symptoms


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Why do aliens seem strange to you.  After all wherever we go we will be the alien life and we must set up new ecosystems to provide food.
> 
> Can you find any fault in this?
> 
> Also dna is not really chemistry as we know it.  DNA is chemistry controlled by a molecular code that actually controls the reactions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen an alien.
> 
> The only life that I know exist in the universe is here on earth.
> 
> If you have proof it exist elsewhere then please post the proof.
> 
> How Chemistry turns into Biology is one of the great mysteries of science right now.    We may never figure it out for all we know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have seen an alien, this man was an alien to the moon...…………
> 
> Really
> 
> See it's all perspective
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol, just let bond and the other person speak for you.... No need to join this conversation based on that post. I don't want to be mean....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your anal opinion when humans go to another planet they are not alien there?
> 
> Can you explain this concept?
> 
> Nope you are humiliated, or would be if you were rational which you can never be
> 
> Tell us more about what the aliens look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going a little bit out of whack there. All that was said is that aliens, capable of building spaceships and travelling to earth, would probably have a humanoid form.
> 
> Whatever it is that you are bringing this to, means that you're probably a bit whacko. You know, I'm tired of dealing with Bond and ding butt-buddies.
> 
> Attack the theory, not me.
Click to expand...


Again your delusions may or not be life threatening, but you should speak to a psychiatrist about how alien space ships are built.  There are medications now


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie, you gotta read, I'm not gonna repeat stuff for you because it's already been done several times.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I would be a moron if I read the ramblings of a lunatic who knows what aliens are.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion of why they would be humanoid in shape has already been discussed and settled. The fact that you don't want to read it, is your problem. I'm not your slave. Asshole...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you have the shape of aliens settled, is that like accepted science
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Dude take your pills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, read some shit and reply if you disagree.  Don't make me repeat it to you. I'm not your slave. Stop being a lazy religious dickhead...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that you are a great writer and that people have to read what you have written in order to be educated.
> 
> That is an example of delusional thinking
> 
> Delusions of grandeur: Types and symptoms
Click to expand...

And you just judge and insult people at your whim. Without reading anything... 

Just because you have internet muscles....

You're an ass.


----------



## RWS

Don't worry, ding or bond will let you know what to say tomorrow....


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I would be a moron if I read the ramblings of a lunatic who knows what aliens are.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of why they would be humanoid in shape has already been discussed and settled. The fact that you don't want to read it, is your problem. I'm not your slave. Asshole...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you have the shape of aliens settled, is that like accepted science
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Dude take your pills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, read some shit and reply if you disagree.  Don't make me repeat it to you. I'm not your slave. Stop being a lazy religious dickhead...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that you are a great writer and that people have to read what you have written in order to be educated.
> 
> That is an example of delusional thinking
> 
> Delusions of grandeur: Types and symptoms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you just judge and insult people at your whim. Without reading anything...
> 
> Just because you have internet muscles....
> 
> You're an ass.
Click to expand...


OK, tell me more about how space ships are built and the humanoids that build them, just lie back on the couch first and begin with why your mother did that to you...……………..


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of why they would be humanoid in shape has already been discussed and settled. The fact that you don't want to read it, is your problem. I'm not your slave. Asshole...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you have the shape of aliens settled, is that like accepted science
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Dude take your pills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, read some shit and reply if you disagree.  Don't make me repeat it to you. I'm not your slave. Stop being a lazy religious dickhead...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that you are a great writer and that people have to read what you have written in order to be educated.
> 
> That is an example of delusional thinking
> 
> Delusions of grandeur: Types and symptoms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you just judge and insult people at your whim. Without reading anything...
> 
> Just because you have internet muscles....
> 
> You're an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, tell me more about how space ships are built and the humanoids that build them, just lie back on the couch first and begin with why your mother did that to you...……………..
Click to expand...

Shit's been covered. Just read it and stop being a lazy mofo. 

Now you're getting my mother into the discussion.  Why? Are you a teenager?


----------



## RWS

I think you're a little friggin prick, that is just following orders to attack us, with no evidence or knowledge. You're just a forum terrorist idiot working for others.... to further religious/political agendas when they're not around.

You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## RWS

And you have the friggin stupidity to ask what we're talking about, AFTER you insult us for it!

What an idiot! Dude, when I talk to your boys again, I'm recommending you get fired.


----------



## fncceo

MAGAman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="rightwinger
> Superman, like a lot of other Jews, is really good at theoretical physics.
> 
> 
> 
> He could fly around the earth counterclockwise and turn back time
> 
> Superman was not a Jew. He is impossible to circumcise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that's a great observation.
> 
> If he wasn't circumcised on Krypton,  he's got a hoodie after all.
Click to expand...


Jews circumcise boys at 8-days-old, so he definitely would have had his Bris prior to leaving Krypton.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.



I wouldn't worry about those other planets.  The simulation only bothers to populate those "sectors of the universe" when you point a telescope in that direction, and even then it's only background graphics used to maintain player immersion.  At some point the devs might actually use those basic planetary concepts to create new instances and allow off-Earth play, but for the time being, they haven't got the budget for the server updates that would be prerequisite to such an ambitious expansion.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RWS said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> People want to believe in angels.
> 
> We have just recast angels as aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's A stupid guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's an obvious fact.
> 
> The desire to believe in superior beings is strong in people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I’m here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! Alright, alright!
> 
> Finally God appears on the board to answer all questions we have!
> 
> Question 1: Why did the Beatles break up?
Click to expand...


Yoko

Next Question?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Frannie said:


> [
> 
> So in your anal opinion when humans go to another planet they are not alien there?



Not unless their are local populations. Otherwise the planet is an alien landscape.



> Can you explain this concept?



Words have meaning.



> Nope you are humiliated, or would be if you were rational which you can never be
> 
> Tell us more about what the aliens look like?



What do aliens look like?


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you have the shape of aliens settled, is that like accepted science
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Dude take your pills
> 
> 
> 
> Well, read some shit and reply if you disagree.  Don't make me repeat it to you. I'm not your slave. Stop being a lazy religious dickhead...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that you are a great writer and that people have to read what you have written in order to be educated.
> 
> That is an example of delusional thinking
> 
> Delusions of grandeur: Types and symptoms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you just judge and insult people at your whim. Without reading anything...
> 
> Just because you have internet muscles....
> 
> You're an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, tell me more about how space ships are built and the humanoids that build them, just lie back on the couch first and begin with why your mother did that to you...……………..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit's been covered. Just read it and stop being a lazy mofo.
> 
> Now you're getting my mother into the discussion.  Why? Are you a teenager?
Click to expand...


Your mother refers to Freudian analysis, now,

OK, tell me more about how space ships are built and the humanoids that build them, just lie back on the couch first and begin with why your mother did that to you...……………..


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> I think you're a little friggin prick, that is just following orders to attack us, with no evidence or knowledge. You're just a forum terrorist idiot working for others.... to further religious/political agendas when they're not around.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about.


You are right in that I do not understand the humanoids that build the alien ships, so can you explain what you know and how you know this.


----------



## Frannie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So in your anal opinion when humans go to another planet they are not alien there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless their are local populations. Otherwise the planet is an alien landscape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope you are humiliated, or would be if you were rational which you can never be
> 
> Tell us more about what the aliens look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do aliens look like?
Click to expand...


nice hooters, if she wants an abductee I might be available


----------



## Uncensored2008

Frannie said:


> Your mother refers to Freudian analysis, now,
> 
> OK, tell me more about how space ships are built and the humanoids that build them, just lie back on the couch first and begin with why your mother did that to you...……………..



Well, traditionally companies like Rockwell, ATK, Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, et al. would bid to build space ships. Now there are companies like Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin who are also building them.

Humans build them because dolphins show no interest in building them....


----------



## Frannie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your mother refers to Freudian analysis, now,
> 
> OK, tell me more about how space ships are built and the humanoids that build them, just lie back on the couch first and begin with why your mother did that to you...……………..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, traditionally companies like Rockwell, ATK, Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, et al. would bid to build space ships. Now there are companies like Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin who are also building them.
> 
> Humans build them because dolphins show no interest in building them....
Click to expand...


Actually this clown is referring to alien spaceships that in his mind must be built by humanoids.

Now I say again when a human sets foot on another planet they are alien to that place and genetic engineering will help assimilate existing life to the new alien environment.  See the aliens are us clearly in the future but less clearly in the past as well


----------



## talksalot

RWS said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> talksalot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's probably microscopic organisms out there, but probably not like life on earth.  Too many things have to come together perfectly to reproduce an environment like ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very good book that talks about that.
> 
> Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia
> 
> _*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*_
> 
> The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. The book also suggests that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
> 
> The book also argues that due to the immense size of the universe, even if another habitable planet like Earth _does_ exist elsewhere, and that the Earth is not the _only_ planet in the universe with complex life, such planets would still only appear in relatively small numbers compared to planets that are habitable only to bacteria, and would most likely be too far away for any intelligent life, if they exist, to make contact with each other as well as with our own planet, as the vast distances between those planets would essentially isolate them, and by the time any signals reach their destination, the planet the signal originated from may no longer be habitable anymore except for at least bacteria, and whatever life that sent said signal may already be extinct, making any form of contact with each other useless. Finally, the book serves as a warning about the current degradation of the Earth's biosphere due to human activities, where it suggests that if humans destroy a significant portion of animal life on Earth, then they would also destroy that same amount of that kind of life in the entire universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if "rare", that could still mean literally trillions of examples of complex life in the history of our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and zero chance you or anyone else would ever know of them.
> 
> Aliens have replaced angels in the weak minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is because of 100 years of being brainwashed by Science Fiction.
> 
> You can hardly turn on the TV and not see at least three or four shows about aliens.  Anytime you go to a movie theater with multiple screens at least one movie will be  Science Fiction.  Thousands and thousands of books.
> 
> With all the exposure to this fictitious idea of aliens it is no wonder everybody believes in crap like that.
> 
> The harsh reality is that the universe seems to be pretty hostile to life.  In addition the distances between stars presents a formidable barrier to any possible exploration of other star systems.  At least with the technology we know of now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that people prefer aliens over god, should be a sign.
> 
> Because our gods were alien. No matter what religion you believe. They're not from this planet.
Click to expand...

You must watch "Ancient Aliens."  I don't know anyone who believes in alien life visiting Earth or who prefers aliens over God.
God is a supernatural being not an alien being.


----------



## RWS

talksalot said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very good book that talks about that.
> 
> Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia
> 
> _*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*_
> 
> The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. The book also suggests that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
> 
> The book also argues that due to the immense size of the universe, even if another habitable planet like Earth _does_ exist elsewhere, and that the Earth is not the _only_ planet in the universe with complex life, such planets would still only appear in relatively small numbers compared to planets that are habitable only to bacteria, and would most likely be too far away for any intelligent life, if they exist, to make contact with each other as well as with our own planet, as the vast distances between those planets would essentially isolate them, and by the time any signals reach their destination, the planet the signal originated from may no longer be habitable anymore except for at least bacteria, and whatever life that sent said signal may already be extinct, making any form of contact with each other useless. Finally, the book serves as a warning about the current degradation of the Earth's biosphere due to human activities, where it suggests that if humans destroy a significant portion of animal life on Earth, then they would also destroy that same amount of that kind of life in the entire universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if "rare", that could still mean literally trillions of examples of complex life in the history of our universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and zero chance you or anyone else would ever know of them.
> 
> Aliens have replaced angels in the weak minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is because of 100 years of being brainwashed by Science Fiction.
> 
> You can hardly turn on the TV and not see at least three or four shows about aliens.  Anytime you go to a movie theater with multiple screens at least one movie will be  Science Fiction.  Thousands and thousands of books.
> 
> With all the exposure to this fictitious idea of aliens it is no wonder everybody believes in crap like that.
> 
> The harsh reality is that the universe seems to be pretty hostile to life.  In addition the distances between stars presents a formidable barrier to any possible exploration of other star systems.  At least with the technology we know of now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that people prefer aliens over god, should be a sign.
> 
> Because our gods were alien. No matter what religion you believe. They're not from this planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must watch "Ancient Aliens."  I don't know anyone who believes in alien life visiting Earth or who prefers aliens over God.
> God is a supernatural being not an alien being.
Click to expand...

I don't really like Ancient Aliens, honestly. Sometimes it's good, sometimes i just shake my head....

But the premise is correct. Tell me who your god is, and I will tell you where it came from. If it's one of the trilogies... 

And I trust the origin is from Sumer.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> People want to believe in angels.
> 
> We have just recast angels as aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's A stupid guess.
Click to expand...


And what is the intelligent reason for this answer? Even Thor came back as an US-American superhero - what is by the way not any problem for Christians, how for example the name "Thursday" shows. The early Christians had absolutelly not any problem that heathens gave their 7 days of the Jewish time unit "week" names of their gods. An important boost for the Christian religion were by the way also the Greek atheistic philosophers, who were very frustrated about the Greek superheroes - ah sorry: gods. The early Christians were persecuted because of their atheism. Indeed means "god" and "gods" two totally different things. This is by the way a reason, why the most arguments of strange atheists today are very childish.

An excellent interpretation of this text. This text is by the way somehow a very interesting text. For Christians a very inspiring text - for militant atheists more a kind of justification for their blind hate against Christians.

Here by the way a picture of the god, who thrones over us:


----------



## zaangalewa

Uncensored2008 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So in your anal opinion when humans go to another planet they are not alien there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless their are local populations. Otherwise the planet is an alien landscape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope you are humiliated, or would be if you were rational which you can never be
> 
> Tell us more about what the aliens look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do aliens look like?
Click to expand...


Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.


----------



## RWS

This is all I know about nietschie.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> This is all I know about nietschie.



What for heavens sake is this? Ugly! ... Ah: Monthy Python: The British experts in wrong understanding and irreal nonsense. ... Boris Johnson seems to walk in their footsteps now.


----------



## RWS




----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I know about nietschie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What for heavens sake is this? Ugly! ... Ah: Monthy Python: The British experts in wrong understanding and irreal nonsense. ... Boris Johnson seems to walk in their footsteps now.
Click to expand...


No, that's a classic movie, you should watch immediately... I hate British humor, but this is the best! 

A Fish Called Wanda

Watch that!


----------



## RWS

I actually watched the whole movie again. It's that good!


----------



## RWS

I understand what you're saying Genn and I appreciate it, but the question is about them already being here. 

And if they landed on the ground and the doors opened up in their spaceship, what would they look like?


----------



## RWS

O
\!/
    !
/ \


----------



## RWS

that previous guy has probably a bad spine... or is doing a serious dance move.


----------



## Uncensored2008

zaangalewa said:


> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.



Angels are a fantasy. No different than Marvel superheroes. The manifestation of people who desire magical beings who can solve problems not through creativity and ingenuity, but by superpowers that let them just snap their fingers and make everything better.

Whether Angels, little grey aliens, or Superman, it's all the same delusion.


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So in your anal opinion when humans go to another planet they are not alien there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not unless their are local populations. Otherwise the planet is an alien landscape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain this concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope you are humiliated, or would be if you were rational which you can never be
> 
> Tell us more about what the aliens look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do aliens look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.
Click to expand...

Where do you see angels


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I know about nietschie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What for heavens sake is this? Ugly! ... Ah: Monthy Python: The British experts in wrong understanding and irreal nonsense. ... Boris Johnson seems to walk in their footsteps now.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's a classic movie, you should watch immediately... I hate British humor, but this is the best!
> 
> A Fish Called Wanda
> 
> Watch that!
Click to expand...


For sure not. I grow meanwhile angry when I see Monty Python, because idiots made out of their antihistoric nonsense a kind of antichristian ideology - without any form of humor but with a lot of hate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> And what is the intelligent reason for this answer?


For why we imagine aliens? Because it is plausible,even inight of modern knowledge. That's why we arent imagining flaming chariots or dragons.


----------



## zaangalewa

Uncensored2008 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are a fantasy.
Click to expand...


Or not.



> No different than Marvel superheroes.



It's difficult to read a Marvel Comic in a world without time. I don't know how an angel makes this. Anyway we call everyone an angel, who helps other living entities only because they need help - also if he has not any superpower.



> The manifestation of people who desire magical beings who can solve problems not through creativity and ingenuity, but by superpowers that let them just snap their fingers and make everything better.



Strange idea.



> Whether Angels, little grey aliens, or Superman, it's all the same delusion.



When no one believes in Superman, Captain America and/or aliens any longer - then this has not a big effect - perhaps even more positive effects than negative effects. Robin Hood and Wilhelm Tell are anyway still much more important. But when no one believes in angels any longer - and/or likes not to be an angel on the own free will-, then I fear the world will lose a lot. I do not believe in the new capitalistic ideology, that social darwinism and egocentrism will create a wonderful world. _"Everything for me - nothing for others" _will not work.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the intelligent reason for this answer?
> 
> 
> 
> For why we imagine aliens?
Click to expand...


For your comment to call someone stupid, who said: "We have just recast angels as aliens."



> Because it is plausible,even inight of modern knowledge.



Nothing is plausible in context aliens. I love science ficiton - nevertheless science fiction is fantasy and not reality.



> That's why we arent imagining flaming chariots or dragons.



You do not imagine dragons? We do. Since more than 500 years for example we celebrate the "Further Drachenstich". I guess it's the eldest performance in an open land theatre of the world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> For your comment to call someone stupid, who said: "We have just recast angels as aliens."


I didn't. I called the guess stupid. Pay attention...you waste everyone's time with your bad comprehension.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> For your comment to call someone stupid, who said: "We have just recast angels as aliens."
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't. I called the guess stupid.
Click to expand...


And I asked you on what intelligent reason.



> Pay attention...you waste everyone's time with your bad comprehension.



Kill me and your problem is solved. Or learn German - but this needs a little longer.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are a fantasy. No different than Marvel superheroes. The manifestation of people who desire magical beings who can solve problems not through creativity and ingenuity, but by superpowers that let them just snap their fingers and make everything better.
> 
> Whether Angels, little grey aliens, or Superman, it's all the same delusion.
Click to expand...

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence or in other words lack of evidence is not proof one way or the other.  This is a purely scientific statement that unfortunately many cling to as de-facto proof that something may exist or help medically, etc.
Taken in scientific context it's a neutral per se, anything beyond that is simply an opinion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> And I asked you on what intelligent reason.


Because both before and outside the cobcept of "angels", people saw things in the sky and attributed magical/ advanced properties to what they saw. It has nothing to do with wishing angels exist. In fact, these unknown sightings are often negatively interpreted. Demons would be more appropriate, but still way off.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ringel05 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are a fantasy. No different than Marvel superheroes. The manifestation of people who desire magical beings who can solve problems not through creativity and ingenuity, but by superpowers that let them just snap their fingers and make everything better.
> 
> Whether Angels, little grey aliens, or Superman, it's all the same delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence or in other words lack of evidence is not proof one way or the other.  This is a purely scientific statement that unfortunately many cling to as de-facto proof that something may exist or help medically, etc.
> Taken in scientific context it's a neutral per se, anything beyond that is simply an opinion.
Click to expand...


Again. no one educated really doubt that amoeba and bacteria may well exist on other planets. Who knows, multi-cellular life might even exist. Human kind will never know one way or the other. Oh, we might find simple life, but the distances are too great for us to find complex life. AND would we even recognize it if we did? Humanoid life outside our planet is 100% fiction.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are a fantasy. No different than Marvel superheroes. The manifestation of people who desire magical beings who can solve problems not through creativity and ingenuity, but by superpowers that let them just snap their fingers and make everything better.
> 
> Whether Angels, little grey aliens, or Superman, it's all the same delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence or in other words lack of evidence is not proof one way or the other.  This is a purely scientific statement that unfortunately many cling to as de-facto proof that something may exist or help medically, etc.
> Taken in scientific context it's a neutral per se, anything beyond that is simply an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again. no one educated really doubt that amoeba and bacteria may well exist on other planets. Who knows, multi-cellular life might even exist. Human kind will never know one way or the other. Oh, we might find simple life, but the distances are too great for us to find complex life. AND would we even recognize it if we did? Humanoid life outside our planet is 100% fiction.
Click to expand...

I was referring to your use of the word "delusion", it is simply unproven, delusion is a subjective assessment (that even I use on occasion.......  ).


----------



## Frannie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are a fantasy. No different than Marvel superheroes. The manifestation of people who desire magical beings who can solve problems not through creativity and ingenuity, but by superpowers that let them just snap their fingers and make everything better.
> 
> Whether Angels, little grey aliens, or Superman, it's all the same delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence or in other words lack of evidence is not proof one way or the other.  This is a purely scientific statement that unfortunately many cling to as de-facto proof that something may exist or help medically, etc.
> Taken in scientific context it's a neutral per se, anything beyond that is simply an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again. no one educated really doubt that amoeba and bacteria may well exist on other planets. Who knows, multi-cellular life might even exist. Human kind will never know one way or the other. Oh, we might find simple life, but the distances are too great for us to find complex life. AND would we even recognize it if we did? Humanoid life outside our planet is 100% fiction.
Click to expand...

Actually no one intelligent has any reason to believe that life as we know it exist off the earth

Unless life came here from abroad


----------



## Uncensored2008

Frannie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are a fantasy. No different than Marvel superheroes. The manifestation of people who desire magical beings who can solve problems not through creativity and ingenuity, but by superpowers that let them just snap their fingers and make everything better.
> 
> Whether Angels, little grey aliens, or Superman, it's all the same delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence or in other words lack of evidence is not proof one way or the other.  This is a purely scientific statement that unfortunately many cling to as de-facto proof that something may exist or help medically, etc.
> Taken in scientific context it's a neutral per se, anything beyond that is simply an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again. no one educated really doubt that amoeba and bacteria may well exist on other planets. Who knows, multi-cellular life might even exist. Human kind will never know one way or the other. Oh, we might find simple life, but the distances are too great for us to find complex life. AND would we even recognize it if we did? Humanoid life outside our planet is 100% fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no one intelligent has any reason to believe that life as we know it exist off the earth
> 
> Unless life came here from abroad
Click to expand...


Meh.

There is a fair chance single cell life has arisen elsewhere.


----------



## Frannie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are creation - but they don't live in a temporal dimension. We see in them good mights - or evil mights in case of devils. And indeed exist dangers in a wrong interpretation of this what are angels. This is by the way a very nice imagination of an angel. Very sexy. But in the moment I'm not really sure whether angels have a gender or not. For us important are anyway only the messages of their "boss". The normal visualisation will be angels=women, devils=men. It was by the way very funny when some Germans rewrote the bible "in a just language" some years ago, where they replaced all male persons with female persons. Also god became female. But one male person survived this massacre: the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angels are a fantasy. No different than Marvel superheroes. The manifestation of people who desire magical beings who can solve problems not through creativity and ingenuity, but by superpowers that let them just snap their fingers and make everything better.
> 
> Whether Angels, little grey aliens, or Superman, it's all the same delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence or in other words lack of evidence is not proof one way or the other.  This is a purely scientific statement that unfortunately many cling to as de-facto proof that something may exist or help medically, etc.
> Taken in scientific context it's a neutral per se, anything beyond that is simply an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again. no one educated really doubt that amoeba and bacteria may well exist on other planets. Who knows, multi-cellular life might even exist. Human kind will never know one way or the other. Oh, we might find simple life, but the distances are too great for us to find complex life. AND would we even recognize it if we did? Humanoid life outside our planet is 100% fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no one intelligent has any reason to believe that life as we know it exist off the earth
> 
> Unless life came here from abroad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh.
> 
> There is a fair chance single cell life has arisen elsewhere.
Click to expand...


That is not what you said.  You said "Again. no one educated really doubt that amoeba and bacteria may well exist on other planets."

Why would amoebas as we know them evolve elsewhere?

There is no reason to assume this, with all the possibilities


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I asked you on what intelligent reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Because both before and outside the cobcept of "angels", people saw things in the sky and attributed magical/ advanced properties to what they saw. It has nothing to do with wishing angels exist. In fact, these unknown sightings are often negatively interpreted. Demons would be more appropriate, but still way off.
Click to expand...


And what has this to do with aliens and your "stupid"-attack against another user? Do you think this is an intellgent answer to this user? I do not think so. You express tricky, what you believe. I have a totally different opinion about angels and demons (in the normal use of this word today) for example. But I don't see any need to discuss this with you. Angels anyway don't like to be discussed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> And what has this to do with aliens and your "stupid"-attack against another user?


How many times are you going to ask me the same question, you pest?


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what has this to do with aliens and your "stupid"-attack against another user?
> 
> 
> 
> How many times are you going to ask me the same question, you pest?
Click to expand...


It was not a question what I asked. It was a comment about your bad behavior to call people who don't agree with you "stupid", although it was an interesting idea, what this user had said.  So I asked you on what intelligent reason you are doing so. The background is not to tolerate intolerance and my intention was to cause an "aha"-effect in you.

Now you call me here "pest" - what is for me personally for example a very clear indicator for a Nazi-ideology. The next step is to use pesticides or insecticides to kill human beings as the Nazis had done in their gas chambers.

So  why for heavens sake do you speak with anyone at all? Is a mirror not enough?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quid Pro Joe Biden is Corrupt, Trump must be impeached for it.



You are my Friend.  God bless you and expand your territory.

NASA's Gold Record[/QUOTE]


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I know about nietschie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What for heavens sake is this? Ugly! ... Ah: Monthy Python: The British experts in wrong understanding and irreal nonsense. ... Boris Johnson seems to walk in their footsteps now.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's a classic movie, you should watch immediately... I hate British humor, but this is the best!
> 
> A Fish Called Wanda
> 
> Watch that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For sure not. I grow meanwhile angry when I see Monty Python, because idiots made out of their antihistoric nonsense a kind of antichristian ideology - without any form of humor but with a lot of hate.
Click to expand...


I hate Monty Python too. And Benny Hill,... Maybe not for the same reasons, I just never got the British humor. I didn't find it funny. But this is different.... This is American humor. I highly recommend this movie. Please give it a try.


----------



## RWS

Though nowadays, it would probably be deemed politically incorrect in a few ways. But it's friggin funny!


----------



## RWS

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the intelligent reason for this answer?
> 
> 
> 
> For why we imagine aliens? Because it is plausible,even inight of modern knowledge. That's why we arent imagining flaming chariots or dragons.
Click to expand...

It's also why flying angels/gods in bright lights and halos are working magic upon us, in biblical texts 2000 bc. In Sumerian texts they plagiarized, back in 4000 bc, it starts to make sense. Because they were the Anunnaki.


----------



## RWS




----------



## RWS

Gods in a disc, that flew, and could land.

AN.UN.NA.KI means "Those who from the heavens to earth came"


----------



## ChemEngineer

Uncensored2008 said:


> Again. no one educated really doubt that amoeba and bacteria may well exist on other planets. Who knows, multi-cellular life might even exist. Human kind will never know one way or the other.



I am well educated and I "really doubt that amoeba and bacteria" exists outside planet Earth.  I am quite certain of it, in fact. The reason is the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.

1/20 to the x power approaches zero very quickly, and the largest polypeptide in humans is 34,350 amino acid residues in length.

Someone tell me, what is 1/20 to the 34,350th power?


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I know about nietschie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What for heavens sake is this? Ugly! ... Ah: Monthy Python: The British experts in wrong understanding and irreal nonsense. ... Boris Johnson seems to walk in their footsteps now.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's a classic movie, you should watch immediately... I hate British humor, but this is the best!
> 
> A Fish Called Wanda
> 
> Watch that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For sure not. I grow meanwhile angry when I see Monty Python, because idiots made out of their antihistoric nonsense a kind of antichristian ideology - without any form of humor but with a lot of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate Monty Python too. And Benny Hill,... Maybe not for the same reasons, I just never got the British humor. I didn't find it funny. But this is different.... This is American humor. I highly recommend this movie. Please give it a try.
Click to expand...


I asked my wife. She said it's a nice film. She had laughed a lot.


----------



## ChemEngineer

zaangalewa said:


> "Fort Fun Indiana, post: 23506952, me



Add him to your Ignore List, zaangalewa.  He is not worth your time.

Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him.

Go from the presence of a foolish man.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


>



What exactly is this? A cross in the form of the cross of the templars - made like a wheel - carried from the Holy Spirit?


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is this? A cross in the form of the cross of the templars - made like a wheel - carried from the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...

But that bass relieif was done by the Sumerians circa 4000 BC. Way before the idea of Templars even started. Templars could have taken Sumerian mythology in their depiction, and they wouldn't be the first. The emblem for medicine today is directly derived from the Sumerian depiction of EN.KI. Pilots still wear the winged disk.

















SUMERIAN GOD


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is this? A cross in the form of the cross of the templars - made like a wheel - carried from the Holy Spirit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that bass relieif was done by the Sumerians circa 4000 BC. ...
Click to expand...


What you called "SUMERIAN GOD" is an artefact from Persia. It is called Faravahar and shows not a god. It symbolizes the human spirit.
Take a look here: F A R A V A H A R The most powerful spiritual symbol of true Iranians

Are you able to tell me where this artefact in top was found and/or what this picture symbolizes? Is it really Sumerian?


----------



## RWS

The Persian empire started about 550 BC.

The Sumerian civilization started about 4000 BC.

So reword your question, and I can possibly answer.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> The Persian empire started about 550 BC.
> 
> The Sumerian civilization started about 4000 BC.



So why did you call "SUMERIAN GOD" an artefact in context of the Persian god Ahura Mazda, which shows the eternal human spirit on his good way forward, while leaving bad ways behind?



> So reword your question, and I can possibly answer.



Where did you find this symbol (where was it found), which shows a kind of (fire?-)bird with a kind of [steering?-]wheel and shows parallels to christian and shoroastrian symbols? What is the original culture, where it comes from (You say it is Sumerian. Why do you say so?) What is the symbolism of this artefact (What means it)?


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Persian empire started about 550 BC.
> 
> The Sumerian civilization started about 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you call "SUMERIAN GOD" an artefact in context of the Persian god Ahura Mazda, which shows the eternal human spirit on his good way forward, while leaving bad ways behind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So reword your question, and I can possibly answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you find this symbol (where was it found), which shows a kind of (fire?-)bird with a kind of [steering?-]wheel and shows parallels to christian and shoroastrian symbols? What is the original culture, where it comes from (You say it is Sumerian. Why do you say so?) What is the symbolism of this artefact (What means it)?
Click to expand...

Conan the maid fucker says hi


----------



## TomParks

There is only life on Earth...God created the heavens and the Earth.


----------



## Frannie

TomParks said:


> There is only life on Earth...God created the heavens and the Earth.


And he came from the heavens with life


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only life on Earth...God created the heavens and the Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> And he came from the heavens with life
Click to expand...

And waited 200,000 years to reveal himself to humans. But only to some of them. And only through iron aged ideas.  Weird!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And waited 200,000 years to reveal himself to humans. But only to some of them. And only through iron aged ideas. Weird!



Not weird.  He only reveals himself to those with faith.  The evidence is right in front of your nose, but you can't see it.

I've yet to see anyone say you're right and an one of the smarter posters here.  I know why.  Even those who do not know you and post a couple of times with you do not think that.  Maybe you do that with God, too.  It could be you hate God.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.



Sometimes, I forget we are discussing something because you do not reply to my post, but post a standalone reply.  I never see it in my alert box.  Thus, I figure that was the end, but you posted something.  What are we to get from these figures?  You say winged gods?  What did the people believe or why do you post winged figures?  Are you still referring to halos as the circle?  Refresh my memory.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I know about nietschie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What for heavens sake is this? Ugly! ... Ah: Monthy Python: The British experts in wrong understanding and irreal nonsense. ... Boris Johnson seems to walk in their footsteps now.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's a classic movie, you should watch immediately... I hate British humor, but this is the best!
> 
> A Fish Called Wanda
> 
> Watch that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For sure not. I grow meanwhile angry when I see Monty Python, because idiots made out of their antihistoric nonsense a kind of antichristian ideology - without any form of humor but with a lot of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate Monty Python too. And Benny Hill,... Maybe not for the same reasons, I just never got the British humor. I didn't find it funny. But this is different.... This is American humor. I highly recommend this movie. Please give it a try.
Click to expand...


I saw it, but don't remember it any more.  It was funny.  Maybe I'll watch again.

The last movie I saw couple days ago was Joker.  Not funny.  I didn't read anything about it, so was like wtf am I watching?  I don't know if it follows the normal storyline.  It doesn't appear to be, but it was a good movie for a violent and bloody one.  Reminded me of Taxi Driver.  I think if it does follow the normal story line, then it had a twist at the ending.


----------



## MisterBeale

Natural Citizen said:


> We'd never find out about it if there were. The establishment isn't gonna be just throwing away its Earthly social control mechanisms. Pffft. Nope.
> 
> The Brookings Report was also very specific and strategic to mention the implications of telling people of any such discoveries as well as the societal structure benefits of witholding any knowledge of said discoveries.




You DO know who is in control of the establishment. . . right?


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only life on Earth...God created the heavens and the Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> And he came from the heavens with life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And waited 200,000 years to reveal himself to humans. But only to some of them. And only through iron aged ideas.  Weird!
Click to expand...

Look the fact is that DeGrasse Tyson is now claiming that the universe is literally a computer simulation, which incidentally requires a programmer of considerable talent.  The dumb thing about this poor turd is that he thinks this idea is new when it is not as once upon a time a programmer coded and when he was done the code walked away and made new improved code on it's own.

Yawning


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Frannie said:


> Look the fact is that DeGrasse Tyson is now claiming that the universe is literally a computer simulation,


No he isn't, you embarrassing, lying little troll. 

You're welcome , for the attention.


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Persian empire started about 550 BC.
> 
> The Sumerian civilization started about 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you call "SUMERIAN GOD" an artefact in context of the Persian god Ahura Mazda, which shows the eternal human spirit on his good way forward, while leaving bad ways behind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So reword your question, and I can possibly answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you find this symbol (where was it found), which shows a kind of (fire?-)bird with a kind of [steering?-]wheel and shows parallels to christian and shoroastrian symbols? What is the original culture, where it comes from (You say it is Sumerian. Why do you say so?) What is the symbolism of this artefact (What means it)?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conan the maid fucker says hi
Click to expand...


Oh by the way: The intelligence in the western world sinks. Sometimes drastically, I have the feeling. And I have by the way not any problem to imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger in a very interesting conversation with Gilgamesh.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes, I forget we are discussing something because you do not reply to my post ....
Click to expand...


Which post?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes, I forget we are discussing something because you do not reply to my post ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which post?
Click to expand...


It wasn't you I was talking to.  It was RWS.  An example would be his post #922.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look the fact is that DeGrasse Tyson is now claiming that the universe is literally a computer simulation,
> 
> 
> 
> No he isn't, you embarrassing, lying little troll.
> 
> You're welcome , for the attention.
Click to expand...


Again, you show your ignorance and stupidity -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation.  That's what I remember him saying, too.  Did he change it afterward?


----------



## james bond

Here's another article that explains more in detail about the universe is a computer simulation -- Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?.

I especially liked:

'But some were more contemplative, saying the possibility raises some weighty spiritual questions. “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”

And if someone somewhere created our simulation, would that make this entity God? “We in this universe can create simulated worlds and there’s nothing remotely spooky about that,” Chalmers said. “Our creator isn’t especially spooky, it’s just some teenage hacker in the next universe up.” Turn the tables, and we are essentially gods over our own computer creations. “We don’t think of ourselves as deities when we program Mario, even though we have power over how high Mario jumps,” Tyson said. “There’s no reason to think they’re all-powerful just because they control everything we do.” And a simulated universe introduces another disturbing possibility. “What happens,” Tyson said, “if there’s a bug that crashes the entire program?”'

If a bug crashes the entire program, then we are all dead and headed for final judgement, of course.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Here's another article that explains more in detail about the universe is a computer simulation -- Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?.
> 
> I especially liked:
> 
> 'But some were more contemplative, saying the possibility raises some weighty spiritual questions. “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”
> 
> And if someone somewhere created our simulation, would that make this entity God? “We in this universe can create simulated worlds and there’s nothing remotely spooky about that,” Chalmers said. “Our creator isn’t especially spooky, it’s just some teenage hacker in the next universe up.” Turn the tables, and we are essentially gods over our own computer creations. “We don’t think of ourselves as deities when we program Mario, even though we have power over how high Mario jumps,” Tyson said. “There’s no reason to think they’re all-powerful just because they control everything we do.” And a simulated universe introduces another disturbing possibility. “What happens,” Tyson said, “if there’s a bug that crashes the entire program?”'
> 
> If a bug crashes the entire program, then we are all dead and headed for final judgement, of course.



But god is not a liar. So I'm sure we don't live in "the matrix". Our problems are real problems - and every solution is worth to be done - independent how hard the job is to do it. Same in case the solution is very little and seems to be nearly unimportant. Also little things have to be done and this is as important as big things. Perhaps my important job in this world here is only to bring an old lady save over a street - who knows? But when I have to do so on very important reasons, which I perhaps never will be able to understand, then I hope god will lead me and I will do it without to hesistate. By the way: God never will ask to murder someone or such stupid things. I'm always shocked when godless terrorists speak such a denial of god in the name of god. But that's the way it is. Everyone has to take care not to poison the own heart with a deadly wrongness.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.



That's for sure Persian and not Sumerian. This symbol is clearly shoroastric.


----------



## Frannie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look the fact is that DeGrasse Tyson is now claiming that the universe is literally a computer simulation,
> 
> 
> 
> No he isn't, you embarrassing, lying little troll.
> 
> You're welcome , for the attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you show your ignorance and stupidity -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation.  That's what I remember him saying, too.  Did he change it afterward?
Click to expand...

Tyson in a roundabout way is right as we are all the product of a creator who simulated us in the image that he chose.  Tyson knows this and is trying to agree with this without doing so


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another article that explains more in detail about the universe is a computer simulation -- Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?.
> 
> I especially liked:
> 
> 'But some were more contemplative, saying the possibility raises some weighty spiritual questions. “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”
> 
> And if someone somewhere created our simulation, would that make this entity God? “We in this universe can create simulated worlds and there’s nothing remotely spooky about that,” Chalmers said. “Our creator isn’t especially spooky, it’s just some teenage hacker in the next universe up.” Turn the tables, and we are essentially gods over our own computer creations. “We don’t think of ourselves as deities when we program Mario, even though we have power over how high Mario jumps,” Tyson said. “There’s no reason to think they’re all-powerful just because they control everything we do.” And a simulated universe introduces another disturbing possibility. “What happens,” Tyson said, “if there’s a bug that crashes the entire program?”'
> 
> If a bug crashes the entire program, then we are all dead and headed for final judgement, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But god is not a liar. So I'm sure we don't live in "the matrix". Our problems are real problems - and every solution is worth to be done - independent how hard the job is to do it. Same in case the solution is very little and seems to be nearly unimportant. Also little things have to be done and this is as important as big things. Perhaps my important job in this world here is only to bring an old lady save over a street - who knows? But when I have to do so on very important reasons, which I perhaps never will be able to understand, then I hope god will lead me and I will do it without to hesistate. By the way: God never will ask to murder someone or such stupid things. I'm always shocked when godless terrorists speak such a denial of god in the name of god. But that's the way it is. Everyone has to take care not to poison the own heart with a deadly wrongness.
Click to expand...


I didn't say God was a liar.  Maybe one of panel members, David Chalmers, brought him up.  I pointed out that the evolutionists on the panel (don't think any creation scientists were invited) have thought about our universe acts like a video game and and we are creations of some "alien" designer.  It was enough, so one considered it could be God.  At least, the writer of the article inferred that.  But then Tyson interjected his atheism with there was not reason to think "they're all-powerful just because they control everything we do."   That's really a stupid, stupid, stupid comment by him.  The he follows up with his bug comment.  Sheesh.


----------



## The Original Tree

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


*ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!

Here is why:  

God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.  

Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.

The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.

There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*


----------



## Frannie

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another article that explains more in detail about the universe is a computer simulation -- Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?.
> 
> I especially liked:
> 
> 'But some were more contemplative, saying the possibility raises some weighty spiritual questions. “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”
> 
> And if someone somewhere created our simulation, would that make this entity God? “We in this universe can create simulated worlds and there’s nothing remotely spooky about that,” Chalmers said. “Our creator isn’t especially spooky, it’s just some teenage hacker in the next universe up.” Turn the tables, and we are essentially gods over our own computer creations. “We don’t think of ourselves as deities when we program Mario, even though we have power over how high Mario jumps,” Tyson said. “There’s no reason to think they’re all-powerful just because they control everything we do.” And a simulated universe introduces another disturbing possibility. “What happens,” Tyson said, “if there’s a bug that crashes the entire program?”'
> 
> If a bug crashes the entire program, then we are all dead and headed for final judgement, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But god is not a liar. So I'm sure we don't live in "the matrix". Our problems are real problems - and every solution is worth to be done - independent how hard the job is to do it. Same in case the solution is very little and seems to be nearly unimportant. Also little things have to be done and this is as important as big things. Perhaps my important job in this world here is only to bring an old lady save over a street - who knows? But when I have to do so on very important reasons, which I perhaps never will be able to understand, then I hope god will lead me and I will do it without to hesistate. By the way: God never will ask to murder someone or such stupid things. I'm always shocked when godless terrorists speak such a denial of god in the name of god. But that's the way it is. Everyone has to take care not to poison the own heart with a deadly wrongness.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say God was a liar.  Maybe one of panel members, David Chalmers, brought him up.  I pointed out that the evolutionists on the panel (don't think any creation scientists were invited) have thought about our universe acts like a video game and and we are creations of some "alien" designer.  It was enough, so one considered it could be God.  At least, the writer of the article inferred that.  But then Tyson interjected his atheism with there was not reason to think "they're all-powerful just because they control everything we do."   That's really a stupid, stupid, stupid comment by him.  The he follows up with his bug comment.  Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Tyson is no longer an atheist as the codes he references require a writer.  Others have been calling the writer god for a long time


----------



## Grumblenuts

Codes similar to 





> God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy"


Those quotes reveal that "God" created the words "Time" and "Entropy" immediately after Eve bit the proverbial apple. Adam was soon overheard mumbling, "Entropy? WTF is entropy?"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Original Tree said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
Click to expand...

Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
Click to expand...

God is the first known scientist


----------



## Grumblenuts

For the scientistic evidence see "faith."


----------



## The Original Tree

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the first known scientist
Click to expand...

*That is a great way to look at it.  And we may not be the first Universe He Created.  We are most likely, the First Universe to become Fallen.*


----------



## Frannie

The Original Tree said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the first known scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That is a great way to look at it.  And we may not be the first Universe He Created.  We are most likely, the First Universe to become Fallen.*
Click to expand...

There is no definition of what the universe is and without that it can not be speculated that god created it.  Life however is clearly a code set that is not random.  

What is a fallen universe?


----------



## james bond

Did Fort Fun Indiana run away?  What a coward!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Oh, there you are.  Stop hiding and accept the truth from the others


----------



## The Original Tree

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, there you are.  Stop hiding and accept the truth from the others
Click to expand...

*Jesus is Called The LOGOS.  You cannot have Science without KNOWLEDGE*


----------



## Frannie

james bond said:


> Did Fort Fun Indiana run away?  What a coward!


Perhaps 007 scared him off


----------



## The Original Tree

Frannie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Fort Fun Indiana run away?  What a coward!
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps 007 scared him off
Click to expand...

*The Left and The Atheists claim The Earth is going to be destroyed and that we only have 11 Years to save it.  When you agree with them, and say yes, not only The Earth is going to be destroyed but so are The Heavens, they RUN.

They Run, because their claim of The Earth being Destroyed by Man is a Lie and a Bluff to push Global Governance.  When you tell them God is going to Purify The Earth and Universe with Fire and Burn up The Wicked and Create a New Earth and Heavens, it Shocks their Wicked Souls.

Anyone else who dismisses something like that, has a hardened and calloused soul and is lost For Eternity.  So, Better to be Shocked and Afraid than Unmoved.

I'd rather they flee in terror than stay and seal their doom with their own wicked words.*


----------



## Frannie

The Original Tree said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Fort Fun Indiana run away?  What a coward!
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps 007 scared him off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Left and The Atheists claim The Earth is going to be destroyed and that we only have 11 Years to save it.  When you agree with them, and say yes, not only The Earth is going to be destroyed but so are The Heavens, they RUN.
> 
> They Run, because their claim of The Earth being Destroyed by Man is a Lie and a Bluff to push Global Governance.  When you tell them God is going to Purify The Earth and Universe with Fire and Burn up The Wicked and Create a New Earth and Heavens, it Shocks their Wicked Souls.
> 
> Anyone else who dismisses something like that, has a hardened and calloused soul and is lost For Eternity.  So, Better to be Shocked and Afraid than Unmoved.
> 
> I'd rather they flee in terror than stay and seal their doom with their own wicked words.*
Click to expand...

The 2000 problem was also going to end civilization

These farts are mocking themselves

Let them go, the masses are choosing trump


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Fort Fun Indiana run away?  What a coward!
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps 007 scared him off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Left and The Atheists claim The Earth is going to be destroyed and that we only have 11 Years to save it.  When you agree with them, and say yes, not only The Earth is going to be destroyed but so are The Heavens, they RUN.
> 
> They Run, because their claim of The Earth being Destroyed by Man is a Lie and a Bluff to push Global Governance.  When you tell them God is going to Purify The Earth and Universe with Fire and Burn up The Wicked and Create a New Earth and Heavens, it Shocks their Wicked Souls.
> 
> Anyone else who dismisses something like that, has a hardened and calloused soul and is lost For Eternity.  So, Better to be Shocked and Afraid than Unmoved.
> 
> I'd rather they flee in terror than stay and seal their doom with their own wicked words.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do not spam the science section with yout religious horseshit. There is an entire section of the messageboard dedicated to it. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Believing in a Creator, The Great Scientist, The Great Watchmaker, The Universal Law Giver, and belief that HE and HE Alone is The Author of our Laws of Physics, The Creator of Mathematics, and The Craftsman and Creator of our Universe and ourselves IS SCIENCE.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong section, shaman.
Click to expand...

God is science kid,


----------



## The Original Tree

*If this is TRULY a FORUM about SCIENCE then this LINK should be allowed to stand all on it's own*

*How Einstein Reconciled Religion to Science - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus*


----------



## Grumblenuts

> What that amounted to for *Einstein*, according to a 2006 paper, was a “cosmic religious feeling” that *required* *no “anthropomorphic conception of God.”* He explained this view in the _New York Times Magazine_: “The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows *no dogma* and *no God *conceived in man’s image; so that there can be* no church* whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is *precisely among the heretics of every age* that *we find* men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as *atheists*, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.””


My *bold* filters out the noise. You're welcome.

I'll add commonly found insistence upon "having it both ways" is simply trying to be clever. Attempting to fool or please everyone at once. A juvenile drive or "feeling" ranging from duplicity to duplicitousness. Some cowardice.. lack of conviction.. certainly _not_ genius.


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Persian empire started about 550 BC.
> 
> The Sumerian civilization started about 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you call "SUMERIAN GOD" an artefact in context of the Persian god Ahura Mazda, which shows the eternal human spirit on his good way forward, while leaving bad ways behind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So reword your question, and I can possibly answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you find this symbol (where was it found), which shows a kind of (fire?-)bird with a kind of [steering?-]wheel and shows parallels to christian and shoroastrian symbols? What is the original culture, where it comes from (You say it is Sumerian. Why do you say so?) What is the symbolism of this artefact (What means it)?
Click to expand...

Sorry buddy but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Can you please quote it? And then I'll be more than happy to explain.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes, I forget we are discussing something because you do not reply to my post ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't you I was talking to.  It was RWS.  An example would be his post #922.
Click to expand...

So is zaangealewa another sock puppet?


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the first known scientist
Click to expand...

Your God is letting us all wipe ourselves out for the past 4000 years, since he was invented. He actually encourages it, promotes it, and does it himself when unfulfilled.

He just wants to kill us! Shite! 

Maybe there's another reason he acts that way....


----------



## RWS

God does not love us, when he sends us into battle with each other. As he has done for the past 4000 years. 

He's just playing a game. He's playing with our lives. 

To me, he's not so nice. And I will say he's actually an asshole and a monster! 

Anybody who plays with your lives is an asshole. So God is either an asshole, or he doesn't exist.


----------



## Grumblenuts

No, He's designing ever more intricate, exquisite ways for us to kill each other off. War has evolved in such  a way that only a designer could be responsible. Slugs, maggots, and potato beetles as well.

_But He really doesn't care..
Except when he does.
Doesn't!
Does so!_


----------



## RWS

God = Monster


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another article that explains more in detail about the universe is a computer simulation -- Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?.
> 
> I especially liked:
> 
> 'But some were more contemplative, saying the possibility raises some weighty spiritual questions. “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. “The reason is quite simple: If we’re programs in the computer, then as long as I have a computer that’s not damaged, I can always re-run the program.”
> 
> And if someone somewhere created our simulation, would that make this entity God? “We in this universe can create simulated worlds and there’s nothing remotely spooky about that,” Chalmers said. “Our creator isn’t especially spooky, it’s just some teenage hacker in the next universe up.” Turn the tables, and we are essentially gods over our own computer creations. “We don’t think of ourselves as deities when we program Mario, even though we have power over how high Mario jumps,” Tyson said. “There’s no reason to think they’re all-powerful just because they control everything we do.” And a simulated universe introduces another disturbing possibility. “What happens,” Tyson said, “if there’s a bug that crashes the entire program?”'
> 
> If a bug crashes the entire program, then we are all dead and headed for final judgement, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But god is not a liar. So I'm sure we don't live in "the matrix". Our problems are real problems - and every solution is worth to be done - independent how hard the job is to do it. Same in case the solution is very little and seems to be nearly unimportant. Also little things have to be done and this is as important as big things. Perhaps my important job in this world here is only to bring an old lady save over a street - who knows? But when I have to do so on very important reasons, which I perhaps never will be able to understand, then I hope god will lead me and I will do it without to hesistate. By the way: God never will ask to murder someone or such stupid things. I'm always shocked when godless terrorists speak such a denial of god in the name of god. But that's the way it is. Everyone has to take care not to poison the own heart with a deadly wrongness.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say God was a liar.
Click to expand...


I did not say you said god is a liar. I "said"_: 'The world is real creation - and we are able to find out what is really going on'_ (=God is not a liar).



> Maybe one of panel members, David Chalmers, brought him up.  I pointed out that the evolutionists on the panel (don't think any creation scientists were invited) have thought about our universe acts like a video game and and we are creations of some "alien" designer.  It was enough, so one considered it could be God.  At least, the writer of the article inferred that.  But then Tyson interjected his atheism with there was not reason to think "they're all-powerful just because they control everything we do."   That's really a stupid, stupid, stupid comment by him.  The he follows up with his bug comment.  Sheesh.



What US-Americans (but Brits too) say in context "evolution vs creation" sounds very empty in my ears.

It's perhaps interesting to know in this context that religion was not an invention of a civilisation, where people had enough time to have funny ideas like religion, because they had invented agriculture. Indeed it were hunter gatherers, who created on reason of their religion (=rebound in god) the first civilisation of the world. I think they made a sanctuary and because they liked to live in the near of this sanctuary they started to invent agriculture. For me it's totally clear, that in all times of human history religion was a very important motor for the human progress.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> God = Monster



"God" = creator. "Monster" = failed creation

Not god makes monster - we make monster.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Persian empire started about 550 BC.
> 
> The Sumerian civilization started about 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you call "SUMERIAN GOD" an artefact in context of the Persian god Ahura Mazda, which shows the eternal human spirit on his good way forward, while leaving bad ways behind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So reword your question, and I can possibly answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you find this symbol (where was it found), which shows a kind of (fire?-)bird with a kind of [steering?-]wheel and shows parallels to christian and shoroastrian symbols? What is the original culture, where it comes from (You say it is Sumerian. Why do you say so?) What is the symbolism of this artefact (What means it)?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry buddy but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Can you please quote it? And then I'll be more than happy to explain.
Click to expand...


Forget it. My English is bad - but not so bad. I don't have the feeling you know what you try to speak about.


----------



## Flash

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only life on Earth...God created the heavens and the Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> And he came from the heavens with life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And waited 200,000 years to reveal himself to humans. But only to some of them. And only through iron aged ideas.  Weird!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look the fact is that DeGrasse Tyson is now claiming that the universe is literally a computer simulation, which incidentally requires a programmer of considerable talent.  The dumb thing about this poor turd is that he thinks this idea is new when it is not as once upon a time a programmer coded and when he was done the code walked away and made new improved code on it's own.
> 
> Yawning
Click to expand...



Are you quoting dat black science guy?  LOL!


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the first known scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your God is letting us all wipe ourselves out for the past 4000 years, since he was invented. He actually encourages it, promotes it, and does it himself when unfulfilled.
> 
> He just wants to kill us! Shite!
> 
> Maybe there's another reason he acts that way....
Click to expand...


Nope God has left us with all his ability and disability, the human race will survive, here and elsewhere as well, because we are now reaching out to the heavens from which we came


----------



## Vastator

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> *ALL PLANETS IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE LIFELESS!
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God states in prophecy that He is going to destroy The Earth and The Heavens at the End of The Age.  This is after Judgment Day, and He says a New Earth and New Heaven will be created.
> 
> Why? Because the current one is corrupted and is in a state of sin, death and entropy.  This is what Original Sin Brought us.  We went from a dimension of "Eternity" to one of "Time" and "Entropy" due to The Original Sin test we failed.  We will be restored to the Dimension of "Eternity" per God's Word, through The Sacrifice and Victory of Jesus Christ over Sin and Death, Time and Entropy.
> 
> The Universe (Ours) was created for man to explore and colonize throughout eternity.  Once we Fell, God restricted us through "Time" and "Entropy" and allowed The Earth, Life, and Universe to be subject to Death and Decay.
> 
> There is No Life on other planets.  God would not wipe out an Entire Universe full of Life just for Man's Sin.  He would restrict that Virus to one Planet, and then redeem it, purge it, and create a New Universe and New Earth as he did prior to Original Sin that is Eternal for his Eternal Creatures to Explore Infinitely.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post your voodoo chanting in the religion section. This is the science section. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is the first known scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your God is letting us all wipe ourselves out for the past 4000 years, since he was invented. He actually encourages it, promotes it, and does it himself when unfulfilled.
> 
> He just wants to kill us! Shite!
> 
> Maybe there's another reason he acts that way....
Click to expand...

Because we created these gods in our own image..?


----------



## Frannie

Flash said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only life on Earth...God created the heavens and the Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> And he came from the heavens with life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And waited 200,000 years to reveal himself to humans. But only to some of them. And only through iron aged ideas.  Weird!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look the fact is that DeGrasse Tyson is now claiming that the universe is literally a computer simulation, which incidentally requires a programmer of considerable talent.  The dumb thing about this poor turd is that he thinks this idea is new when it is not as once upon a time a programmer coded and when he was done the code walked away and made new improved code on it's own.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you quoting dat black science guy?  LOL!
Click to expand...

Idiots come in many colors


----------



## Vastator

Frannie said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only life on Earth...God created the heavens and the Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> And he came from the heavens with life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And waited 200,000 years to reveal himself to humans. But only to some of them. And only through iron aged ideas.  Weird!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look the fact is that DeGrasse Tyson is now claiming that the universe is literally a computer simulation, which incidentally requires a programmer of considerable talent.  The dumb thing about this poor turd is that he thinks this idea is new when it is not as once upon a time a programmer coded and when he was done the code walked away and made new improved code on it's own.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you quoting dat black science guy?  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiots come in many colors
Click to expand...

He delivers information in an entertaining format. Nothing wrong with that. Many negros earn their money in the entertainment industry. But he’s in no danger of becoming a Nobel prize winner...


----------



## Frannie

Vastator said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And he came from the heavens with life
> 
> 
> 
> And waited 200,000 years to reveal himself to humans. But only to some of them. And only through iron aged ideas.  Weird!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look the fact is that DeGrasse Tyson is now claiming that the universe is literally a computer simulation, which incidentally requires a programmer of considerable talent.  The dumb thing about this poor turd is that he thinks this idea is new when it is not as once upon a time a programmer coded and when he was done the code walked away and made new improved code on it's own.
> 
> Yawning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you quoting dat black science guy?  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiots come in many colors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He delivers information in an entertaining format. Nothing wrong with that. Many negros earn their money in the entertainment industry. But he’s in no danger of becoming a Nobel prize winner...
Click to expand...

Tyson is no dumber than Sagan was, color has nothing to do with idiocy except to skinheads like you


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> ... Nope God has left us with all his ability and disability, the human race will survive, here and elsewhere as well, because we are now reaching out to the heavens from which we came



You will not survive, whether you reach out or not to the heavens, where we did not come from. And fortunately god has not left us.


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Nope God has left us with all his ability and disability, the human race will survive, here and elsewhere as well, because we are now reaching out to the heavens from which we came
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will not survive, whether you reach out or not to the heavens, where we did not come from. And fortunately god has not left us.
Click to expand...

God left us with the ability to create multi trillion operations a second computers to find the answers needed.

Tell me why does God allow hunger and disease

He is still here in our ability

Will you survive a supernova?

We leave or perish, never put all the eggs in one basket, not if you need to eat at least


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Nope God has left us with all his ability and disability, the human race will survive, here and elsewhere as well, because we are now reaching out to the heavens from which we came
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will not survive, whether you reach out or not to the heavens, where we did not come from. And fortunately god has not left us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God left us with the ability to create multi trillion operations a second computers to find the answers needed.
Click to expand...


A computer finds the same quality of answers like a screw driver. What do you expect from machines? You are responsible for all and every life. Not any computer or hammer is responsible. And you - as well as the rest of all mankind - are doing a damned bad job.



> Tell me why does God allow hunger and disease



No. Make it better. Forbid hunger and disease.



> He is still here in our ability



Yes and no. He helps.



> Will you survive a supernova?



The last 13.8 billion years my timeline - my tradition, my answer - survived all supernovae within the whole universe. A wonder?



> We leave or perish,



perish - "verderben, zugrunde gehen, sterben" - got it. Again: You will not survive. Tomorrow everything is able to be over for you - and tomorrow also everything is able to be over for all mankind.



> never put all the eggs in one basket, not if you need to eat at least



From year to year I got more problems with eggs, because of the barbarian production methods. From year to year I had to find out that ecological labels are often different from this,  what they seem to say. To eat "machine eggs" hurts me meanwhile. I feel sick when I do so.  So I started not a long time ago to buy very expensive eggs from someone, who let hens live a hen-like life and avoids a machine-like life for hens. I can taste this. I have my eggs in cardboard boxes in the fridge - so no egg is touching another egg. This week I rewarded myselve with 10  eggs more than I eat normally. The woman, who sells the eggs on the market,  is shy and I fear she is not a good business women. She speaks not a lot. But for me she is doing a very good job. In the moment I still feel very well, when I remember her last smile in my eyes - but I feel also a desperation behind this smile. I fear this desparation or frustration has to do with money. I pray for her and her family. I hope they will find the happiness they are searching for.


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Nope God has left us with all his ability and disability, the human race will survive, here and elsewhere as well, because we are now reaching out to the heavens from which we came
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will not survive, whether you reach out or not to the heavens, where we did not come from. And fortunately god has not left us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God left us with the ability to create multi trillion operations a second computers to find the answers needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A computer finds ths same answers like a hammer.  Whatz fr ehas sake eeption hujan ehgins from machines? You are responsible for all and every life. Not any computer or hammer is responsible. And you - as wel as thenwheil manaiind   is dogn a damned bad job.
> 
> [Quopte]Tell me why does God allow hunger and disease
Click to expand...


No. Make it better. Forbid hnger adn doseases.



> He is still here in our ability



Yes and no




> Will you survive a supernova?



The last 13.8 billion years my timeline survived all supernovsa within the whole universe - and this were a lot.



> We leave or perish,



perish - verderben, zugrunde gehen, sterben - got it. 



> never put all the eggs in one basket, not if you need to eat at least



From year4 to years ofgit more problesm woith eggs, because of the barbarian production methods of the qwqbartaagaina  himanbeigns whi aer[/QUOTE]

True the supernova can be survived if you can travel past it.  Which requires travel being developed by trillion ops per second supercomputers.  Not even sure how the new quantum jobs are measured but supposedly the google Q comp solved a 10,000 year standard computer problem in 200 seconds.

God gave us all we need


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> ...
> 
> True the supernova can be survived if you can travel past it.  Which requires travel being developed by trillion ops per second supercomputers.  Not even sure how the new quantum jobs are measured but supposedly the google Q comp solved a 10,000 year standard computer problem in 200 seconds.
> 
> God gave us all we need



Read again what I wrote. You are too fast. You did not understand what I said. And the google "result" is a fake. Their quantum computer works as less as any other quantum computer in the world.


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> True the supernova can be survived if you can travel past it.  Which requires travel being developed by trillion ops per second supercomputers.  Not even sure how the new quantum jobs are measured but supposedly the google Q comp solved a 10,000 year standard computer problem in 200 seconds.
> 
> God gave us all we need
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. You are too fast. You did not understand what I said. And the google "result" is a fake. Their quantum computer works as less as any other quantum computer in the world.
Click to expand...

No one survives a supernova of their Sun or an asteroid impact from a planet splitting asteroid, unless they are not there...………………

This is logic, it applies everywhere


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> True the supernova can be survived if you can travel past it.  Which requires travel being developed by trillion ops per second supercomputers.  Not even sure how the new quantum jobs are measured but supposedly the google Q comp solved a 10,000 year standard computer problem in 200 seconds.
> 
> God gave us all we need
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. You are too fast. You did not understand what I said. And the google "result" is a fake. Their quantum computer works as less as any other quantum computer in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one survives a supernova of their Sun or an asteroid impact from a planet splitting asteroid, unless they are not there...………………
> 
> This is logic, it applies everywhere
Click to expand...


Read again what I wrote. Still you are too fast and do not understand what I said. How helps a machine you now to understand? In general: Supernova or not - who cares about such dangers? Why? What to do? On the other side: The matter we are using to live here is the result of supernovae. The children of god are also children made by the dust of the stars.


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> True the supernova can be survived if you can travel past it.  Which requires travel being developed by trillion ops per second supercomputers.  Not even sure how the new quantum jobs are measured but supposedly the google Q comp solved a 10,000 year standard computer problem in 200 seconds.
> 
> God gave us all we need
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. You are too fast. You did not understand what I said. And the google "result" is a fake. Their quantum computer works as less as any other quantum computer in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one survives a supernova of their Sun or an asteroid impact from a planet splitting asteroid, unless they are not there...………………
> 
> This is logic, it applies everywhere
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. Still you are too fast and do not understand what I said. How helps a machine you now to understand?
Click to expand...


All machines such as rockets and all ships are built using computers.

Please wake up


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> True the supernova can be survived if you can travel past it.  Which requires travel being developed by trillion ops per second supercomputers.  Not even sure how the new quantum jobs are measured but supposedly the google Q comp solved a 10,000 year standard computer problem in 200 seconds.
> 
> God gave us all we need
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. You are too fast. You did not understand what I said. And the google "result" is a fake. Their quantum computer works as less as any other quantum computer in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one survives a supernova of their Sun or an asteroid impact from a planet splitting asteroid, unless they are not there...………………
> 
> This is logic, it applies everywhere
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. Still you are too fast and do not understand what I said. How helps a machine you now to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All machines such as rockets and all ships are built using computers.
> 
> Please wake up
Click to expand...


Slow down! You know nothing about me. And I have not any idea, what you try to say.


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> True the supernova can be survived if you can travel past it.  Which requires travel being developed by trillion ops per second supercomputers.  Not even sure how the new quantum jobs are measured but supposedly the google Q comp solved a 10,000 year standard computer problem in 200 seconds.
> 
> God gave us all we need
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. You are too fast. You did not understand what I said. And the google "result" is a fake. Their quantum computer works as less as any other quantum computer in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one survives a supernova of their Sun or an asteroid impact from a planet splitting asteroid, unless they are not there...………………
> 
> This is logic, it applies everywhere
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. Still you are too fast and do not understand what I said. How helps a machine you now to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All machines such as rockets and all ships are built using computers.
> 
> Please wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slow down! You know nothing about me. And I have not any idea, what you try to say.
Click to expand...


Actually I know quite a bit about you, as in you failed homeroom

6 times


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. You are too fast. You did not understand what I said. And the google "result" is a fake. Their quantum computer works as less as any other quantum computer in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one survives a supernova of their Sun or an asteroid impact from a planet splitting asteroid, unless they are not there...………………
> 
> This is logic, it applies everywhere
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. Still you are too fast and do not understand what I said. How helps a machine you now to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All machines such as rockets and all ships are built using computers.
> 
> Please wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slow down! You know nothing about me. And I have not any idea, what you try to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I know quite a bit about you, as in you failed homeroom
> 
> 6 times
Click to expand...


And your problem is what exactly?


----------



## luchitociencia

RWS said:


>



A meteorite, a meteor, a comet, of course. Check the head and tail, which is what you appreciate in those bodies when you get into our atmosphere or when they pass closed by.



RWS said:


>



The ship of Captain Hook on his way to Neverland



RWS said:


>



An immense kite given as a gift to baby Jesus.


RWS said:


>


Ancient flying jellyfish extincted some thousands years ago.


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> ?
> ...
> ¿Anti-Christian nonsense propaganda in the style of Monty Python?



RWS was asking what those images represent.


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> ...
> ¿Anti-Christian nonsense propaganda in the style of Monty Python?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS was asking what those images represent.
Click to expand...


I thought in this context more about the whole English speaking world. I deleted it meanwhile. The real question is perhaps: _"Means 'to live' in the English speaking world to be part of a kind of  automatized entertainement war, which is independent from any religion, philosophy and realilty?" _


*Es ist alles eitel*

D_u siehst, wohin du siehst, nur Eitelkeit auf Erden.
Was dieser heute baut, reißt jener morgen ein:
Wo jetzt noch Städte stehn, wird eine Wiese sein,
Auf der ein Schäferskind wird spielen mit den Herden.

Was jetzt noch prächtig blüht, soll bald zertreten werden.
Was jetzt so pocht und trotzt, ist morgen Asch’ und Bein,
Nichts ist, das ewig sei, kein Erz, kein Marmorstein.
Jetzt lacht das Glück uns an, bald donnern die Beschwerden.

Der hohen Taten Ruhm muss wie ein Traum vergehn.
Soll denn das Spiel der Zeit, der leichte Mensch, bestehn?
Ach! Was ist alles dies, was wir für köstlich achten,

Als schlechte Nichtigkeit, als Schatten, Staub und Wind;
Als eine Wiesenblum’, die man nicht wieder find’t.
Noch will, was ewig ist, kein einig Mensch betrachten!_
*
Andreas Gryphius, 1637*


----------



## luchitociencia

(Sorry, can't find a video about Basil M. online) Hope replacement works.


Envy perhaps?



*Works*

But who can hope his lines should long
Last, in a daily changing tongue?
While they are new, Envy prevails;
And as that dies, our language fails...

*Basil Montagu, 1841.*


----------



## RWS

luchitociencia said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A meteorite, a meteor, a comet, of course. Check the head and tail, which is what you appreciate in those bodies when you get into our atmosphere or when they pass closed by.
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ship of Captain Hook on his way to Neverland
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An immense kite given as a gift to baby Jesus.
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ancient flying jellyfish extincted some thousands years ago.
Click to expand...

Seriously?


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one survives a supernova of their Sun or an asteroid impact from a planet splitting asteroid, unless they are not there...………………
> 
> This is logic, it applies everywhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. Still you are too fast and do not understand what I said. How helps a machine you now to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All machines such as rockets and all ships are built using computers.
> 
> Please wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slow down! You know nothing about me. And I have not any idea, what you try to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I know quite a bit about you, as in you failed homeroom
> 
> 6 times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your problem is what exactly?
Click to expand...


No problems here, but I am comically relieved by the turds in this thread who know how and where the universe came from then ask me what my problem is when I point out to them that they are stating facts without any evidence, which indicates their delusions not mine.  

CIAO


----------



## RWS

Do you know?


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Do you know?


I know that no one on the Earth knows
Minus possible residents of area 52


----------



## RWS

Frannie said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> I know that no one on the Earth knows
> Minus possible residents of area 52
Click to expand...

Wrong area, but we can agree on that!


----------



## RWS

So your not a religious fanatic?


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read again what I wrote. Still you are too fast and do not understand what I said. How helps a machine you now to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All machines such as rockets and all ships are built using computers.
> 
> Please wake up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slow down! You know nothing about me. And I have not any idea, what you try to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I know quite a bit about you, as in you failed homeroom
> 
> 6 times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your problem is what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problems here, but I am comically relieved by the turds in this thread who know how and where the universe came from then ask me what my problem is when I point out to them that they are stating facts without any evidence, which indicates their delusions not mine.
> 
> CIAO
Click to expand...


Nice that you don't have problems. But let me say: Since 1700 years exists in the christian world the plausible philosophical idea there was nothing before god started to create the world. This is not a delusion - perhaps it is an illusion. But when someone like Albert Einstein says _"For phycisists time is an illusion"_ (also on plausible reasons) then we don't know what to do with such an information. The phycisist  Anton Zeilinger made very clear that we have some problems with our view to the physical world. Either the concept of time and space have problems or what we call reality is different from our perception and thoughts, how the physical phenomenon entanglement shows very well. Something is wrong ... perhaps it's better to say "weird" ... with our basic concepts (space, time, energy, information, ... ) and still we don't know what it is or what a senseful alternative could be. Prof. Anton Zeilinger said somehow it looks like _"in the beginning was the word".

_


----------



## Frannie

RWS said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> I know that no one on the Earth knows
> Minus possible residents of area 52
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong area, but we can agree on that!
Click to expand...

Right area, as area 51 is the most famous least secret military base on planet earth.  Nothing is there


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All machines such as rockets and all ships are built using computers.
> 
> Please wake up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slow down! You know nothing about me. And I have not any idea, what you try to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I know quite a bit about you, as in you failed homeroom
> 
> 6 times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your problem is what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problems here, but I am comically relieved by the turds in this thread who know how and where the universe came from then ask me what my problem is when I point out to them that they are stating facts without any evidence, which indicates their delusions not mine.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice that you don't have problems. But let me say: Since 1700 years exists in the christian world the plausible philosophical idea there was nothing before god started to create the world. This is not a delusion - perhaps it is an illusion. But when someone like Albert Einstein says _"For phycisists time is an illusion"_ (also on plausible reasons) then we don't know what to do with such an information. The phycisist  Anton Zeilinger made very clear that we have some problems with our view to the physical world. Either the concept of time and space have problems or what we call reality is different from our perception and thoughts, how the physical phenomenon entanglement shows very well. Something is wrong ... perhaps it's better to say "weird" ... with our basic concepts (space, time, energy, information, ... ) and still we don't know what it is or what a senseful alternative could be. Prof. Anton Zeilinger said somehow it looks like _"in the beginning was the word".
> 
> _
Click to expand...

Oh my fucking god.  You just said christianity is 1700 years old

Get medicated dude


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> and still we don't know what it is or what a senseful alternative could be.


It kind of sounds to me like you ARE claiming to know.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> and still we don't know what it is or what a senseful alternative could be.
> 
> 
> 
> It kind of sounds to me like you ARE claiming to know.
Click to expand...


Why do you try to lie with my words? I did not say "and still we don't know what it is or what a senseful alternative could be." I said this  explicit in context of basic elements of our physical research. If you like to know somethjing from me then just simple ask me. I know a lot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Why do you try to lie with my words?


So now you DON'T claim to know that the explanation is God,? Geesh, make up your mind!


----------



## RWS

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. So I can't join my friends in freemasonry. I cannot believe in a supreme being, unless that supreme being is a major sadistic asshole. And if that's the case, I don't want to believe in it, because he/she/it is a major fucker. So I have leave my options open with a general intelligence that explains our existence and how the universe works, or just plain randomness and/or chaos to explain it.

Anybody who's actually directing this world and the atrocities committed on it, is a butthole. And not worthy of our devotion.


----------



## RWS

Let's talk about what is possible, and what's really going on.


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> The phycisist  Anton Zeilinger made very clear that we have some problems with our view to the physical world. Either the concept of time and space have problems or...



Yup, that idea of "space-time" is as false as a thirteen dollars bill.

Take away such absurdity of space-time from science and you will be able to discover -as I did- even what is dark matter and why is hard to detect or isolate.

Trust me with this, relativity stupefies you.

About life in other planets, at this moment yes, there are now great possibilities and or probabilities of life in other planets.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you try to lie with my words?
> 
> 
> 
> So now you DON'T claim to know that the explanation is God,? Geesh, make up your mind!
Click to expand...


What exactly is your problem? An explanation in science is never "god". What we see about the creation in natural science is: The universe started to expand about 13.8 billion years ago in a so called "big bang" (which was not big and not a bang but a kind of point where all available energy was concentrated). From my Christian point of view I don't see anything what is in confrontation with natural science.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...



Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> Let's talk about what is possible, and what's really going on.



The species homo sapiens sapiens destroys the biosphere of the third planet solar system - which is perhaps unique in the whole universe - instead to help all and every life.


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slow down! You know nothing about me. And I have not any idea, what you try to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I know quite a bit about you, as in you failed homeroom
> 
> 6 times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your problem is what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problems here, but I am comically relieved by the turds in this thread who know how and where the universe came from then ask me what my problem is when I point out to them that they are stating facts without any evidence, which indicates their delusions not mine.
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice that you don't have problems. But let me say: Since 1700 years exists in the christian world the plausible philosophical idea there was nothing before god started to create the world. This is not a delusion - perhaps it is an illusion. But when someone like Albert Einstein says _"For phycisists time is an illusion"_ (also on plausible reasons) then we don't know what to do with such an information. The phycisist  Anton Zeilinger made very clear that we have some problems with our view to the physical world. Either the concept of time and space have problems or what we call reality is different from our perception and thoughts, how the physical phenomenon entanglement shows very well. Something is wrong ... perhaps it's better to say "weird" ... with our basic concepts (space, time, energy, information, ... ) and still we don't know what it is or what a senseful alternative could be. Prof. Anton Zeilinger said somehow it looks like _"in the beginning was the word".
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my fucking god.
Click to expand...


Sorry, dear god. He seems to be convinced to be an aggressive idiot is much more comfortable than to believe in you.



> You just said christianity is 1700 years old



No. I said modern results of natural physics and old meta-physical (super-natural) thoughts have an interesting common element.



> Get medicated dude


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phycisist  Anton Zeilinger made very clear that we have some problems with our view to the physical world. Either the concept of time and space have problems or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that idea of "space-time" is as false as a thirteen dollars bill.
Click to expand...


No. You don't understand what it is - that's all. Take a view under "Minkowski-space" for example.



> Take away such absurdity of space-time from science and you will be able to discover -as I did- even what is dark matter and why is hard to detect or isolate.
> 
> Trust me with this, relativity stupefies you.
> 
> About life in other planets, at this moment yes, there are now great possibilities and or probabilities of life in other planets.



Nearly endless possibilities - for a nearly impossible event. 0*oo is what result? Exactly: Something what we don't know.


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> Nearly endless possibilities - for a nearly impossible event. 0*oo is what result? Exactly: Something what we don't know.



Perfect, you are using the typical upside down cone.(The caricature in your video)

You know, that upside down cone was invented by poor Hawking.

Lets analyze it. (from his comic book "A Brief History of Time")





The caricature from above, according to Hawking, is a diagram of space time and light "directions", this is to say, how those will "move".

According to him, the upside down cone represents the initial point (present) and the "future". Whoa!

Then, he traced lines inside and outside the cone and he claims those are the directions of space, time and light.

Then, from right to left, space goes horizontal, a non allowed direction is the second arrow, the third arrow following the shape of the cone is the allowed "limit" for light, the following arrow is the allowed path for the body, and finally, the vertical line is time going straight up.

The cone in your video is practically the same monkey but with a different banana.

Please, write to the Astronomer Royal or to NASA, and ask them to explain you how Hawking was capable of representing the future as a cone, time going vertical, light and body having a solid parameter, and even the existence of a zone where phenomena of any kind is not allowed.

What instrument was used for Hawking to detect those and make such a representation?

Come on, can't you see that the whole fuss about space-time is nothing but lunacies?

And look, when I call them lunacies, I am not insulting anyone, because when I insult to someone then I say bad words, and because the deserved respect for the readers, I just describe poor Albert and Hawking as mentally disable persons, and their writings a waste of time if you keep reading them.

You have the diagram made by Hawking. Same upside cone of your video. (By the way, I didn't watch the video, I don't have to, if I want to watch caricatures I prefer Pinocchio from Disney).

Do a favor to yourself. Explain those arrows, 

1)- Why do they go that way?

2)- How do you know they go in that way.

3)- Why not different? 

4)- Are those representations of a phenomenon in the universe or just the infantile imagination of Hawking?

The day you have a plausible answer, then you can continue following that theory, otherwise, if no one gives you the accurate answer, then you'll know your legs have been pulled.

Hope you bring here good news and the answer for those arrows. I truly hope so.


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
Click to expand...




zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
Click to expand...

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

But I don't believe that.

We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary. And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.

We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.


----------



## RWS

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phycisist  Anton Zeilinger made very clear that we have some problems with our view to the physical world. Either the concept of time and space have problems or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that idea of "space-time" is as false as a thirteen dollars bill.
> 
> Take away such absurdity of space-time from science and you will be able to discover -as I did- even what is dark matter and why is hard to detect or isolate.
> 
> Trust me with this, relativity stupefies you.
> 
> About life in other planets, at this moment yes, there are now great possibilities and or probabilities of life in other planets.
Click to expand...

I also don't agree with space-time.

Especially time.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.



I've heard it was a hologram or two-dimensional surfaces that show absolutely precise, three-dimensional images of real objects..  The simulation is made by a computer program while the hologram is made by a hologram, light, and your brain.  It's mind boggling that something exists only when you observe it in quantum mechanics.


Who are these guys and why are they saying such things?


----------



## james bond

luchitociencia said:


> Yup, that idea of "space-time" is as false as a thirteen dollars bill.



You mean a three dollar bill.  I think one needs space as any matter no matter how small needs space.  We are not as sure about time.  I thought matter moves because they have time, but maybe it's the concept of time that moves when matter moves through space.  IOW, all of these things are related.  It would seem to fit when something moves and you notice it first, then I notice it, and so on.


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly endless possibilities - for a nearly impossible event. 0*oo is what result? Exactly: Something what we don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect, you are using the typical upside down cone.(The caricature in your video)
Click to expand...


The Minkowski-space?



> You know, that upside down cone was invented by poor Hawking.



No, I don't know this.



> Lets analyze it. (from his comic book "A Brief History of Time")



Comic book? ... "Eine kleine Geschichte der Zeit" (german title) is a very nice non-fiction book.



> View attachment 291866
> The caricature from above, according to Hawking, is a diagram of space time and light "directions", this is to say, how those will "move".



Move?



> According to him, the upside down cone represents the initial point (present) and the "future". Whoa!
> 
> Then, he traced lines inside and outside the cone and he claims those are the directions of space, time and light.
> 
> Then, from right to left, space goes horizontal, a non allowed direction is the second arrow, the third arrow following the shape of the cone is the allowed "limit" for light, the following arrow is the allowed path for the body, and finally, the vertical line is time going straight up.
> 
> The cone in your video is practically the same monkey but with a different banana.



I don't think you understand what you say on your own.



> Please, write to the Astronomer Royal or to NASA, and ask them to explain you how Hawking was capable of representing the future as a cone, time going vertical, light and body having a solid parameter, and even the existence of a zone where phenomena of any kind is not allowed.



What for heavens sake do you speak about? It's just simple the Minkowksi-space - this is what we call normally "space-time". The coordinates which physicists are using are in this case (x,y,z,t). What you see is a three dimensional didactic object (showed on a two dimensional piece of paper) - but the coordinates phycisists are using are 4 dimensional. You are not able to imagine 4 dimensions. This here is for example the projection of a 4 dimensional hyper-cube to two dimensions:

-----





Jeder Versuch, einen 4D-Hyperwürfel auf einer 2D-Oberfläche darzustellen, geht grundsätzlich in die Hose. Es sind bestenfalls pseudoartige Projektionen möglich, die einen kleinen Eindruck von seiner Komplexität vermitteln. Die hier gezeigte Darstellung gibt immerhin die Anzahl der Ecken, Kanten und Flächen korrekt wieder.
source: Woraus bestehen 4D-Würfel und andere Hyperwürfel?
-----

The text says that every projection of a 4th dimensional structure onto a 2 dimensional surface is  never correct. In this projection here is the number of the corners, edges (cants) and faces correct.



> What instrument was used for Hawking to detect those and make such a representation?
> 
> Come on, can't you see that the whole fuss about space-time is nothing but lunacies?



I would say to say so more than 100 years after Einstein had made this discoveries  sounds much more lunatic.



> And look, when I call them lunacies, I am not insulting anyone, because when I insult to someone then I say bad words, and because the deserved respect for the readers, I just describe poor Albert and Hawking as mentally disable persons, and their writings a waste of time if you keep reading them.



You call Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings "mentally disable persons"? They are the exact opposite: Both had an unbelievable strong and sane psychological structure.



> You have the diagram made by Hawking. Same upside cone of your video. (By the way, I didn't watch the video, I don't have to, if I want to watch caricatures I prefer Pinocchio from Disney).
> 
> Do a favor to yourself. Explain those arrows,
> 
> 1)- Why do they go that way?
> 
> 2)- How do you know they go in that way.
> 
> 3)- Why not different?
> 
> 4)- Are those representations of a phenomenon in the universe or just the infantile imagination of Hawking?
> 
> The day you have a plausible answer, then you can continue following that theory, otherwise, if no one gives you the accurate answer, then you'll know your legs have been pulled.
> 
> Hope you bring here good news and the answer for those arrows. I truly hope so.



Try to understand what the Minkowski-space is. More simple example: When someone accelerates a car then we measure this accleration in meters per squaresecond. Did you ever see a squaresecond? Is it "infantile" to believe in squareseconds or not? Are you able to go a second left and two seconds right? Indeed whether a squaresecond exists or not exists is in physics a totally irrelevant question. The important thing is that this calculation delivers the right value for the speed of the car at any position and time.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.
> 
> But I don't believe that.
Click to expand...


Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.



> We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.



And you believe in atheism.



> And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.


What a nonsense



> We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.



And why exists "evolution" and "et."?


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.
> 
> But I don't believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe in atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why exists "evolution" and "et."?
Click to expand...

Because of chaos.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> And you believe in atheism.


Are you sure about that? Let's check.

RWS

Do you believe, with absolute certainty, that there are no gods?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> And why exists "evolution"


Why? Or how? The former is a meaningless question, as no guess is better than any other. The second is the only that can be answered.


----------



## RWS

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe in atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that? Let's check.
> 
> RWS
> 
> Do you believe, with absolute certainty, that there are no gods?
Click to expand...


Well depends on what you  mean about gods. I don't believe there are any supernatural gods.

I do allow the possibility that ET's were regarded as gods in our ancient past and led to present religion..


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.
> 
> But I don't believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe in atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why exists "evolution" and "et."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of chaos.
Click to expand...


Why exists chaos? Or better: Why exists existance? That's what I asked you and what you try to thin.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe in atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that? Let's check.
> 
> RWS
> 
> Do you believe, with absolute certainty, that there are no gods?
Click to expand...


Yes. All this what we call normally "gods" are only another kind of human beings within their very limited way to live. On the other side speak people often with or about god without knowing this on their own. In every creative process for example or when someone finds out what's true happens such a communication via spirit and with the spirit of god. ...


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.
> 
> But I don't believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe in atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why exists "evolution" and "et."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why exists chaos? Or better: Why exists existance? That's what I asked you and what you try to thin.
Click to expand...

You're asking questions after being asked shit.

What I want to know is why you are right, and we are wrong?


----------



## RWS

Just tell me why I'm wrong.


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> I don't think you understand what you say on your own.



On the contrary, I understood Hawking drawings are caricatures and you can tell sure they are.



zaangalewa said:


> The text says that every projection of a 4th dimensional structure onto a 2 dimensional surface is  never correct. In this projection here is the number of the corners, edges (cants) and faces correct.



Your problem is that you believe in pieces of paper and computer simulations. I'm asking you for the empirical evidence. Prove me correct those caricatures.



zaangalewa said:


> You call Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings "mentally disable persons"? They are the exact opposite: Both had an unbelievable strong and sane psychological structure.



Where is their strength and psychological structure when Einstein described himself declared he was a retarded person? 

Can't you see Hawking's mind was deteriorating that bad that in his second book he decorated the pages with lots of color caricatures-literal caricatures-, no more "diagrams" of the universe? 



> You have the diagram made by Hawking. Same upside cone of your video. (By the way, I didn't watch the video, I don't have to, if I want to watch caricatures I prefer Pinocchio from Disney).
> 
> Do a favor to yourself. Explain those arrows,
> 
> 1)- Why do they go that way?
> 
> 2)- How do you know they go in that way.
> 
> 3)- Why not different?
> 
> 4)- Are those representations of a phenomenon in the universe or just the infantile imagination of Hawking?
> 
> The day you have a plausible answer, then you can continue following that theory, otherwise, if no one gives you the accurate answer, then you'll know your legs have been pulled.
> 
> Hope you bring here good news and the answer for those arrows. I truly hope so.





zaangalewa said:


> Try to understand what the Minkowski-space is. More simple example: When someone accelerates a car then we measure this accleration in meters per squaresecond. Did you ever see a squaresecond? Is it "infantile" to believe in squareseconds or not? Are you able to go a second left and two seconds right? Indeed whether a squaresecond exists or not exists is in physics a totally irrelevant question. The important thing is that this calculation delivers the right value for the speed of the car at any position and time.



Can't you see that your positions is based in fanaticism?

You yourself accept the no possibility of the existence of that "squaresecond" but as the manipulated formulas work, then that is fine with you.Hey, you are inventing things that don't exist.

Science is not about imaginations, science is about facts.

If you lean on writings in pieces of paper, and that with those you can explain the universe, then don't go far away, and describe here with formulas, and solely formulas the following: a group of thieves went and committed a robbery at the jewelry store at 1234 Tyler Ave NW, TB United Provinces. The older thief of 35 years or age and suffering of diabetes took  431 grams in gold collars, gold rings, gold bracelets. The second thief was at the door checking outside in case police is around. The third thief was in charge of controlling the attendant and customers. The first thief was 175lbs, the second 172lbs and the third 154lbs weight, and 5'8", 6'1" and 5'5"height. The attendant is alcoholic and was drunk at the moment of the robbery. The customers were two women, one of them a 25 years old  and 7 month.pregnant, and the another her mother 49 years old and good health. Police arrived after a warning from outside witness and the interchange of shots lasted five minutes 45 seconds. Two thieves died and a third one escaped thru the back door. The young woman had a bullet on her chest and the mother one between the eyes. The attendant suffered no injuries but defecated himself and the place was stinking like hell. It was 3:37 pm and the whole incident lasted 52 minutes.

Include the whole numerical information and diseases in your formulas. Lets see how your mathematical "language" works. You are free to use any speed of the motion of each individual, the angle of the shoots, the number of police officers, the size of the store, the available space for the movement of the characters, and other additional at your own criteria.Point is for you to explain the event with numbers, solely numbers, formulas and equations.

Still, you must answer as well the explanation of the caricature made by Hawking





Definitively your explanation of it will be your test of fire. The questions were made in my former post. 

If no one can answer it, then for sure that diagram of Hawking is nothing but infantile imagination. 

This forum is about science, right? And you say you understand Einstein and Hawking and for this reason you are defending them. 

Then, you understand that diagram. Please explain with details an solid empirical background why the direction of space is horizontal why time is vertical? why light and objects have such limited directions? What is that zone where neither space, light and the others can't use such direction? What that zone means in physical reality? Where such a zone has been detected? Why a cone figure in the first place? Why not just a line of another "expansion" like starting point and everything going out like an explosion?

Where Hawking obtained such a "model"?

Come on, you still are adding more fantasy with videos and more imaginary models of the universe and are evading answering the questions.

You really don't know physics, don't you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWS said:


> I don't believe there are ....


But, do you believe, with certainty, that there are none?


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.
> 
> But I don't believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe in atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why exists "evolution" and "et."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why exists chaos? Or better: Why exists existance? That's what I asked you and what you try to thin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're asking questions after being asked shit.
Click to expand...


Sigh. Why has no one  manners any longer?



> What I want to know is why you are right, and we are wrong?



Why I am wrong and your we is right? Hmm ... what could be a reason for? What did you say why existence exists?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> What did you say why existance exists?


Dear charlatan:

Your parlor tricks are older than dirt. Let me make a suggestion:

*Answer your own questions.* You keep asking esoteric, philosophical questions and demanding answers from people who have already told you that they don't know the answers, or that the answers can't be known.

So, instead of boring the whole world to death with your cheap, tired parlor tricks, don't post another one of these garbage questions and then demand a response without first fully answering it yourself.

Then, we can scrutinize YOUR position on the ideas YOU are introducing. Got it?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard it was a hologram or two-dimensional surfaces that show absolutely precise, three-dimensional images of real objects..  The simulation is made by a computer program while the hologram is made by a hologram, light, and your brain.  It's mind boggling that something exists only when you observe it in quantum mechanics.
> 
> 
> Who are these guys and why are they saying such things?
Click to expand...


The guys are called theoretical physicists and they "say" such things (= they make such detailed mathematical fictions about a hologram-world) for example - if I remember well - on the reason entropy has a two-dimensional parameter of growth in the three-dimensional world. Another reason is that such a theory eliminates one (or all) contradictions between the theories about relativity and quantum mechanics. In case of such a theory exists a plan of the universe around the universe in a distance, where we are not able to see this plan - but it could be the event horizon of a black hole contains informations about, which we are perhaps able to read ... or not.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existance exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Dear charlatan:
> 
> Your parlor tricks are older than dirt. Let me make a suggestion:
> 
> *Answer your own questions.* You keep asking esoteric, philosophical questions and demanding answers from people who have already told you that they don't know the answers, or that the answers can't be known.
> 
> So, instead of boring the whole world to death with your cheap, tired parlor tricks, don't post another one of these garbage questions and then demand a response without first fully answering it yourself.
> 
> Then, we can scrutinize YOUR position on the ideas YOU are introducing. Got it?
Click to expand...


"Nothing." The answer you gave is "nothing".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Nothing." The answer you gave is "nothing".


That's a lie you literally made up as you posted it. See what I mean? You are a fraud, same as any other religious, forked tongue beguiler. When tasked with answering your own questions -- with clearly stating your own position, so that it can be scrutinized with the same rigor with which you examine the positions of everyone else -- you pull out a shiny bauble and say, "Hey, look at this instead!"

Your questions are not honest queries. They are props meant to obfuscate and confuse the discussion. And, like any religious charlatan, once you feel the discussion has been minced into an amorphous paste of nonsense, you jump right back in and pinch off a pile of magical nonsense.

Your attempt is ignored, and i task you with answering your own questions. Clearly and directly.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing." The answer you gave is "nothing".
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie you literally made up as you posted it. See what I mean? You are a fraud, same as any other religious, forked tongue beguiler. When tasked with answering your own questions -- with clearly stating your own position, so that it can be scrutinized with the same rigor with which you examine the positions of everyone else -- you pull out a shiny bauble and say, "Hey, look at this instead!"
> 
> Your questions are not honest queries. They are props meant to obfuscate and confuse the discussion. And, like any religious charlatan, once you feel the discussion has been minced into an amorphous paste of nonsense, you jump right back in and pinch off a pile of magical nonsense.
> 
> Your attempt is ignored, and i task you with answering your own questions. Clearly and directly.
Click to expand...


I don't have any idea why you make such a war full of senseless negative emotional words out of the very simple question _"Why exists existence?"

_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing." The answer you gave is "nothing".
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie you literally made up as you posted it. See what I mean? You are a fraud, same as any other religious, forked tongue beguiler. When tasked with answering your own questions -- with clearly stating your own position, so that it can be scrutinized with the same rigor with which you examine the positions of everyone else -- you pull out a shiny bauble and say, "Hey, look at this instead!"
> 
> Your questions are not honest queries. They are props meant to obfuscate and confuse the discussion. And, like any religious charlatan, once you feel the discussion has been minced into an amorphous paste of nonsense, you jump right back in and pinch off a pile of magical nonsense.
> 
> Your attempt is ignored, and i task you with answering your own questions. Clearly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea why you make such a war full of senseless negative emotional words out of the very simple question _"Why exists existence?"
> _
Click to expand...

And your answer is...? Pretending you are too dumb to understand the simple task given to you is not going to help your credibility.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"Why exists existence?"

Meaningless, pile of crap question. But zaangalewa  is going to answer it for us, clearly and fully. How exciting!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

*crickets*


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand what you say on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, I understood Hawking drawings are caricatures and you can tell sure they are.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The text says that every projection of a 4th dimensional structure onto a 2 dimensional surface is  never correct. In this projection here is the number of the corners, edges (cants) and faces correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is that you believe in pieces of paper and computer simulations. I'm asking you for the empirical evidence. Prove me correct those caricatures.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings "mentally disable persons"? They are the exact opposite: Both had an unbelievable strong and sane psychological structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is their strength and psychological structure when Einstein described himself declared he was a retarded person?
> 
> Can't you see Hawking's mind was deteriorating that bad that in his second book he decorated the pages with lots of color caricatures-literal caricatures-, no more "diagrams" of the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the diagram made by Hawking. Same upside cone of your video. (By the way, I didn't watch the video, I don't have to, if I want to watch caricatures I prefer Pinocchio from Disney).
> 
> Do a favor to yourself. Explain those arrows,
> 
> 1)- Why do they go that way?
> 
> 2)- How do you know they go in that way.
> 
> 3)- Why not different?
> 
> 4)- Are those representations of a phenomenon in the universe or just the infantile imagination of Hawking?
> 
> The day you have a plausible answer, then you can continue following that theory, otherwise, if no one gives you the accurate answer, then you'll know your legs have been pulled.
> 
> Hope you bring here good news and the answer for those arrows. I truly hope so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to understand what the Minkowski-space is. More simple example: When someone accelerates a car then we measure this accleration in meters per squaresecond. Did you ever see a squaresecond? Is it "infantile" to believe in squareseconds or not? Are you able to go a second left and two seconds right? Indeed whether a squaresecond exists or not exists is in physics a totally irrelevant question. The important thing is that this calculation delivers the right value for the speed of the car at any position and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you see that your positions is based in fanaticism?
> 
> You yourself accept the no possibility of the existence of that "squaresecond" but as the manipulated formulas work, then that is fine with you.Hey, you are inventing things that don't exist.
> 
> Science is not about imaginations, science is about facts.
> 
> If you lean on writings in pieces of paper, and that with those you can explain the universe, then don't go far away, and describe here with formulas, and solely formulas the following: a group of thieves went and committed a robbery at the jewelry store at 1234 Tyler Ave NW, TB United Provinces. The older thief of 35 years or age and suffering of diabetes took  431 grams in gold collars, gold rings, gold bracelets. The second thief was at the door checking outside in case police is around. The third thief was in charge of controlling the attendant and customers. The first thief was 175lbs, the second 172lbs and the third 154lbs weight, and 5'8", 6'1" and 5'5"height. The attendant is alcoholic and was drunk at the moment of the robbery. The customers were two women, one of them a 25 years old  and 7 month.pregnant, and the another her mother 49 years old and good health. Police arrived after a warning from outside witness and the interchange of shots lasted five minutes 45 seconds. Two thieves died and a third one escaped thru the back door. The young woman had a bullet on her chest and the mother one between the eyes. The attendant suffered no injuries but defecated himself and the place was stinking like hell. It was 3:37 pm and the whole incident lasted 52 minutes.
> 
> Include the whole numerical information and diseases in your formulas. Lets see how your mathematical "language" works. You are free to use any speed of the motion of each individual, the angle of the shoots, the number of police officers, the size of the store, the available space for the movement of the characters, and other additional at your own criteria.Point is for you to explain the event with numbers, solely numbers, formulas and equations.
> 
> Still, you must answer as well the explanation of the caricature made by Hawking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitively your explanation of it will be your test of fire. The questions were made in my former post.
> 
> If no one can answer it, then for sure that diagram of Hawking is nothing but infantile imagination.
> 
> This forum is about science, right? And you say you understand Einstein and Hawking and for this reason you are defending them.
> 
> Then, you understand that diagram. Please explain with details an solid empirical background why the direction of space is horizontal why time is vertical? why light and objects have such limited directions? What is that zone where neither space, light and the others can't use such direction? What that zone means in physical reality? Where such a zone has been detected? Why a cone figure in the first place? Why not just a line of another "expansion" like starting point and everything going out like an explosion?
> 
> Where Hawking obtained such a "model"?
> 
> Come on, you still are adding more fantasy with videos and more imaginary models of the universe and are evading answering the questions.
> 
> You really don't know physics, don't you?
Click to expand...


no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> Meaningless ...



So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?


Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:

"Why exists existence?"

We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.

So... your answer?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Over/under on the amount of time that zaangalewa  will take to clearly and fully answer his own question he is demanding others answer, so that we can scrutinize HIS position on the ideas HE is introducing: *infinity*

I will take the over.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:
> 
> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.
> 
> So... your answer?
Click to expand...


No comment


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:
> 
> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.
> 
> So... your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comment
Click to expand...

Haha, that's what I thought.  Oh, believe me, I know you think you know the answer.  But you know your "answer" will wilt like lettuce in the sun, when subjected to the same scrutiny you reserve for others.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:
> 
> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.
> 
> So... your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, that's what I thought.  So take your snake oil show walking, ya charlatan.
Click to expand...

no comment


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:
> 
> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.
> 
> So... your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, that's what I thought.  So take your snake oil show walking, ya charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no comment
Click to expand...

Then stop trying to derail the discussions with your horseshit by demanding others answer this same question. Got it?

You whine about manners, then lie about what I have said and refuse to answer the questions you demand others answer. In what universe is that "good manners"?  None.  Your entire act will now fall apart completely, top to bottom, due to this simple demonstration.  Just like putting Uri Geller on the Johnny Carson show to watch him fail to bend spoons.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:
> 
> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.
> 
> So... your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, that's what I thought.  So take your snake oil show walking, ya charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then stop trying to derail the discussions with your horseshit by demanding others answer this same question. Got it?
Click to expand...

no comment


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> no comment


Correction: *no balls


----------



## boedicca

I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

boedicca said:


> I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.


That's kind of where I sit on the whole thing, too. I think "Fermi's Paradox" isn't a paradox at all.


----------



## boedicca

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind of where I sit on the whole thing, too. I think "Fermi's Paradox" isn't a paradox at all.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  I'll go with the Jeff Goldblum/Ian Malcom's theory on this one.  "Life, uh, finds a way".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Over/under on the amount of time that zaangalewa will take to clearly and fully answer his own question he is demanding others answer, so that we can scrutinize HIS position on the ideas HE is introducing: *infinity*
> 
> I will take the over.


Still looking good to win this bet...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

boedicca said:


> "Life, uh, finds a way".


Right. That's, basically, a definition of life, in a way. the systems which persist and replicate, persist and replicate. Heavier objects sink, lighter objects rise, and self-replicating, persistent systems replicate and persist. It's not something that can even be stopped, really. It can only be beset with setbacks.


----------



## Death Angel

There is no life anywhere but God and this creation here. I dont get my science from Hollywood


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> There is no life anywhere but God and this creation here. I dont get my science from Hollywood


You don't get your science from ANYWHERE. You are not talking science. You are spewing magical voodoo chants and claiming to know things you could not possibly know. Adjust the bone in your nose, I think it is poking your brain, shaman.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> no comment
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: *no balls
Click to expand...

no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:
> 
> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.
> 
> So... your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, that's what I thought.  So take your snake oil show walking, ya charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then stop trying to derail the discussions with your horseshit by demanding others answer this same question. Got it?
> 
> You whine about manners, then lie about what I have said and refuse to answer the questions you demand others answer. In what universe is that "good manners"?  None.  Your entire act will now fall apart completely, top to bottom, due to this simple demonstration.  Just like putting Uri Geller on the Johnny Carson show to watch him fail to bend spoons.
Click to expand...

no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:
> 
> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.
> 
> So... your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, that's what I thought.  So take your snake oil show walking, ya charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then stop trying to derail the discussions with your horseshit by demanding others answer this same question. Got it?
> 
> You whine about manners, then lie about what I have said and refuse to answer the questions you demand others answer. In what universe is that "good manners"?  None.  Your entire act will now fall apart completely, top to bottom, due to this simple demonstration.  Just like putting Uri Geller on the Johnny Carson show to watch him fail to bend spoons.
Click to expand...

no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the world is not nothing and it is not a simulation but it is meaningless (=senseless)?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked, first , with answering the following question:
> 
> "Why exists existence?"
> 
> We will get to you answering your other questions after you answer this one. Boy oh boy... you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid the simple task you have no problem assigning to everyone else. I wonder why? No I don't.
> 
> So... your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, that's what I thought.  Oh, believe me, I know you think you know the answer.  But you know your "answer" will wilt like lettuce in the sun, when subjected to the same scrutiny you reserve for others.
Click to expand...

no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing." The answer you gave is "nothing".
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie you literally made up as you posted it. See what I mean? You are a fraud, same as any other religious, forked tongue beguiler. When tasked with answering your own questions -- with clearly stating your own position, so that it can be scrutinized with the same rigor with which you examine the positions of everyone else -- you pull out a shiny bauble and say, "Hey, look at this instead!"
> 
> Your questions are not honest queries. They are props meant to obfuscate and confuse the discussion. And, like any religious charlatan, once you feel the discussion has been minced into an amorphous paste of nonsense, you jump right back in and pinch off a pile of magical nonsense.
> 
> Your attempt is ignored, and i task you with answering your own questions. Clearly and directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any idea why you make such a war full of senseless negative emotional words out of the very simple question _"Why exists existence?"
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your answer is...? Pretending you are too dumb to understand the simple task given to you is not going to help your credibility.
Click to expand...

no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana

What do you speak about? About your psychological problems?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> What do you speak about? About your psychological problems?


Oh look, two more questions. No, sissy, you dont get to ask any more questions, until you start answering your own.

Which you will not do, because you are a fraud , and your questions are merely props to distract what you hope is a gullible audience, willing to suspend incredulity , in their confusion, for even a millisecond, so you can wedge into their brains and into the discussion your iron aged voodoo horseshit. Unfortunately for your tired act, you ran into the brick wall called a functioning, rational adult who knows your cheap parlor tricks better than you do.

This has all been demonstrated very clearly, by now. Looks like i am going to win that bet.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you speak about? About your psychological problems?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, two more questions. No, sissy,
Click to expand...


Did you ever visit a kindergarten?



> you dont get to ask any more questions, until you start answering your own.
> 
> Which you will not do, because you are a fraud , and your questions are merely props to distract what you hope is a gullible audience, willing to suspend incredulity , in their confusion, for even a millisecond, so you can wedge into their brains and into the discussion your iron aged voodoo horseshit. Unfortunately for your tired act, you ran into the brick wall called a functioning, rational adult who knows your cheap parlor tricks better than you do.
> 
> This has all been demonstrated very clearly, by now. Looks like i am going to win that bet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Did you ever visit a kindergarten?


ANOTHER question? Sorry, you havent yet answered your own question. You know, the one you repeatedly demanded others answer. Lets try again:

"Why exists existence?"

And now, you tell us.


----------



## MAGAman

boedicca said:


> I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.


Life or sentient life?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MAGAman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> Life or sentient life?
Click to expand...

That's a tough one.  I would say it seems like there should be at least one other example of sentient life in the history of the universe. Depending on the standard for "sentience", it may have evolved on Earth more than once.


----------



## MAGAman

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> Life or sentient life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a tough one.  I would say it seems like there should be at least one other example of sentient life in the history of the universe. Depending on the standard for "sentience", it may have evolved on Earth more than once.
Click to expand...

Could be.

The overwhelming number of specific occurrences that had to occur in a specific order that led to life on earth makes it a miracle that we exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MAGAman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> Life or sentient life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a tough one.  I would say it seems like there should be at least one other example of sentient life in the history of the universe. Depending on the standard for "sentience", it may have evolved on Earth more than once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could be.
> 
> The overwhelming number of specific occurrences that had to occur in a specific order that led to life on earth makes it a miracle that we exist.
Click to expand...

Nah,I dont buy into that. Thats just a reiteration of hoyles fallacy. Using that specious reasoning, you could reduce the probability of ANY event to virtually zero. Think of all the specific things that had to happen for the milky way to be exactly as it is, exactly where it is? Yet we can look up and see 200 billion other galaxies.

See that rock on the ground? The odds of that rock being shaped exactly as it is, located exactly where it is, and having the precise chemical composition it has are near zero. 

Your reasoning only really applies to "the odds of the EXACT type of life that exists here". To illustrate: the odds of lightning striking a specific cubic centimeter of land are infinitesimal. But the odds of lightning striking at all are 100%.

Yes, the odds of getting humans from an abiogenesis event are near zero. But we aren't restricting the discussion to the odds of getting humans.


----------



## MAGAman

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nah,I dont buy into that. Thats just a reiteration of hoyles fallacy. Using that specious reasoning, you could reduce the probability of ANY event to virtually zero. Think of all the specific things that had to happen for the milky way to be exactly as it is, exactly where it is? Yet we can look up and see 200 billion other galaxies.
> 
> See that rock on the ground? The odds of that rock being shaped exactly as it is, located exactly where it is, and having the precise chemical composition it has are near zero.
> 
> Your reasoning only really applies to "the odds of the EXACT type of life that exists here". To illustrate: the odds of lightning striking a specific cubic centimeter of land are infinitesimal. But the odds of lightning striking at all are 100%.
> 
> Yes, the odds of getting humans from an abiogenesis event are near zero. But we aren't restricting the discussion to the odds of getting humans.


I never implied human or even human-like life.

Just Sentient life.

Buy it or not, our existence is a miracle. Onle that God could have done elsewhere,  or not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MAGAman said:


> I never implied human or even human-like life.


But you did, apparently without knowing it, when you referred to the "steps" that occured on the way to getting humans.  At no point did you make any constraints about them being necessary for sentient life. Thats the failure of that fallacy. It is a reiteration of Hoyle's Fallacy. 

I can use this specious reasoning to push the probability of ANY event to zero. In fact, with enough time, you can make the probability of any and ALL events in the universe exactly equal, and all virtually zero.

In that light, surely you see the failure of this reasoning. 

"Buy it or not"

That is not compelling. It explains nothing and yields no useful predictions. Also, you have created another problem for yourself: You call it "a miracle", which is code for "magic". Then you also try to frame it as a physical, deterministic process. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.


----------



## MAGAman

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never implied human or even human-like life.
> 
> 
> 
> But you did, apparently without knowing it, when you referred to the "steps" that occured on the way to getting humans.  At no point did you make any constraints about them being necessary for sentient life. Thats the failure of that fallacy. It is a reiteration of Hoyle's Fallacy.
> 
> I can use this specious reasoning to push the probability of ANY event to zero. In fact, with enough time, you can make the probability of any and ALL events in the universe exactly equal, and all virtually zero.
> 
> In that light, surely you see the failure of this reasoning.
> 
> "Buy it or not"
> 
> That is not compelling. It explains nothing and yields no useful predictions. Also, you have created another problem for yourself: You call it "a miracle", which is code for "magic". Then you also try to frame it as a physical, deterministic process. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

No I didn't and I knew exactly what I wrote. I didn't use any secret codes or double entendres. Neither you it I have created any problems for me. But your arrogance isn't the point.

Maybe you're watching too much Star Trek. Or maybe you haven't listened closely to those that try to describe just how complex things are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MAGAman said:


> No I didn't and I knew exactly what I wrote.


Sorry, but you did. Like I said, without realizing it. You describe the "probabilities" (that you could not possibly know) of the steps to life on earth. But we are not discussing the probability of getting the precise kind of life we have on earth. So your line fails there. It further fails when one understands that this arbitrary assignment of probability to any event in the chain of events is a fallacy. See: Hoyle's fallacy.


----------



## boedicca

MAGAman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> Life or sentient life?
Click to expand...



Sentient.  That's the interesting aspect, imho.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

boedicca said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite sure there is life on other planets.  I doubt that we will ever meet each other given the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> Life or sentient life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sentient.  That's the interesting aspect, imho.
Click to expand...

Well, if one considers octopuses to be somewhat sentient, and many mammals, it starts to look like sentience might always arise where there is life, given enough time.


----------



## DOTR

There is no reason to suspect life outsides earth's. None whatsoever. They keep pinning their hopes on "earth like" worlds yet here on the most earth like of worlds life only arose once in billions of years. A truly unique event in the most welcoming and perfect of environments.

  And to top it off their were seven sieves or events life had to travel to become ourselves and each of those was such a long shot as to be called almost miraculous events.

  It is their philosophy..not science..which leads them to swear there must be life other than earth life with zero evidence for the claim.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> There is no reason to suspect life outsides earth's. None whatsoever.


False. There is a mountain of reasons.

Thanks for posting!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> There is a mountain of reasons.



Like magic.  And belief in fake science.


----------



## bripat9643

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's for sure Persian and not Sumerian. This symbol is clearly shoroastric.
Click to expand...

That's the Sumerian God Enki:

https://www.theancientaliens.com/gods-of-sumeria


_Above: Cylinder seal that depicts Enki, the great Anuna god, decending from the heavens in a flying disc. He brings the power and knowledge of the "tree of life" with him and puts that power into the hands of the other Anuna. This tree is shown in the center of the scene. It is important to note that the device refered to as a tree does not really look like a tree, but more like a mechanical device with multiple hinged arms coming from it. The Sumerians may have been trying to describe advanced technologies that they could not explain.

_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> The Sumerians may have been trying to describe advanced technologies that they could not explain.



Heh heh

Oooor they may not have been.

No offense to your post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

fncceo said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
Click to expand...


*Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, *

Even 200 gravities would only have a very small time dilation impact.


----------



## fncceo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, *
> 
> Even 200 gravities would only have a very small time dilation impact.
Click to expand...


A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sumerians may have been trying to describe advanced technologies that they could not explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh heh
> 
> Oooor they may not have been.
> 
> No offense to your post.
Click to expand...

I know the link is to a kook cite, but it does explain the origin of the symbol.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's for sure Persian and not Sumerian. This symbol is clearly shoroastric.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the Sumerian God Enki:
> 
> https://www.theancientaliens.com/gods-of-sumeria
> 
> 
> _Above: Cylinder seal that depicts Enki, the great Anuna god, decending from the heavens in a flying disc. He brings the power and knowledge of the "tree of life" with him and puts that power into the hands of the other Anuna. This tree is shown in the center of the scene. It is important to note that the device refered to as a tree does not really look like a tree, but more like a mechanical device with multiple hinged arms coming from it. The Sumerians may have been trying to describe advanced technologies that they could not explain.
> _
Click to expand...


Finally, there is a myth about aliens (in the distant past), but it could have been angels.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.


We think it's almost certain those do not exist. .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sumerians may have been trying to describe advanced technologies that they could not explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh heh
> 
> Oooor they may not have been.
> 
> No offense to your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know the link is to a kook cite, but it does explain the origin of the symbol.
Click to expand...

Yep


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

fncceo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, *
> 
> Even 200 gravities would only have a very small time dilation impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.
Click to expand...


*A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.*

You're exaggerating. I'm willing to look over your math if you post it here.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, *
> 
> Even 200 gravities would only have a very small time dilation impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.*
> 
> You're exaggerating. I'm willing to look over your math if you post it here.
Click to expand...

Gravity on Jupiter is not thousands of times Earth's gravity.  In fact, it's only 2.5 times Earth's gravity

How Strong Is Jupiter's Gravity? - Universe Today


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, *
> 
> Even 200 gravities would only have a very small time dilation impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.*
> 
> You're exaggerating. I'm willing to look over your math if you post it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity on Jupiter is not thousands of times Earth's gravity.  In fact, it's only 2.5 times Earth's gravity
> 
> How Strong Is Jupiter's Gravity? - Universe Today
Click to expand...


*In fact, it's only 2.5 times Earth's gravity*

But if it were made of similar material as Earth, instead of gas, its gravity would be higher than that.
But still not several thousands of gravities.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, *
> 
> Even 200 gravities would only have a very small time dilation impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A terrestrial planet, not a gas giant, the size of Jupiter would exert several thousands of Gs.*
> 
> You're exaggerating. I'm willing to look over your math if you post it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity on Jupiter is not thousands of times Earth's gravity.  In fact, it's only 2.5 times Earth's gravity
> 
> How Strong Is Jupiter's Gravity? - Universe Today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In fact, it's only 2.5 times Earth's gravity*
> 
> But if it were made of similar material as Earth, instead of gas, its gravity would be higher than that.
> But still not several thousands of gravities.
Click to expand...

About 1321 gravities, if the same density as earth. But it would be much more dense than earth at jupiter's current volume, so would exert much more than 1321 times earths gravity.

But we are pretty certain such a large rock won't exist. There is not enough rocky material in our entire solar system to form an object anywhere near as large as jupiter. Jupiter is mostly gas, yet it contains more mass than all of the other planets combined.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Like magic. And belief in fake science.


* what religious nutballs call good science


----------



## zaangalewa

bripat9643 said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where it started... Winged flying gods in a circle... Sumer. 4000 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's for sure Persian and not Sumerian. This symbol is clearly shoroastric.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the Sumerian God Enki:
> 
> https://www.theancientaliens.com/gods-of-sumeria
> 
> 
> _Above: Cylinder seal that depicts Enki, the great Anuna god, decending from the heavens in a flying disc. He brings the power and knowledge of the "tree of life" with him and puts that power into the hands of the other Anuna. This tree is shown in the center of the scene. It is important to note that the device refered to as a tree does not really look like a tree, but more like a mechanical device with multiple hinged arms coming from it. The Sumerians may have been trying to describe advanced technologies that they could not explain.
> _
Click to expand...


I doubt about this interpretation or  whether this text has anythnig to do with this artefact - if it is a real artefact at all. Source please! The similarity is to high wíth symbols in context of the Persian god (or principle)  Ahura Mazda.

Here a picture of the Sumerian god Enki. Euphrates and Tigris start from his shoulders.


----------



## RWS

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sumerians may have been trying to describe advanced technologies that they could not explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh heh
> 
> Oooor they may not have been.
> 
> No offense to your post.
Click to expand...

Of course they were. It produced their scientific knowledge, and most importantly their mathematical and  counting system. Sexagesimal.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWS said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sumerians may have been trying to describe advanced technologies that they could not explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh heh
> 
> Oooor they may not have been.
> 
> No offense to your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they were. It produced their scientific knowledge, and most importantly their mathematical and  counting system. Sexagesimal.
Click to expand...

So they knew about advanced technologies. But they could not explain them. Okay. Sure.


----------



## RWS

They explained them plainly. People just choose to refuse.

Why is your watch or clock based on 12/60? And where did that counting system come from?


----------



## RWS

I want you to divide 3 hours and 20 minutes, by 2 hours and 40 minutes.This is the counting system the Sumerians used. Taught to them by their gods, the Anunnakil. This was the first counting system ever.

So it's 2:40/3:20 in sexigesimal. or the reverse.... 

You can try to google it, but back in 4000bc they didn't have google. This was how they were taught to make mathematical computations. Using  sexagesmial computations.

We can't imagine it today.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> I want you to divide 3 hours and 20 minutes, by 2 hours and 40 minutes.This is the counting system the Sumerians used. Taught to them by their gods, the Anunnakil. This was the first counting system ever.
> 
> So it's 2:40/3:20 in sexigesimal. or the reverse....
> 
> You can try to google it, but back in 4000bc they didn't have google. This was how they were taught to make mathematical computations. Using  sexagesmial computations.
> 
> We can't imagine it today.



The small multiplication table in our system goes from 1x1 to 10x10 - this are 100 multiplications. The small multiplication table of the Sumerians was from 1x1 to 60x60 - this are 3600 multiplications.

our system: x
their system: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWS said:


> And where did that counting system come from?


You tell us. Why are you asking us? You answer it.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where did that counting system come from?
> 
> 
> 
> You tell us. Why are you asking us? You answer it.
Click to expand...


Oh by the way: What did you say why existence exists? And why is what exists not independent from mathematics?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> What did you say why existence exists?


Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question. 

So, your answer?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWS said:


> Taught to them by their gods, the Anunnakil.



Come on.

Or, it could arise from using two hands to count: 5 fingers on one hand, 12 knuckles on the other.

Or it could be magically divined by the gods or ancient aliens!

What to believe....?


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existence exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
Click to expand...


I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existence exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
Click to expand...

Math can no longer explain galactic movement which is why physicist are now speculating that there is no universe except as code...…………..


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existence exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math can no longer explain galactic movement which is why physicist are now speculating that there is no universe except as code...…………..
Click to expand...


So the universe is not, and this means we are not too - but we have the illusions something is. How are we able to have this illusion while we are not existing the same time? Are we the dream and/or the mathematics and/or the spirit of anyone or anything? But what is this if this is not someone or something?

-----
_„Today, I went to sleep under a plum tree. There, I dreamed I was a butterfly, flying so pleasently. Then, I fell asleep, and the dream ended. Now - I have to ask myself - am I Zhuang Zi who dreamed of a butterfly? Or am I that butterfly, dreaming I am Zhuang Zi?“_
*Zhuang Zi*
-----


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existence exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math can no longer explain galactic movement which is why physicist are now speculating that there is no universe except as code...…………..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe is not, and this means we are not too - but we have the illusions something is. How are we able to have this illusion while we are not existing the same time? Are we the dream and/or the mathematics and/or the spirit of anyone or anything? But what is this if this is not someone or something?
> 
> -----
> _„Today, I went to sleep under a plum tree. There, I dreamed I was a butterfly, flying so pleasently. Then, I fell asleep, and the dream ended. Now - I have to ask myself - am I Zhuang Zi who dreamed of a butterfly? Or am I that butterfly, dreaming I am Zhuang Zi?“_
> *Zhuang Zi*
> -----
Click to expand...

Actually tyson is partly correct because we could be considered computers as we are the result of the genetic code that creates and operates us.   Tyson is an atheist who has found god in science but does not want to admit this so now he claims the universe is a simulation which requires a simulator or God.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> I don't know.


Me either. Thank you for answering.



zaangalewa said:


> Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?


Not sure. Perhaps our math would just be different, if the universe were different.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Me either. Thank you for answering.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure. Perhaps our math would just be different, if the universe were different.
Click to expand...

The math does not change if it does then there is a perception problem


----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existence exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math can no longer explain galactic movement which is why physicist are now speculating that there is no universe except as code...…………..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe is not, and this means we are not too - but we have the illusions something is. How are we able to have this illusion while we are not existing the same time? Are we the dream and/or the mathematics and/or the spirit of anyone or anything? But what is this if this is not someone or something?
> 
> -----
> _„Today, I went to sleep under a plum tree. There, I dreamed I was a butterfly, flying so pleasently. Then, I fell asleep, and the dream ended. Now - I have to ask myself - am I Zhuang Zi who dreamed of a butterfly? Or am I that butterfly, dreaming I am Zhuang Zi?“_
> *Zhuang Zi*
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually tyson is partly correct because we could be considered computers as we are the result of the genetic code that creates and operates us.
Click to expand...


If you would be your genetical twin you would be another person.



> Tyson is an atheist who has found god in science but does not want to admit this so now he claims the universe is a simulation which requires a simulator or God.



The world is wonderful. And sometimes something remembers us to this fact. I don't know what had happened to this Mr. Tyson. But for example the (mathematical plausible) theory about, that the universe could be a 2 dimensional "plan" (far outside where we are not able to see it), which produces a universe like a three dimensional hologram (¿an illusion?) is not more or less wonderful than the fact that somewhere within a nearly empty space is a globe turning around a sun and we are some living dust on this globe. 

_Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand._
*Neil Armstrong

*


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Me either. Thank you for answering.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure. Perhaps our math would just be different, if the universe were different.
Click to expand...


Try to imagine a universe without mathematics.


----------



## Flopper

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


As Carl Sagan once pointed out, the size of the universe, the vast variety of possible life forms, the time span of human life on earth compared to the time span of the universe makes it unlikely that there will exist intelligent life as we know at the point in space and point in time that we explore.

The vast majority of those billions and billions of planets are so far from the earth that even if we had vehicles that travel the speed of light, we would be unlikely to find intelligent life.  It is far more likely that we would find some signs of life long gone or some promise of intelligent life developing eons into the future.  That's not to say that we should not explore space, because that is where our future lies.


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math can no longer explain galactic movement which is why physicist are now speculating that there is no universe except as code...…………..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe is not, and this means we are not too - but we have the illusions something is. How are we able to have this illusion while we are not existing the same time? Are we the dream and/or the mathematics and/or the spirit of anyone or anything? But what is this if this is not someone or something?
> 
> -----
> _„Today, I went to sleep under a plum tree. There, I dreamed I was a butterfly, flying so pleasently. Then, I fell asleep, and the dream ended. Now - I have to ask myself - am I Zhuang Zi who dreamed of a butterfly? Or am I that butterfly, dreaming I am Zhuang Zi?“_
> *Zhuang Zi*
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually tyson is partly correct because we could be considered computers as we are the result of the genetic code that creates and operates us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would be your genetical twin you would be another person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyson is an atheist who has found god in science but does not want to admit this so now he claims the universe is a simulation which requires a simulator or God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The world is wonderful. And sometimes something remembers us to this fact. I don't know what had happened to this Mr. Tyson. But for example the (mathematical plausible) theory about, that the universe could be a 2 dimensional "plan" (far outside where we are not able to see it), which produces a universe like a three dimensional hologram (¿an illusion?) is not more or less wonderful than the fact that somewhere within a nearly empty space is a globe turning around a sun and we are some living dust on this globe.
> 
> _Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand._
> *Neil Armstrong
> *
Click to expand...

Nope the program automatically mutates itself to fit into the environment creating a new and better computer with each generation


----------



## Flopper

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existence exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math can no longer explain galactic movement which is why physicist are now speculating that there is no universe except as code...…………..
Click to expand...

So if we can not explain it mathematically, then it does not exist.


----------



## zaangalewa

Flopper said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existence exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math can no longer explain galactic movement which is why physicist are now speculating that there is no universe except as code...…………..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if we can not explain it mathematically, then it does not exist.
Click to expand...


Describe a universe without natural laws. What is it?


----------



## Wuwei

zaangalewa said:


> Try to imagine a universe without mathematics.


Isaac Asimov wrote a short scifi story about two guys chatting. Meanwhile impossible erratic things were happening all around them. They were talking about a scifi short story they read about a universe where events were mathematically predictable. They decided they would not want to live in a place like that.


----------



## Frannie

Flopper said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did you say why existence exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse you. You are tasked with answering this question.
> 
> So, your answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Why is what exists not independent from mathematics?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Math can no longer explain galactic movement which is why physicist are now speculating that there is no universe except as code...…………..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if we can not explain it mathematically, then it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Nothing that is not understood first can be explained at all.  This is why the universe is now expanding faster than physics allows for


----------



## zaangalewa

Wuwei said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine a universe without mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
> Isaac Asimov wrote a short scifi story about two guys chatting. Meanwhile impossible erratic things were happening all around them. They were talking about a scifi short story they read about a universe where events were mathematically predictable. They decided they would not want to live in a place like that.
Click to expand...


What Asimov was not able to know or did not know was that even in a totally determined world a living future is not concrete predictable - asides from all random principles (mathematics?). And try really to imagine a world without mathematics - without natural laws. You will come very fast to an end, if you do so. The try tohe ossnt andnioagaine a butterfly. How did you create it in your thoughts?  But what would really happen in such a case? By the way: Music is mathematics too - the "emotional" side of relations in space and time. Is music predictable? Is it not predictable?


----------



## Frannie

zaangalewa said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine a universe without mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
> Isaac Asimov wrote a short scifi story about two guys chatting. Meanwhile impossible erratic things were happening all around them. They were talking about a scifi short story they read about a universe where events were mathematically predictable. They decided they would not want to live in a place like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Asimov was not able to know or did not know was that even in a totally determined world a living future is not concrete predictable - asides from all random principles (mathematics?). And try really to imagine a world without mathematics - without natural laws. You will come very fast to an end, if you do so. The try tohe ossnt andnioagaine a butterfly. How did you create it in your thoughts?  But what would really happen in such a case? By the way: Music is mathematics too - the "emotional" side of relations in space and time. Is music predictable? Is it not predictable?
Click to expand...

Life is not mathematically based.


----------



## RWS




----------



## zaangalewa

Frannie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to imagine a universe without mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
> Isaac Asimov wrote a short scifi story about two guys chatting. Meanwhile impossible erratic things were happening all around them. They were talking about a scifi short story they read about a universe where events were mathematically predictable. They decided they would not want to live in a place like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Asimov was not able to know or did not know was that even in a totally determined world a living future is not concrete predictable - asides from all random principles (mathematics?). And try really to imagine a world without mathematics - without natural laws. You will come very fast to an end, if you do so. The try tohe ossnt andnioagaine a butterfly. How did you create it in your thoughts?  But what would really happen in such a case? By the way: Music is mathematics too - the "emotional" side of relations in space and time. Is music predictable? Is it not predictable?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is not mathematically based.
Click to expand...


A dog for example solves very complex mathematical operations unbelievable fast when he hunts behind a ball and jumps and takes it with his hand ... ah sorry - with his mouth. Every lifeform is a structure, which is only understandable in context with other structures. When you take a look at your hand then you take a look at a tree (better to say 'on the realized idea of trees') for example. Some of our animalic ancestors were able to move their forlimbs into lots of directions into space - and when they took a branch with their fingers and hand and arm and body, then they did not fall from the tree. This is a reason for our excellent orientation in three dimensions - although we are not birds.

This means by the way not that human beings (or lifeforms at all) are machines. Also not in case of artificial intelligence. Special programs - expert systems in combination with structure recognition find some solutions, which we call "intelligent" *-  but with real intelligence has this nothing to do. Computers are only calculators. They have not any clue about what this means what they are "doing". A dog knows what he is doing (hopefully): he is catching a ball. If you like to build a machine, which catches a ball, then you drive crazy about this complex problem, when you have to solve it with algorithms - which are anyway senseless, because still no machine is able to catch a ball mechanically like a dog who is hunting a flying ball and catching it in the air. 

Pope Francis said by the way not a long time ago, that we lose with every lifeform a voice of god. I hope everyone takes serios such words. We - everyone of us - have the responsiblity for the survival of all and every life on planet Earth.


----------



## RWS

I agree with your last sentence. It's up to us.

And we have to fight "them". Not each other.

How do we fight them? And who is "them"? Great topic to discuss!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life, then there was, and what connects these two states is a deterministic physical process, governed by natural laws. We call this process abiogenesis.

The evidence for abiogenesis is every observation ever made. All  point to a deterministic universe governed by natural laws. Also, once there was no life, now there is.  So, of course, what connects these two states is a deterministic, physical process.   Abiogenesis as a fact is "proven" thusly. It's as solid a fact as any other, just as a physical process connecting the two states of a glass of milk on the table and then a broken glass and puddle of milk on the floor, is.


----------



## Frannie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life, then there was, and what connects these two states is a deterministic physical process, governed by natural laws. We call this process abiogenesis.
> 
> The evidence for abiogenesis is every observation ever made. All  point to a deterministic universe governed by natural laws. Also, once there was no life, now there is.  So, of course, what connects these two states is a deterministic, physical process.   Abiogenesis as a fact is "proven" thusly. It's as solid a fact as any other, just as a physical process connecting the two states of a glass of milk on the table and then a broken glass and puddle of milk on the floor, is.


If humans travel to mars is abiogenesis responsible for life on mars


----------



## RWS

Good question. The thing is did abiogenesis exist on Mars before humans arrive to infect it.

Same thing with Earth. There was a time that our planet was being bombarded and no life could exist (except maybe tardigrades  ). It's possible that life on Earth came from another planet, and even another solar system, since all our planets went through this bombardment phase. So our life could be from another solar system, that similarly went through bombardment, and so on. In the end, it had to start somewhere, and not from nothing but from organic materials that are common. It could have started here, it could have started somewhere else and transmitted here, or it could have all taken place independently. Physics that works here on Earth, also works the same on other planets with similar resources. So Mars life (if found) may show an independent genesis, or be close enough to our DNA that we can't tell. I have no idea. But personally I think it may be panspermia. Where the original source came from is something I can't fathom and don't think it can be figured out. Or life could be common and it developed here independently, just like anywhere else...


----------



## RWS

That's why we need aliens to tell us the truth!


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> A dog for example solves very complex mathematical operations unbelievable fast when he hunts behind a ball and jumps and takes it with his hand ... ah sorry - with his mouth.



Sure, he has his mouth calculator to check the wind direction, the temperature of the day, the initial speed of the body in the grass, the chemical composition of the air, and more, everything in a fraction of a second right before jumping to catch the ball you threw on the air.

That is








Mathematics is just a tool we use to obtain amounts, calculate motion of phenomena, etc.

Even the god of the bible, making a whole creation, he just let man to go by his own. No calculations made, just to go by his own.

Man showed no mathematics knowledge was needed to commit a sin, and God didn't use a physical weight scale to sentence the punishment.

And so far, I bet you didn't do any mathematical calculations before writing your odd message.

Your point has zero mathematical support.

Otherwise show me the formulas you use when you post here.


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dog for example solves very complex mathematical operations unbelievable fast when he hunts behind a ball and jumps and takes it with his hand ... ah sorry - with his mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, he has his mouth calculator to check the wind direction, the temperature of the day, the initial speed of the body in the grass, the chemical composition of the air, and more, everything in a fraction of a second right before jumping to catch the ball you threw on the air.
> 
> That is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics is just a tool we use to obtain amounts, calculate motion of phenomena, etc.
Click to expand...


No. Mathematics has a purpose free character. It's free but not arbitrary.



> Even the god of the bible, making a whole creation, he just let man to go by his own. No calculations made, just to go by his own.



I don't have any idea what you like to say with this words. How is someone able to go without the existance of all natural laws - whether one knows somehting about or not?



> Man showed no mathematics knowledge was needed to commit a sin,



Difficult to translate this for me - very strange form to think ... the deeper question behind this sentence is perhaps: _"When will idiocy become criminal?"_ You seem to think "never" is the right answer. But to be killed because of idiocy (innocent killer) or to be killed because of a crime (evil murderer)  - makes this really a big difference for the victim?



> and God didn't use a physical weight scale to sentence the punishment.



Which punishment? And to "weigh" is mathematics. The possible results are A<B, A=B, A>B. In case god weighs perhaps a forth possibility exists - I don't know, I am not god -  but we all are not able to think this fourth possibility. Nevertheless I'm sure god knows what the best to do and how to do it at this day, which we often imagine like a kind of court case. It's said by the way god is using your own scale to measure you. 



> And so far, I bet you didn't do any mathematical calculations before writing your odd message.



To be honest: In the moment I don't have any clue what you like to say or what's the philosophy behind your words.



> Your point has zero mathematical support.
> 
> Otherwise show me the formulas you use when you post here.







Woof?

All, I guess, whether I know them or not.


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> To be honest: In the moment I don't have any clue what you like to say or what's the philosophy behind your words.



Just the basic equation 

*A* (your idea everything is ruled by numbers) *+ B* (Your lack to prove it)* = C *(you are talking peanuts)

*B* = *C* - *A
A* =* C* - *B*


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest: In the moment I don't have any clue what you like to say or what's the philosophy behind your words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the basic equation
> 
> *A* (your idea everything is ruled by numbers) *+ B* (Your lack to prove it)* = C *(you are talking peanuts)
> 
> *B* = *C* - *A
> A* =* C* - *B*
Click to expand...



To calculate with numbers is an application of mathematics - but it is not mathematics on its own. You underestimate mathematics drastically. Hyper-infinite sets are for example not constructable, but they are terminologicably determinable. Whether such sets exist (or not) is not only doubtful - it is even unprovable. You are only able to use such sets on reason of inspiration. Nevertheless this is mathematics.


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> To calculate with numbers is an application of mathematics - but it is not mathematics on its own. You underestimate mathematics drastically. Hyper-infinite sets are for example not constructable, but they are terminologicably determinable. Whether such sets exist (or not) is not only doubtful - it is even unprovable. You are only able to use such sets on reason of inspiration. Nevertheless this is mathematics.



Point is that mathematics is not even a language but just a tool.

It's a useful tool for helping the explanation of  phenomena.

But mathematics is not the rule which will cause the phenomena.


----------



## RWS

Very interesting.

Mathematics may not yet explain the phenomena. However, given enough time, it may.

So do we put phenomena in the "religion" column or the "let's wait and see" column?

I vote for the latter. But I can also understand that people want instant answers.  Very interesting conversation...


One thing that I have to say though is that the "let's wait and see" group, has always been right so far in terms of science.


----------



## MaryL

Keep thinking about this poem from Blake: To hold a grain of sand in the palm of your hand...


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To calculate with numbers is an application of mathematics - but it is not mathematics on its own. You underestimate mathematics drastically. Hyper-infinite sets are for example not constructable, but they are terminologicably determinable. Whether such sets exist (or not) is not only doubtful - it is even unprovable. You are only able to use such sets on reason of inspiration. Nevertheless this is mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point is that mathematics is not even a language but just a tool.
Click to expand...


A universal tool ... and a meta-universal tool too - in case of the ideas around a multiverse for example. But mathematics is for example music too - or is music mathematics? And mathematics has not any material background - it's a spiritual tool for the spiritual human mind.



> It's a useful tool for helping the explanation of  phenomena.



Sure you can use mathematics to try to find out, how to nail a nail into a nail - but that's also only an application of mathematics and not mathematics on its own.



> But mathematics is not the rule which will cause the phenomena.



What many physicists doubt about. But tell me: What causes a phenomenon? Other phenomenons? And what caused the first phenomenon? The physicist Anton Zeilinger for example had an idea, which I interpret here now as an _"Looks like in the beginning was pure information. Looks like in the beginning was 'the word'. Everything came from it".

_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> And what caused the first phenomenon?


How do you know there was a "first"? Correct answer: You don't. And even if there was, it would not lend a shred of support to the truth of any silly religious dogma.


----------



## RWS

Of course, I'm not giving any thought to religious beliefs. Just the idea of a supreme creator, or ID.... Obviously a supreme creator doesn't care about us, but it's still possible that it exists, in the form of us being a simulation. An ID is more possible to me. Where that intelligence came from, is unknown to me, but definitely not something to worship. ID would likely be a simulation as well. 

I think quantum theory has a lot for us to consider spiritually. We are all connected, down to our basic particles. We all came from one source, the big bang, and every particle could have been entangled at that point. There could be something out there that we don't understand yet, but it definitely isn't a god to worship and kill for.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what caused the first phenomenon?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know there was a "first"? Correct answer: You don't.
Click to expand...


The universe expands. It expanded yesterday, It expanded the day before yesterday  ... and so on ... . But once it had a most little size, perhaps even a zero size. So what happened  - why started the universe to expand?



> And even if there was,



Even if there was? ... Do you mean "If there was an uncaused cause"?



> it would not lend a shred of support to the truth of any silly religious dogma.



You think to believe in atheism is not as silly as to believe in god? ... No idea why the belief atheism should be more intelligent. Because atheists follow the teaching a-atheists are idiots?


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> Of course, I'm not giving any thought to religious beliefs. ...


Why "of course"?


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> Of course, I'm not giving any thought to religious beliefs. Just the idea of a supreme creator, or ID.... Obviously a supreme creator doesn't care about us, but it's still possible that it exists, in the form of us being a simulation. An ID is more possible to me. Where that intelligence came from, is unknown to me, but definitely not something to worship. ID would likely be a simulation as well.
> 
> I think quantum theory has a lot for us to consider spiritually. We are all connected, down to our basic particles.



Not really. All particles of a body could be replaced with other particles (an electron with another electron for example) and nothing would change. An individuum would stay to be the same individuum.Indeed we are continusly replacing our matter. Evers 20 days we have new red blood cells for example. And after 20 years we replaced so many cells, that we have practically a compltete new body.



> We all came from one source, the big bang, and every particle could have been entangled at that point. There could be something out there that we don't understand yet, but it definitely isn't a god to worship and kill for.


----------



## RWS

What I really want you religious people to explain to me, is where Santa stops to pee and poop. He can stop time, but still, for him it's a long amount of time. And he's eating all the milk and cookies. He's gotta take a shit somewhere! Where does Santa go to the bathroom on Christmas Eve?


----------



## RWS

Can you imagine a kid waking up to see Santa taking a shit in the bathroom?

But we never hear about that... Why?


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> What I really want you religious people to explain to me, is where Santa stops to pee and poop. He can stop time, but still, for him it's a long amount of time. And he's eating all the milk and cookies. He's gotta take a shit somewhere! Where does Santa go to the bathroom on Christmas Eve?





RWS said:


> Can you imagine a kid waking up to see Santa taking a shit in the bathroom?
> 
> But we never hear about that... Why?



Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> To calculate with numbers is an application of mathematics - but it is not mathematics on its own. You underestimate mathematics drastically. Hyper-infinite sets are for example not constructable, but they are terminologicably determinable. Whether such sets exist (or not) is not only doubtful - it is even unprovable. You are only able to use such sets on reason of inspiration. Nevertheless this is mathematics.



Is not to underestimate anything but making my base foundation in reality. A guy who had a condition used to see colors instead of numbers, and he was capable to beat a computer while making calculations. In his mind was amounts and combinations of colors, and later he "translated" into numbers to give a result "you can understand". Get it?

The mathematics method we use is just one method available according to our limitation of perception of the universe.* We invented mathematics *to understand the universe.



zaangalewa said:


> A universal tool ... and a meta-universal tool too - in case of the ideas around a multiverse for example. But mathematics is for example music too - or is music mathematics? And mathematics has not any material background - it's a spiritual tool for the spiritual human mind.



Multiverses? Please, don't include fantasies in this discussion, lets limit our dialogue to science and not science fiction.

Music is not mathematics, but you can use mathematics to find the different measures of vibrations.

About "spiritual mathematics"... come on, don't reach the borders of the absurd.

Mathematics is divided in two parts, Practical Mathematics and Abstract Mathematics.

Practical mathematics is used to measure in empirical way numerical quantities on the different phenomena we observe. This is the only valid mathematics in science. You use a machine to count bills in the bank, that is practical mathematics.

Abstract mathematics is when you can imagine a phenomenon and you invent quantities which will involve the imaginary phenomenon. A typical example of abstract mathematics is the imaginary black hole. Abstract mathematics is good for entertainment, but is not valid for science.



zaangalewa said:


> Sure you can use mathematics to try to find out, how to nail a nail into a nail - but that's also only an application of mathematics and not mathematics on its own.



for understanding the real world, that is the only valid use for mathematics.



zaangalewa said:


> What many physicists doubt about. But tell me: What causes a phenomenon? Other phenomenons? And what caused the first phenomenon? The physicist Anton Zeilinger for example had an idea, which I interpret here now as an _"Looks like in the beginning was pure information. Looks like in the beginning was 'the word'. Everything came from it".
> 
> _



The bible says, in the beginning was "the word", it doesn't say "in the beginning was the number".

Your case is invalid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> The universe expands. It expanded yesterday, It expanded the day before yesterday ... and so on ... . But once it had a most little size, perhaps even a zero size. So what happened - why started the universe to expand?


I dont know. And neither do you. But, even if we did know, that would not mean there was a "first cause".



zaangalewa said:


> You think to believe in atheism is not as silly as to believe in god?


A silly question. Do you , specifically, mean gnostic atheism, wherein someone claims to know with absolute certainty that there are no gods (please use the plural form for accuracy, thanks)...? Yes, that would be silly.

Strangely, you have just admitted that believing in gods is silly. Did you mean to do that?


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> To calculate with numbers is an application of mathematics - but it is not mathematics on its own. You underestimate mathematics drastically. Hyper-infinite sets are for example not constructable, but they are terminologicably determinable. Whether such sets exist (or not) is not only doubtful - it is even unprovable. You are only able to use such sets on reason of inspiration. Nevertheless this is mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is not to underestimate anything but making my base foundation in reality. A guy who had a condition used to see colors instead of numbers, and he was capable to beat a computer while making calculations. In his mind was amounts and combinations of colors, and later he "translated" into numbers to give a result "you can understand". Get it?
> 
> The mathematics method we use is just one method available according to our limitation of perception of the universe.* We invented mathematics *to understand the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> A universal tool ... and a meta-universal tool too - in case of the ideas around a multiverse for example. But mathematics is for example music too - or is music mathematics? And mathematics has not any material background - it's a spiritual tool for the spiritual human mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiverses? Please, don't include fantasies in this discussion, lets limit our dialogue to science and not science fiction.
> 
> Music is not mathematics, but you can use mathematics to find the different measures of vibrations.
> 
> About "spiritual mathematics"... come on, don't reach the borders of the absurd.
> 
> Mathematics is divided in two parts, Practical Mathematics and Abstract Mathematics.
> 
> Practical mathematics is used to measure in empirical way numerical quantities on the different phenomena we observe. This is the only valid mathematics in science. You use a machine to count bills in the bank, that is practical mathematics.
> 
> Abstract mathematics is when you can imagine a phenomenon and you invent quantities which will involve the imaginary phenomenon. A typical example of abstract mathematics is the imaginary black hole. Abstract mathematics is good for entertainment, but is not valid for science.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can use mathematics to try to find out, how to nail a nail into a nail - but that's also only an application of mathematics and not mathematics on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for understanding the real world, that is the only valid use for mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> What many physicists doubt about. But tell me: What causes a phenomenon? Other phenomenons? And what caused the first phenomenon? The physicist Anton Zeilinger for example had an idea, which I interpret here now as an _"Looks like in the beginning was pure information. Looks like in the beginning was 'the word'. Everything came from it".
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible says, in the beginning was "the word", it doesn't say "in the beginning was the number".
> 
> Your case is invalid.
Click to expand...


Merry Christmas.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Just one study, so take it for what it is worth:

If We Find Life on Europa or Enceladus, It Will Probably Be a '2nd Genesis' | Space

*If We Find Life on Europa or Enceladus, It Will Probably Be a '2nd Genesis'*
By Mike Wall 4 days ago

It would be very hard for microbes to get all the way from Earth or Mars out to the ocean moons, a new study suggests.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe expands. It expanded yesterday, It expanded the day before yesterday ... and so on ... . But once it had a most little size, perhaps even a zero size. So what happened - why started the universe to expand?
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know. And neither do you. But, even if we did know, that would not mean there was a "first cause".
Click to expand...


First cause  = uncaused. So what is the cause?



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think to believe in atheism is not as silly as to believe in god?
> 
> 
> 
> A silly question.
Click to expand...


A simple question and not a silly question. You seem to be as impertinent as the US-congress and the government of the USA are impertinent.



> Do you , specifically, mean gnostic atheism, wherein someone claims to know with absolute certainty that there are no gods (please use the plural form for accuracy, thanks)...? Yes, that would be silly.
> 
> Strangely, you have just admitted that believing in gods is silly. Did you mean to do that?



Bye bye.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> First cause = uncaused. So what is the cause?


I don't even know that there is a first cause. What is the cause of unicorns being white instead of pink? Same question, same answer.

And if i assume there was a first cause, the answer would still be "I don't know". And anyone who answers otherwise is lying.

If you are going to breach such serious topics and demand answers to your contrived questions, you shouldn't be such a thin skinned sissy. You are not always going to get an answer that affirms your preconceptions. Just be happy that you get an HONEST answer, which is what you will get from me.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First cause = uncaused. So what is the cause?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know that there is a first cause. What is the cause of unicorns being white instead of pink? Same question, same answer.
> 
> And if i assume there was a first cause, the answer would still be "I don't know". And anyone who answers otherwise is lying.
> 
> If you are going to breach such serious topics and demand answers to your contrived questions, you shouldn't be such a thin skinned sissy. You are not always going to get an answer that affirms your preconceptions. Just be happy that you get an HONEST answer, which is what you will get from me.
Click to expand...


Bye bye


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First cause = uncaused. So what is the cause?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know that there is a first cause. What is the cause of unicorns being white instead of pink? Same question, same answer.
> 
> And if i assume there was a first cause, the answer would still be "I don't know". And anyone who answers otherwise is lying.
> 
> If you are going to breach such serious topics and demand answers to your contrived questions, you shouldn't be such a thin skinned sissy. You are not always going to get an answer that affirms your preconceptions. Just be happy that you get an HONEST answer, which is what you will get from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bye bye
Click to expand...

See ya. Hopefully, for the sake of your delicate sensibilities, you will get the answers you hope to hear. May I suggest that you stop paying for expensive internet, and just buy a cheap mirror?


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> First cause = uncaused. So what is the cause?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know that there is a first cause. What is the cause of unicorns being white instead of pink? Same question, same answer.
> 
> And if i assume there was a first cause, the answer would still be "I don't know". And anyone who answers otherwise is lying.
> 
> If you are going to breach such serious topics and demand answers to your contrived questions, you shouldn't be such a thin skinned sissy. You are not always going to get an answer that affirms your preconceptions. Just be happy that you get an HONEST answer, which is what you will get from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bye bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See ya. Hopefully, for the sake of your delicate sensibilities, you will get the answers you hope to hear.
Click to expand...


I don't expect essential answers from US-Americans.



> May I suggest that you stop paying for expensive internet, and just buy a cheap mirror?



It makes meanwhile just simple much to much work to correct the growing nonsense, which you say.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> I don't expect essential answers from US-Americans


Yet here you are, on the US Message Board.

How strange.

You cant correct a word. You threw a little fit, because you painted yourself into a corner with a question that undermines your own position. And you know it. Thus this little fit.

Did you mean, "gnostic atheists", I.e., those who claim to know with certainty that there are no gods? Thats a yes/no question. Do you have the words "yes" and "no" in the German language? If so, try one of them out right here.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect essential answers from US-Americans
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are, on the US Message Board.
> 
> How strange.
> 
> You cant correct a word. You threw a little fit, because you painted yourself into a corner with a question that undermines your own position. And you know it. Thus this little fit.
> 
> Did you mean, "gnostic atheists", I.e., those who claim to know with certainty that there are no gods? Thats a yes/no question. Do you have the words "yes" and "no" in the German language? If so, try one of them out right here.
Click to expand...


no comment


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I really want you religious people to explain to me, is where Santa stops to pee and poop. He can stop time, but still, for him it's a long amount of time. And he's eating all the milk and cookies. He's gotta take a shit somewhere! Where does Santa go to the bathroom on Christmas Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine a kid waking up to see Santa taking a shit in the bathroom?
> 
> But we never hear about that... Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?
Click to expand...

Lol, yes I doodoo


----------



## AveryJarhman

Considering our universe holds all the ingredients for creating life as we know it, I'm pretty certain some planets experienced a birth of life similar to ours.

Hopefully intelligent life on other planets is not as feral and hateful as human life here at home.

Peace.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I really want you religious people to explain to me, is where Santa stops to pee and poop. He can stop time, but still, for him it's a long amount of time. And he's eating all the milk and cookies. He's gotta take a shit somewhere! Where does Santa go to the bathroom on Christmas Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine a kid waking up to see Santa taking a shit in the bathroom?
> 
> But we never hear about that... Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, yes I doodoo
Click to expand...


Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nicho, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).

Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyone else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two Plank-seconds can happen a lot of things, because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

_


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nich-o, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he was redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyonhe else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two plank-seconds can happen a lot of things because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> _



That is not true.

Yesterday I saw him taking pictures with children at the mall.


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I really want you religious people to explain to me, is where Santa stops to pee and poop. He can stop time, but still, for him it's a long amount of time. And he's eating all the milk and cookies. He's gotta take a shit somewhere! Where does Santa go to the bathroom on Christmas Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine a kid waking up to see Santa taking a shit in the bathroom?
> 
> But we never hear about that... Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, yes I doodoo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nicho, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyone else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two Plank-seconds can happen a lot of things, because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


That's a great explanation! I think... 

But we all agree he has to take bathroom breaks. Does he do it in the bad kids toilets? Or on our random roofs?


----------



## RWS

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nich-o, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he was redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyonhe else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two plank-seconds can happen a lot of things because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> Yesterday I saw him taking pictures with children at the mall.
Click to expand...


How is he at the mall, when he's supposed to be hard at work in the north pole? Is Santa a slave-driver?

Makes the elves do all the shit?  And he just sits back with Mama Claus for 360+ days a year? 

Wow, Santa is a slave owner....


----------



## RWS




----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nich-o, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he was redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyonhe else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two plank-seconds can happen a lot of things because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> Yesterday I saw him taking pictures with children at the mall.
Click to expand...


Nice. But I guess you have problem with it. So go to a doctor, it you think you suffer hallucinations. Perhaps he's able to help you and within some days you will be back in the normal mudereous atheistic routines of your country and the USA will continue their violent way to do business all over the world and to defame, whomever they like to defame, and to sanction, whomever they like to sanction, and to do any war, which makes fun for their faithless political entertainement. Or do you like to start the Christmas war 2019 in this days, with a declaration of war against Germany and Russia by attacking the right of both nations to make business with each other and sanction every international company, which makes business with Germany and/or Russia?

Oh by the way: What happens with all the money the citizens of the USA pay, because of the sanctions of their government? Makes the government of the USA presents for the children with all this money?


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I really want you religious people to explain to me, is where Santa stops to pee and poop. He can stop time, but still, for him it's a long amount of time. And he's eating all the milk and cookies. He's gotta take a shit somewhere! Where does Santa go to the bathroom on Christmas Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine a kid waking up to see Santa taking a shit in the bathroom?
> 
> But we never hear about that... Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, yes I doodoo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nicho, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyone else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two Plank-seconds can happen a lot of things, because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great explanation! I think...
> 
> But we all agree he has to take bathroom breaks. Does he do it in the bad kids toilets? Or on our random roofs?
Click to expand...


You should learn to read and to understand what someone says to you.


----------



## RWS

You need to slow down zaag.

You may have a lot of good thoughts, but you don't explain the poop/pee problem that Santa faces.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> You need to slow down zaag.
> 
> You may have a lot of good thoughts, but you need to bring them to common language. So the rest of can understand.



May you asshole please explain to me now why you say such a totally stupid nonsense? You know less than nothing about me.


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I really want you religious people to explain to me, is where Santa stops to pee and poop. He can stop time, but still, for him it's a long amount of time. And he's eating all the milk and cookies. He's gotta take a shit somewhere! Where does Santa go to the bathroom on Christmas Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine a kid waking up to see Santa taking a shit in the bathroom?
> 
> But we never hear about that... Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, yes I doodoo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nicho, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyone else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two Plank-seconds can happen a lot of things, because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great explanation! I think...
> 
> But we all agree he has to take bathroom breaks. Does he do it in the bad kids toilets? Or on our random roofs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn to read and to understand what someone says to you.
Click to expand...


I'm a piano player, and Billy is my idol. This was a GREAT cover!!!! Thank you so much!


----------



## RWS

I never looked at is from a female singer point of view. , Wow that was beautiful!!!! Thank you!


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, yes I doodoo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nicho, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyone else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two Plank-seconds can happen a lot of things, because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great explanation! I think...
> 
> But we all agree he has to take bathroom breaks. Does he do it in the bad kids toilets? Or on our random roofs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn to read and to understand what someone says to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a piano player, and Billy is my idol. This was a GREAT cover!!!! Thank you so much!
Click to expand...


A wonderful song from Billy Joel - and a great interpretation. Nice that you like it too. This are by the way two people who made and make the USA great - and not people like Donald Trump, who accept only the loyalite (=slavery) of their spitlickers.


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I really want you religious people to explain to me, is where Santa stops to pee and poop. He can stop time, but still, for him it's a long amount of time. And he's eating all the milk and cookies. He's gotta take a shit somewhere! Where does Santa go to the bathroom on Christmas Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine a kid waking up to see Santa taking a shit in the bathroom?
> 
> But we never hear about that... Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, yes I doodoo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nicho, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyone else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two Plank-seconds can happen a lot of things, because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great explanation! I think...
> 
> But we all agree he has to take bathroom breaks. Does he do it in the bad kids toilets? Or on our random roofs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn to read and to understand what someone says to you.
Click to expand...

Click the bottom link. It is awesome!!!!!


----------



## RWS

That is so beautiful!!!! 

I play it like the original, but that is the greatest version I have heard. 

Here's the original...


----------



## RWS

Im still listening to it... It's that good....


----------



## RWS

zaangalewa said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to slow down zaag.
> 
> You may have a lot of good thoughts, but you need to bring them to common language. So the rest of can understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May you asshole please explain to me now why you say such a totally stupid nonsense? You know less than nothing about me.
Click to expand...


Just saying that you sound like a North Korean. But you gave that beautiful song. I don't know if you meant to do that,, bc it affects me personally. I challenge you to post another Billy cover.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, as we know, abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. I.E.,life formed. We also know it formed from the most common elements in the universe and contains them in almost precisely the same proportions.

This would lead us to believe that life will form nearly anywhere with liquid water, given enough time to do so. And we know this time frame doesn't have to be extremely long, in cosmic terms. It seems life formed here in a relatively short amount of time, once liquid water was available, in abundance, for it to do so.

All of this points to Europa and Mars as the places on which we should be focusing all of our efforts to search for extraterrestrial life, past or present.


----------



## zaangalewa

RWS said:


> ... Just saying that you sound like a North Korean....



You have absolutelly not any idea what you are speaking about. A part of my very deep contempt for your pseudo-president Donald Trump is it that he had betrayed the North-Korean people ... but forget it. It were not the only people he had betrayed. It's not worth the time to think about anything what Donald Trump did do, what he is doing now and what he will do. I do not envy the men who will have to repair or to live with all the bullshit Mr. president Donald Trump had done.


----------



## RWS

Whoa.... Did i just pop a pimple?

I'm not into politics. Just saying that NK's say crazy things. Like you do. Meaningless. And full of fury.


----------



## RWS

I love your music presentation, and I'm happy to leave it like that zaangalewa.


----------



## RWS

I'm a piano player for 47 years today.

I know good music.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech



This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.

However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous. 

What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.

ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
Click to expand...

Bond , your empty whining is just not compelling. You believe life formed, just like I do. You simply insist your iron aged magical sky daddy did it. So, you sound like a child, and I sound like an adult.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
Click to expand...


Where's your evidence?


----------



## luchitociencia

RWS said:


> How is he at the mall, when he's supposed to be hard at work in the north pole? Is Santa a slave-driver?
> 
> Makes the elves do all the shit?  And he just sits back with Mama Claus for 360+ days a year?
> 
> Wow, Santa is a slave owner....



his part time job.


----------



## luchitociencia

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just one study, so take it for what it is worth:
> 
> If We Find Life on Europa or Enceladus, It Will Probably Be a '2nd Genesis' | Space
> 
> *If We Find Life on Europa or Enceladus, It Will Probably Be a '2nd Genesis'*
> By Mike Wall 4 days ago
> 
> It would be very hard for microbes to get all the way from Earth or Mars out to the ocean moons, a new study suggests.


Indi,

*You never think.*

Look, *if earth produced its own life, then you must find here on earth how earth still producing it.*

Why do you have to observe a moon located "multimuch" miles from here in order to find how life is produced?

Can't you see that those guys are pulling your legs? *They are telling you that a dumb moon of Saturn can produce life but on the other hand that life on earth was originated by cosmic events like a comet hitting it. Lol.*

You believe any crap those guys tell you. Don't you? They won't tell you earth produced life by itself because you will ask them "how" and they have no answer for that.
*
Look, to find how the production of life happens, the best place is earth, do you understand? The best place is here, because we will observe it with instruments to test the veracity of the findings. Looking at far away bodies will lead you to error because you will obtain interfered information from that place plus you won't have the tools how to test if the compound has life or if the compound is just organic.*

These smart mischievous scientists are just collecting funds from government to invent crap, their assumed findings won't be exposed to be verified by anyone but by they themselves. They are making you an idiot.

Tell me, if earth produced life already, do you think earth can't produce life anymore? Excuse me, but are you sure you finished successfully high school at least? Can't you just use the scientific method the proper way, and find first a model here on earth, and with this model of life make a comparison with other places like the moon of Saturn?

*You have no empirical models to compare with, you only have dumb theories invented by them which have never been proved to be true. In this part Bond is beating you hard, he is moping the floor with your face. Understand this part, you must discover, you must find how production of life becomes to be here on earth, you must have a solid evidence first, and later you can look for its similar somewhere else.*

So, please stop acting like a child and think. Read it again: think.


----------



## karpenter

luchitociencia said:
			
		

> These smart mischievous scientists are just collecting funds from government to invent crap,
> their assumed findings won't be exposed to be verified by anyone but by them themselves.


Yep
This Is What They've Relied On From Square One


----------



## RWS

Sit back and watch... Fort fun will kick some butt..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

karpenter said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These smart mischievous scientists are just collecting funds from government to invent crap,
> their assumed findings won't be exposed to be verified by anyone but by them themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep
> This Is What They've Relied On From Square One
Click to expand...

So you agree with  luchitociencia that scientists'   findings will only be verified by themselves...i.e., scientists.

As opposed to... uneducated slobs, like yourselves? Thank goodness.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Nasa to send robot to Mars to examine possible alien fossils

*NASA TO SEND ROBOT TO MARS TO EXAMINE POSSIBLE ALIEN FOSSILS*
*Unnamed rover will also explore how we might be able to live on the red planet*


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bond , your empty whining is just not compelling. You believe life formed, just like I do. You simply insist your iron aged magical sky daddy did it. So, you sound like a child, and I sound like an adult.
Click to expand...


Heh.  Life is precious.  Humans cannot bring back life nor create it.  We can't get life outside the cell.  This is _real science_.  When your goldfish died when you were a kid, it was buried in the back yard or flushed down.  It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.  This is observable.  It is evidence for creation, but atheists cannot believe it even though it's right in front of your nose.  Thus, they grasp and cling to the lie of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.  It's all denial and beliefs in the magical sky fairy.  He has pulled the wool over you eyes but good.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.


No it doesn't. How stupid.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's your evidence?
Click to expand...



Water is an universal solvent.  Now, we know you can't figure this simple truth out .

Water is necessary for life, but also a destroyer of the basics of life amino acids.  Do you see how atheist scientists are so wrong now ?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. How stupid.
Click to expand...


Prove it, foo.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nasa to send robot to Mars to examine possible alien fossils
> 
> *NASA TO SEND ROBOT TO MARS TO EXAMINE POSSIBLE ALIEN FOSSILS*
> *Unnamed rover will also explore how we might be able to live on the red planet*



Your reading comprehension is still seriously flawed.  Someone has pulled the wool over your eyes but good.



luchitociencia said:


> *You never think.*
> 
> Look, *if earth produced its own life, then you must find here on earth how earth still producing it.*
> 
> Why do you have to observe a moon located "multimuch" miles from here in order to find how life is produced?
> 
> Can't you see that those guys are pulling your legs? *They are telling you that a dumb moon of Saturn can produce life but on the other hand that life on earth was originated by cosmic events like a comet hitting it. Lol.*
> 
> You believe any crap those guys tell you. Don't you? They won't tell you earth produced life by itself because you will ask them "how" and they have no answer for that."



He just told you to find evidence on Earth, but there isn't any .  Thus, it's Mars instead of Saturn now.  LMAO.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

As this is a thread in the science section, we will proceed without any deference to the voodoo incantations being vomited by Shaman Bond.

Signs of Life on Europa May Be Just beneath the Surface

*Signs of Life on Europa May Be Just beneath the Surface*
New maps suggest evidence of alien life in the icy moon’s buried ocean could be surprisingly easy to find


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

luchitociencia said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one study, so take it for what it is worth:
> 
> If We Find Life on Europa or Enceladus, It Will Probably Be a '2nd Genesis' | Space
> 
> *If We Find Life on Europa or Enceladus, It Will Probably Be a '2nd Genesis'*
> By Mike Wall 4 days ago
> 
> It would be very hard for microbes to get all the way from Earth or Mars out to the ocean moons, a new study suggests.
> 
> 
> 
> Indi,
> 
> *You never think.*
> 
> Look, *if earth produced its own life, then you must find here on earth how earth still producing it.*
> 
> Why do you have to observe a moon located "multimuch" miles from here in order to find how life is produced?
> 
> Can't you see that those guys are pulling your legs? *They are telling you that a dumb moon of Saturn can produce life but on the other hand that life on earth was originated by cosmic events like a comet hitting it. Lol.*
> 
> You believe any crap those guys tell you. Don't you? They won't tell you earth produced life by itself because you will ask them "how" and they have no answer for that.
> *
> Look, to find how the production of life happens, the best place is earth, do you understand? The best place is here, because we will observe it with instruments to test the veracity of the findings. Looking at far away bodies will lead you to error because you will obtain interfered information from that place plus you won't have the tools how to test if the compound has life or if the compound is just organic.*
> 
> These smart mischievous scientists are just collecting funds from government to invent crap, their assumed findings won't be exposed to be verified by anyone but by they themselves. They are making you an idiot.
> 
> Tell me, if earth produced life already, do you think earth can't produce life anymore? Excuse me, but are you sure you finished successfully high school at least? Can't you just use the scientific method the proper way, and find first a model here on earth, and with this model of life make a comparison with other places like the moon of Saturn?
> 
> *You have no empirical models to compare with, you only have dumb theories invented by them which have never been proved to be true. In this part Bond is beating you hard, he is moping the floor with your face. Understand this part, you must discover, you must find how production of life becomes to be here on earth, you must have a solid evidence first, and later you can look for its similar somewhere else.*
> 
> So, please stop acting like a child and think. Read it again: think.
Click to expand...


Look, *if earth produced its own life, then you must find here on earth how earth still producing it.*

Why?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bond , your empty whining is just not compelling. You believe life formed, just like I do. You simply insist your iron aged magical sky daddy did it. So, you sound like a child, and I sound like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Life is precious.  Humans cannot bring back life nor create it.  We can't get life outside the cell.  This is _real science_.  When your goldfish died when you were a kid, it was buried in the back yard or flushed down.  It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.  This is observable.  It is evidence for creation, but atheists cannot believe it even though it's right in front of your nose.  Thus, they grasp and cling to the lie of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.  It's all denial and beliefs in the magical sky fairy.  He has pulled the wool over you eyes but good.
Click to expand...

150 years ago they said men could never fly.  All your claims are tentative until someone accomplishes it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Toddsterpatriot said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one study, so take it for what it is worth:
> 
> If We Find Life on Europa or Enceladus, It Will Probably Be a '2nd Genesis' | Space
> 
> *If We Find Life on Europa or Enceladus, It Will Probably Be a '2nd Genesis'*
> By Mike Wall 4 days ago
> 
> It would be very hard for microbes to get all the way from Earth or Mars out to the ocean moons, a new study suggests.
> 
> 
> 
> Indi,
> 
> *You never think.*
> 
> Look, *if earth produced its own life, then you must find here on earth how earth still producing it.*
> 
> Why do you have to observe a moon located "multimuch" miles from here in order to find how life is produced?
> 
> Can't you see that those guys are pulling your legs? *They are telling you that a dumb moon of Saturn can produce life but on the other hand that life on earth was originated by cosmic events like a comet hitting it. Lol.*
> 
> You believe any crap those guys tell you. Don't you? They won't tell you earth produced life by itself because you will ask them "how" and they have no answer for that.
> *
> Look, to find how the production of life happens, the best place is earth, do you understand? The best place is here, because we will observe it with instruments to test the veracity of the findings. Looking at far away bodies will lead you to error because you will obtain interfered information from that place plus you won't have the tools how to test if the compound has life or if the compound is just organic.*
> 
> These smart mischievous scientists are just collecting funds from government to invent crap, their assumed findings won't be exposed to be verified by anyone but by they themselves. They are making you an idiot.
> 
> Tell me, if earth produced life already, do you think earth can't produce life anymore? Excuse me, but are you sure you finished successfully high school at least? Can't you just use the scientific method the proper way, and find first a model here on earth, and with this model of life make a comparison with other places like the moon of Saturn?
> 
> *You have no empirical models to compare with, you only have dumb theories invented by them which have never been proved to be true. In this part Bond is beating you hard, he is moping the floor with your face. Understand this part, you must discover, you must find how production of life becomes to be here on earth, you must have a solid evidence first, and later you can look for its similar somewhere else.*
> 
> So, please stop acting like a child and think. Read it again: think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, *if earth produced its own life, then you must find here on earth how earth still producing it.*
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Because Baby Jesus. And Eden.


----------



## xband

fncceo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know if these same laws exist everywhere in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  we kind of do.
> 
> Our observable Universe is remarkably predictable when it comes to things like gravity and motion.
> 
> In places where it doesn't act predictably,  it was because we didn't fully understand the nature of our Universe.
> 
> Planet density and gravity are a.proportional relationship in all our observations and experiments.
> 
> However, another Universe,  which is completely possible, could operate under a completely different set of physical rules.
> 
> However, being an alternate Universe, we couldn't observe or study it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that in a Superman comic book once
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superman, like a lot of other Jews, is really good at theoretical physics.
Click to expand...


Lame and you did not come close to answer the question. I can count all of zeros and then have to use scientific notation so we can all understand. I counted nineteen zeros which is 10 to the nineteenth power. Octillion?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

xband said:


> Lame and you did not come close to answer the question.


What is your question?


----------



## xband

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame and you did not come close to answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your question?
Click to expand...


Ask the OP.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

xband said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame and you did not come close to answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the OP.
Click to expand...

I am asking you.


----------



## xband

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame and you did not come close to answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am asking you.
Click to expand...

The OP basically asked with an octillion of planets in the Universe, how many can support intelligent life?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

xband said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame and you did not come close to answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP basically asked with an octillion of planets in the Universe, how many can support intelligent life.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.  I wasn't sure to which question, specifically, you were referring.

Given that anywhere between 1-in-50 and 1-in-100 planets seem to be in the "goldilocks" zone, I imagine it is quite a lot.


----------



## xband

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame and you did not come close to answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP basically asked with an octillion of planets in the Universe, how many can support intelligent life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotcha.  I wasn't sure to which question, specifically, you were referring.
> 
> Given that anywhere between 1-in-50 and 1-in-100 planets seem to be in the "goldilocks" zone, I imagine it is quite a lot.
Click to expand...


The Goldilocks Zone does not guarantee Intelligent Life and here comes the chicken or egg question.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

xband said:


> The Goldilocks Zone does not guarantee Intelligent Life


Nobody said it does. 

The chicken or egg question is dumb. Eggs were around for 100s of millions of years before chickens ever appeared on Earth.


----------



## xband

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Goldilocks Zone does not guarantee Intelligent Life
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said it does.
> 
> The chicken or egg question is dumb. Eggs were around for 100s of millions of years before chickens ever appeared on Earth.
Click to expand...


The chicken or egg question is the Creation of the Universe. The chicken is God and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

xband said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Goldilocks Zone does not guarantee Intelligent Life
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said it does.
> 
> The chicken or egg question is dumb. Eggs were around for 100s of millions of years before chickens ever appeared on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The chicken or egg question is the Creation of the Universe. The chicken is God and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event.
Click to expand...

Okay, I admit, i don't get it.


----------



## luchitociencia

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Look, *if earth produced its own life, then you must find here on earth how earth still producing it.*
> 
> Why?



I already explained it. Because here on earth we can verify the results using different methods.

Tell me, those so called themselves scientists tell you they have found how life is produced by "observing" the moon of Jupiter. How are you going to verify their observation? 

Are you just going to accept what they say without having such life sample in your hands to verify it?

For sure those scientists are not doing other thing but obtaining grants to preserve their jobs only, because their projects suck. They have not any empirical foundation to claim life is produced the way they predicted it, so they use far away cosmic bodies to distract people.


----------



## luchitociencia

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because Baby Jesus. And Eden.



Lol. When your argument is lost then you love to play the clown, and your messages are really funny. 

Good for you Indi.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bond , your empty whining is just not compelling. You believe life formed, just like I do. You simply insist your iron aged magical sky daddy did it. So, you sound like a child, and I sound like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Life is precious.  Humans cannot bring back life nor create it.  We can't get life outside the cell.  This is _real science_.  When your goldfish died when you were a kid, it was buried in the back yard or flushed down.  It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.  This is observable.  It is evidence for creation, but atheists cannot believe it even though it's right in front of your nose.  Thus, they grasp and cling to the lie of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.  It's all denial and beliefs in the magical sky fairy.  He has pulled the wool over you eyes but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years ago they said men could never fly.  All your claims are tentative until someone accomplishes it.
Click to expand...


According to evolutionists, it has been 13.8 billion years (up 0.1 billion years) of no life outside the cell.  You missed the part where life cannot occur outside the cell.  It means only life can begat life.  If there was no life to beging with, thus creation, then life could not happen.  Thus, there has been enough time with evolution for abiogenesis, but this has not happened.  Thus, it is not the creationists who believe in the sky fairy.  It's the evolutionists with their magical abiogenesis and big bang.  It's based on faith in false science.

OTOH, one person has already accomplished resurrection so the believers can follow.  That took three days while you're still waiting.  Sounds like you are backing the losing horse if this were a horse race for all the marbles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

luchitociencia said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, *if earth produced its own life, then you must find here on earth how earth still producing it.*
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained it. Because here on earth we can verify the results using different methods.
> 
> Tell me, those so called themselves scientists tell you they have found how life is produced by "observing" the moon of Jupiter. How are you going to verify their observation?
> 
> Are you just going to accept what they say without having such life sample in your hands to verify it?
> 
> For sure those scientists are not doing other thing but obtaining grants to preserve their jobs only, because their projects suck. They have not any empirical foundation to claim life is produced the way they predicted it, so they use far away cosmic bodies to distract people.
Click to expand...


*I already explained it.*

No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?

*Tell me, those so called themselves scientists tell you they have found how life is produced by "observing" the moon of Jupiter. How are you going to verify their observation? *

They think they can see how life was produced, by observing conditions that might be similar to how it was when life first occurred here. So far, no other life has been observed. Sorry.

*Are you just going to accept what they say without having such life sample in your hands to verify it?*​
Who told you there was life or a sample?​​*They have not any empirical foundation to claim life is produced the way they predicted it*​
That's why they're still looking.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bond , your empty whining is just not compelling. You believe life formed, just like I do. You simply insist your iron aged magical sky daddy did it. So, you sound like a child, and I sound like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Life is precious.  Humans cannot bring back life nor create it.  We can't get life outside the cell.  This is _real science_.  When your goldfish died when you were a kid, it was buried in the back yard or flushed down.  It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.  This is observable.  It is evidence for creation, but atheists cannot believe it even though it's right in front of your nose.  Thus, they grasp and cling to the lie of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.  It's all denial and beliefs in the magical sky fairy.  He has pulled the wool over you eyes but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years ago they said men could never fly.  All your claims are tentative until someone accomplishes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to evolutionists, it has been 13.8 billion years (up 0.1 billion years) of no life outside the cell.  You missed the part where life cannot occur outside the cell.  It means only life can begat life.  If there was no life to beging with, thus creation, then life could not happen.  Thus, there has been enough time with evolution for abiogenesis, but this has not happened.  Thus, it is not the creationists who believe in the sky fairy.  It's the evolutionists with their magical abiogenesis and big bang.  It's based on faith in false science.
> 
> OTOH, one person has already accomplished resurrection so the believers can follow.  That took three days while you're still waiting.  Sounds like you are backing the losing horse if this were a horse race for all the marbles.
Click to expand...


Still looking for the Biblical passage explaining planetary orbits?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enceladus' Deep Ocean Contains Basic Building Blocks of Life - ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bond , your empty whining is just not compelling. You believe life formed, just like I do. You simply insist your iron aged magical sky daddy did it. So, you sound like a child, and I sound like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Life is precious.  Humans cannot bring back life nor create it.  We can't get life outside the cell.  This is _real science_.  When your goldfish died when you were a kid, it was buried in the back yard or flushed down.  It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.  This is observable.  It is evidence for creation, but atheists cannot believe it even though it's right in front of your nose.  Thus, they grasp and cling to the lie of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.  It's all denial and beliefs in the magical sky fairy.  He has pulled the wool over you eyes but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years ago they said men could never fly.  All your claims are tentative until someone accomplishes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to evolutionists, it has been 13.8 billion years (up 0.1 billion years) of no life outside the cell.  You missed the part where life cannot occur outside the cell.  It means only life can begat life.  If there was no life to beging with, thus creation, then life could not happen.  Thus, there has been enough time with evolution for abiogenesis, but this has not happened.  Thus, it is not the creationists who believe in the sky fairy.  It's the evolutionists with their magical abiogenesis and big bang.  It's based on faith in false science.
> 
> OTOH, one person has already accomplished resurrection so the believers can follow.  That took three days while you're still waiting.  Sounds like you are backing the losing horse if this were a horse race for all the marbles.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  Abiogenesis has obviously happened.  Your syllogism failed to demonstrate otherwise.

For 13.8 billion years we have had no evidence of your sky fairy.

Not knowing how something occurred doesn't make it "magic."


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another gigantic fail of evolution.  There is no abiogenesis.  It's like believing in magic.
> 
> However, evolution needs to have life start somewhere, so they just make up this stuff.  It didn't start on Earth as this has been demonstrated by atheist scientists looking to observe abiogenesis, so it must've started somewhere else and was brought here by panspermia.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What we've found is water and water vapor would dissolve amino acids.  This means there is no life on Saturn along with the other problems it poses for living there.
> 
> ETA:  I think what we have to admit is that life itself is supernatural.  The life spirit is what gives us life and nothing else.  Otherwise, we would've found abiogenesis on Earth and don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.  However, I'm not against the evos to continue trying.  It's just more evidence for God and creation each time they fail.  For example, their eternal universe failed and was wrong.  There was a beginning and thus we have Kalam's Cosmological Argument for God.  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> Bond , your empty whining is just not compelling. You believe life formed, just like I do. You simply insist your iron aged magical sky daddy did it. So, you sound like a child, and I sound like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh.  Life is precious.  Humans cannot bring back life nor create it.  We can't get life outside the cell.  This is _real science_.  When your goldfish died when you were a kid, it was buried in the back yard or flushed down.  It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.  This is observable.  It is evidence for creation, but atheists cannot believe it even though it's right in front of your nose.  Thus, they grasp and cling to the lie of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.  It's all denial and beliefs in the magical sky fairy.  He has pulled the wool over you eyes but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years ago they said men could never fly.  All your claims are tentative until someone accomplishes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to evolutionists, it has been 13.8 billion years (up 0.1 billion years) of no life outside the cell.  You missed the part where life cannot occur outside the cell.  It means only life can begat life.  If there was no life to beging with, thus creation, then life could not happen.  Thus, there has been enough time with evolution for abiogenesis, but this has not happened.  Thus, it is not the creationists who believe in the sky fairy.  It's the evolutionists with their magical abiogenesis and big bang.  It's based on faith in false science.
> 
> OTOH, one person has already accomplished resurrection so the believers can follow.  That took three days while you're still waiting.  Sounds like you are backing the losing horse if this were a horse race for all the marbles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Abiogenesis has obviously happened.  Your syllogism failed to demonstrate otherwise.
> 
> For 13.8 billion years we have had no evidence of your sky fairy.
> 
> Not knowing how something occurred doesn't make it "magic."
Click to expand...


Just you asserting abiogenesis happened doesn't make it so.  We know it hasn't happened because the evos are trying on Mars and Saturn now .  They have failed on Earth and will fail even worse on Mars and Saturn.  I can figure these things out while you can't.

With God, it is around 6,000 years so there is no 13.8 billion years or 4.5 billion year Earth.  Maybe you'll get to look for evolution for that long of a time in the next life.  If it doesn't happen, then rinse, repeat.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still looking for the Biblical passage explaining planetary orbits?



I gave it to you already as in Genesis the fourth day.  The best way to learn is to try and answer my questions (which you have not been able to; see, I was right in you being a low brow internet atheist) and pay attention.

Here's all of Genesis
Genesis 1:1–31 ESV - In the beginning, God… | Biblia

After you can't figure out what the verse about the fourth day means and have more questions, then you should try googling your Bible question and "answers in genesis."  You're just hopeless as you are an atheist and can't get beyond that.


----------



## james bond

It's over.  No dark matter.

Why dark matter's no-show could mean a big bang rethink


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still looking for the Biblical passage explaining planetary orbits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave it to you already as in Genesis the fourth day.  The best way to learn is to try and answer my questions (which you have not been able to; see, I was right in you being a low brow internet atheist) and pay attention.
> 
> Here's all of Genesis
> Genesis 1:1–31 ESV - In the beginning, God… | Biblia
> 
> After you can't figure out what the verse about the fourth day means and have more questions, then you should try googling your Bible question and "answers in genesis."  You're just hopeless as you are an atheist and can't get beyond that.
Click to expand...


*I gave it to you already as in Genesis the fourth day.  *

That didn't say anything about planetary orbits.
And you also claimed scientists don't know how to explain orbits.

Inverse square law.


----------



## luchitociencia

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?



Once? Lol. Tell me, what impedes planet earth to keep producing new life?

Why you look at the past? Do you think that only primitive planets can produce life? How can you have obtained such weird conclusion?

You take for granted that because we see life on earth we already know how life was produced.

Then, write here your statement how life was produced on earth, evidence backing up the procedure you presented and explain why earth can't produce life anymore.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> They think they can see how life was produced, by observing conditions that might be similar to how it was when life first occurred here. So far, no other life has been observed. Sorry.



"They think". Then hell with what they think. How are they going to observe the production of life from the moons of Jupiter or Saturn from earth? Look,  with our current telescopes there is a claim that the US flag planted on the Moon by astronauts can't be seen from earth and will they be capable to see living things in those moons? Oh, come on! give me a break.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's why they're still looking.​



Sure. It is time for you to wake up.

Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a  black hole.Sure, you believe their lies. How in the world they can see gravitational waves from an imaginary body in space (black holes really don't exist) and same waves can't be observed from earth using our satellites? or from the Sun?

Can't you see that scientists look at far away bodies in the cosmos to discover evidence which backs up their theories, but they can't find same evidence right here or just  around the corner? Lol

They are pulling your legs.

I will suggest you and encourage you the same I do with Indi: think.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

luchitociencia said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once? Lol. Tell me, what impedes planet earth to keep producing new life?
> 
> Why you look at the past? Do you think that only primitive planets can produce life? How can you have obtained such weird conclusion?
> 
> You take for granted that because we see life on earth we already know how life was produced.
> 
> Then, write here your statement how life was produced on earth, evidence backing up the procedure you presented and explain why earth can't produce life anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think they can see how life was produced, by observing conditions that might be similar to how it was when life first occurred here. So far, no other life has been observed. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They think". Then hell with what they think. How are they going to observe the production of life from the moons of Jupiter or Saturn from earth? Look,  with our current telescopes there is a claim that the US flag planted on the Moon by astronauts can't be seen from earth and will they be capable to see living things in those moons? Oh, come on! give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why they're still looking.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. It is time for you to wake up.
> 
> Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a  black hole.Sure, you believe their lies. How in the world they can see gravitational waves from an imaginary body in space (black holes really don't exist) and same waves can't be observed from earth using our satellites? or from the Sun?
> 
> Can't you see that scientists look at far away bodies in the cosmos to discover evidence which backs up their theories, but they can't find same evidence right here or just  around the corner? Lol
> 
> They are pulling your legs.
> 
> I will suggest you and encourage you the same I do with Indi: think.
Click to expand...


*Tell me, what impedes planet earth to keep producing new life?*

How many times has life started on Earth?
Once?
Twice?
Hundreds of times?

*You take for granted that because we see life on earth we already know how life was produced.*​
Who knows how it was produced? Link?
​*"They think". Then hell with what they think.*​
They shouldn't think? How's that working for you?​​*Look,  with our current telescopes there is a claim that the US flag planted on the Moon by astronauts can't be seen from earth and will they be capable to see living things in those moons? *​
Who said we are capable of seeing living things in those moons....from Earth? You?
​*Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a  black hole.*​
How did they "see" them? 
​*(black holes really don't exist)*​
Why not?
​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The rover that will look for fossil life on Mars, unveiled today:


----------



## luchitociencia

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many times has life started on Earth?
> Once?
> Twice?
> Hundreds of times?



That will be known the day is discovered how life is produced.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who knows how it was produced? Link? ​



That is the point, nobody knows, and this is why looking for the answer in afar away moon is nuts.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> They shouldn't think? How's that working for you?




Their thinking is based on debunked theories.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who said we are capable of seeing living things in those moons....from Earth? You?




Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a  black hole.*
> 
> How did they "see" them?




That is the point, they claim the saw them.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why not?



A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it. The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, such can't produce light. The particles in that collapsed star are assumed to have lost any independent motion. The black hole is also assumed to be extremely cold.

The obsolete idea that "density" is main rule for gravity to happen, was first idealized by Newton, and was exaggerate by the inventors of the black hole.

Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.

All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.

Bad news for believers in black holes is that the universe is not subjected to those dumb pieces of paper.

If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.

This is why the existence of black holes pulling galaxies is just a fantasy. 

This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity. The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes. 
​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

luchitociencia said:


> That is the point, nobody knows, and this is why looking for the answer in afar away moon is nuts.


If nobody knows, then where should we look?

Obviously, on a not-far-away moon, like Europa. Or a not-far-away planet, like Mars.


----------



## FA_Q2

luchitociencia said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has life started on Earth?
> Once?
> Twice?
> Hundreds of times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will be known the day is discovered how life is produced.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows how it was produced? Link? ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point, nobody knows, and this is why looking for the answer in afar away moon is nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't think? How's that working for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their thinking is based on debunked theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said we are capable of seeing living things in those moons....from Earth? You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a  black hole.*
> 
> How did they "see" them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point, they claim the saw them.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it. The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, such can't produce light. The particles in that collapsed star are assumed to have lost any independent motion. The black hole is also assumed to be extremely cold.
> 
> The obsolete idea that "density" is main rule for gravity to happen, was first idealized by Newton, and was exaggerate by the inventors of the black hole.
> 
> Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.
> 
> All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.
> 
> Bad news for believers in black holes is that the universe is not subjected to those dumb pieces of paper.
> 
> If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.
> 
> This is why the existence of black holes pulling galaxies is just a fantasy.
> 
> This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity. The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes.
> ​
Click to expand...

The dead theory of relativity LOL.  The very same math that runs the cell phone in your hand and the GPS that enables a thousand other technological advances a reality.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?



Because that is what is claimed.  We do not see abiogenesis happen today.  Before that, the evolutionist claim was spontaneous combustion, but Pasteur showed that it does not happen.  Thus, the predecessor to abiogenesis did not happen.

No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.  Thus, you have to learn about creation.  I googled days of creation and aig (answers in genesis) and got:
Life from Life...or Not?.  Once we learn about the days of creation, then we ask when was it?  If we google that, then we get...
The World: Born in 4004 BC?.

Next, would be to compare evolution on creation of Adam and Eve and also when the evolution story is correct.

I'll continue the next time I visit USMB.


----------



## luchitociencia

FA_Q2 said:


> ​The dead theory of relativity LOL.  The very same math that runs the cell phone in your hand and the GPS that enables a thousand other technological advances a reality.



Evidently you are just repeating propaganda made to resuscitate the dead and good for nothing theory of relativity.

Show me exactly how that theory is used for the purposes mentioned by you.

Explain with details each one of your reasons.

One more thing, dilatation of time doesn't happen, simply because time doesn't exist. You can't call dilatation of time when clocks malfunction when exposed to environments different to the one those were calibrated.

So, go ahead,make my day.


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> Show me exactly how that theory is used


Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life

“...Built at a cost of over $10 billion mainly for military navigation, GPS has rapidly transformed itself into a thriving commercial industry. The system is based on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the earth, each carrying a precise atomic clock. Using a hand-held GPS receiver which detects radio emissions from any of the satellites which happen to be overhead, users of even moderately priced devices can determine latitude, longitude and altitude to an accuracy which can currently reach 15 meters, and local time to 50 billionths of a second. Apart from the obvious military uses, GPS is finding applications in airplane navigation, oil exploration, wilderness recreation, bridge construction, sailing, and interstate trucking, to name just a few. Even Hollywood has met GPS, recently pitting James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" against an evil genius who was inserting deliberate errors into the GPS system and sending British ships into harm's way.

But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.

But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.

So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing.”


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me exactly how that theory is used
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life
> 
> “...Built at a cost of over $10 billion mainly for military navigation, GPS has rapidly transformed itself into a thriving commercial industry. The system is based on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the earth, each carrying a precise atomic clock. Using a hand-held GPS receiver which detects radio emissions from any of the satellites which happen to be overhead, users of even moderately priced devices can determine latitude, longitude and altitude to an accuracy which can currently reach 15 meters, and local time to 50 billionths of a second. Apart from the obvious military uses, GPS is finding applications in airplane navigation, oil exploration, wilderness recreation, bridge construction, sailing, and interstate trucking, to name just a few. Even Hollywood has met GPS, recently pitting James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" against an evil genius who was inserting deliberate errors into the GPS system and sending British ships into harm's way.
> 
> But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.
> 
> Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.
> 
> To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.
> 
> But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.
> 
> So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing.”
Click to expand...


Then, show first how time dilatation was detected.

1)-Show the detection of time before its dilatation,  

2)-later the detection of its dilatation when the body is in fast motion, 

3)- and third make the body to slow down and show how time returns back to its original status.

If you don't show what is required by the scientific method, then everything you just posted above is pure garbage.

The theory of relativity is dead and was a  good for nothing theory since its very beginning.


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me exactly how that theory is used
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life
> 
> “...Built at a cost of over $10 billion mainly for military navigation, GPS has rapidly transformed itself into a thriving commercial industry. The system is based on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the earth, each carrying a precise atomic clock. Using a hand-held GPS receiver which detects radio emissions from any of the satellites which happen to be overhead, users of even moderately priced devices can determine latitude, longitude and altitude to an accuracy which can currently reach 15 meters, and local time to 50 billionths of a second. Apart from the obvious military uses, GPS is finding applications in airplane navigation, oil exploration, wilderness recreation, bridge construction, sailing, and interstate trucking, to name just a few. Even Hollywood has met GPS, recently pitting James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" against an evil genius who was inserting deliberate errors into the GPS system and sending British ships into harm's way.
> 
> But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.
> 
> Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.
> 
> To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.
> 
> But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.
> 
> So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, show first how time dilatation was detected.
> 
> 1)-Show the detection of time before its dilatation,
> 
> 2)-later the detection of its dilatation when the body is in fast motion,
> 
> 3)- and third make the body to slow down and show how time returns back to its original status.
> 
> If you don't show what is required by the scientific method, then everything you just posted above is pure garbage.
> 
> The theory of relativity is dead and was a  good for nothing theory since its very beginning.
Click to expand...

Relativity has been proven in a myriad of ways. 

I just provided you with an example. Take it or leave it. It is of no concern to me what you do.


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> Relativity has been proven in a myriad of ways.
> .



Oh yeah?

Then, show first how time dilatation was detected.

1)-Show the detection of time before its dilatation,

2)-later the detection of its dilatation when the body is in fast motion,

3)- and third make the body to slow down and show how time returns back to its original status.

*If you don't show what is required by the scientific method, then everything you just posted above is pure garbage.*


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relativity has been proven in a myriad of ways.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah?
> 
> Then, show first how time dilatation was detected.
> 
> 1)-Show the detection of time before its dilatation,
> 
> 2)-later the detection of its dilatation when the body is in fast motion,
> 
> 3)- and third make the body to slow down and show how time returns back to its original status.
> 
> *If you don't show what is required by the scientific method, then everything you just posted above is pure garbage.*
Click to expand...


Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

The work is the most stringent test yet of this ‘time-dilation’ effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.

Few scientists doubt that Einstein was right. But the mathematics describing the time-dilation effect are “fundamental to all physical theories”, says Thomas Udem, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the research. “It is of utmost importance to verify it with the best possible accuracy.”


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified
> 
> Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.
> 
> The work is the most stringent test yet of this ‘time-dilation’ effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.
> 
> Few scientists doubt that Einstein was right. But the mathematics describing the time-dilation effect are “fundamental to all physical theories”, says Thomas Udem, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the research. “It is of utmost importance to verify it with the best possible accuracy.”



Lets use your link.


1)-*The scientists made the moving clock by accelerating lithium ions to one-third the speed of light. *

2)-*Then they measured a set of transitions within the lithium as electrons hopped between various energy levels. *

3)-*The frequency of the transitions served as the ‘ticking’ of the clock. *

4)-*Transitions within lithium ions that were not moving served as the stationary clock.*

5)-*The researchers measured the time-dilation effect more precisely than in any previous study, including one published in 2007 by the same research group.*

What the hell was that?

You cause some particles to run and use them as ... a clock?

You use similar particles at stationary motion and that was used as ... another clock?

OK, you believe that sh*t, and I will open your eyes right away.

I will use the "same experiment" at a different scale and using other bodies for the test. 
*
Read and understand, my test is valid to be used as a variant of the test made by those idiots at the CERN.

You have your twin brother who has the same health status and same heart beat like yours.*

1)- *You are at stationary status and I will use your heat beats as a clock*

2)- *Your brother is exposed to hundreds of miles speed per hour "outside a vehicle" and I will use his heart beats as a clock as well.*

After comparing both heart beats and find a difference, tell me with a clear explanation:

*What caused the difference between your heat beats between you were at stationary status against your twin brother exposed to high speeds: "time dilatation"? ... ha ha ha ha*

Come on, lets see how you will use reasoning in this case. Tell me what caused the difference in the heart beats rate between you and your brother.

Think.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

luchitociencia said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times has life started on Earth?
> Once?
> Twice?
> Hundreds of times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will be known the day is discovered how life is produced.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows how it was produced? Link? ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point, nobody knows, and this is why looking for the answer in afar away moon is nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't think? How's that working for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their thinking is based on debunked theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said we are capable of seeing living things in those moons....from Earth? You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a  black hole.*
> 
> How did they "see" them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point, they claim the saw them.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it. The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, such can't produce light. The particles in that collapsed star are assumed to have lost any independent motion. The black hole is also assumed to be extremely cold.
> 
> The obsolete idea that "density" is main rule for gravity to happen, was first idealized by Newton, and was exaggerate by the inventors of the black hole.
> 
> Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.
> 
> All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.
> 
> Bad news for believers in black holes is that the universe is not subjected to those dumb pieces of paper.
> 
> If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.
> 
> This is why the existence of black holes pulling galaxies is just a fantasy.
> 
> This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity. The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes.
> ​
Click to expand...


*Their thinking is based on debunked theories.*

Well, if you never think, how can you ever debunk a theory?

​*Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?*​
You think they're looking at those moons hoping to see a tree or a whale?​​*That is the point, they claim the saw them.*​
Post their claim, so we can discuss.​​*A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it.*​
Collisions "cause" light? Particles in our atmosphere collide, does that cause light?​​*The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, *​
Stars don't "lose the collision of particles", but they can shrink if the outgoing energy isn't enough to counteract the gravity pulling the star toward its core.
​*Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.*​​​​*All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.*​
You don't think black holes have been observed?
​*If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.*​
Like a white dwarf or a neutron star.
​*This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity.*​
Why is relativity a dead theory?
​*The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes. *​

Eddington committed fraud? Show me.
​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what is claimed.  We do not see abiogenesis happen today.  Before that, the evolutionist claim was spontaneous combustion, but Pasteur showed that it does not happen.  Thus, the predecessor to abiogenesis did not happen.
> 
> No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.  Thus, you have to learn about creation.  I googled days of creation and aig (answers in genesis) and got:
> Life from Life...or Not?.  Once we learn about the days of creation, then we ask when was it?  If we google that, then we get...
> The World: Born in 4004 BC?.
> 
> Next, would be to compare evolution on creation of Adam and Eve and also when the evolution story is correct.
> 
> I'll continue the next time I visit USMB.
Click to expand...


*We do not see abiogenesis happen today.*

Maybe it doesn't happen very often?

*No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.*​
What about planetary orbits?​


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified
> 
> Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.
> 
> The work is the most stringent test yet of this ‘time-dilation’ effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.
> 
> Few scientists doubt that Einstein was right. But the mathematics describing the time-dilation effect are “fundamental to all physical theories”, says Thomas Udem, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the research. “It is of utmost importance to verify it with the best possible accuracy.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets use your link.
> 
> 
> 1)-*The scientists made the moving clock by accelerating lithium ions to one-third the speed of light. *
> 
> 2)-*Then they measured a set of transitions within the lithium as electrons hopped between various energy levels. *
> 
> 3)-*The frequency of the transitions served as the ‘ticking’ of the clock. *
> 
> 4)-*Transitions within lithium ions that were not moving served as the stationary clock.*
> 
> 5)-*The researchers measured the time-dilation effect more precisely than in any previous study, including one published in 2007 by the same research group.*
> 
> What the hell was that?
> 
> You cause some particles to run and use them as ... a clock?
> 
> You use similar particles at stationary motion and that was used as ... another clock?
> 
> OK, you believe that sh*t, and I will open your eyes right away.
> 
> I will use the "same experiment" at a different scale and using other bodies for the test.
> *
> Read and understand, my test is valid to be used as a variant of the test made by those idiots at the CERN.
> 
> You have your twin brother who has the same health status and same heart beat like yours.*
> 
> 1)- *You are at stationary status and I will use your heat beats as a clock*
> 
> 2)- *Your brother is exposed to hundreds of miles speed per hour "outside a vehicle" and I will use his heart beats as a clock as well.*
> 
> After comparing both heart beats and find a difference, tell me with a clear explanation:
> 
> *What caused the difference between your heat beats between you were at stationary status against your twin brother exposed to high speeds: "time dilatation"? ... ha ha ha ha*
> 
> Come on, lets see how you will use reasoning in this case. Tell me what caused the difference in the heart beats rate between you and your brother.
> 
> Think.
Click to expand...

Yes, let’s use my link. 

The paper was published on September 16 in _Physical Review Letters_. It is the culmination of 15 years of work by an international group of collaborators including Nobel laureate Theodor Hänsch, director of the Max Planck optics institute.

To test the time-dilation effect, physicists need to compare two clocks — one that is stationary and one that moves. To do this, the researchers used the Experimental Storage Ring, where high-speed particles are stored and studied at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for heavy-ion research in Darmstadt, Germany.

The scientists made the moving clock by accelerating lithium ions to one-third the speed of light. Then they measured a set of transitions within the lithium as electrons hopped between various energy levels. The frequency of the transitions served as the ‘ticking’ of the clock. Transitions within lithium ions that were not moving served as the stationary clock.

The researchers measured the time-dilation effect more precisely than in any previous study, including one published in 2007 by the same research group. “It’s nearly five times better than our old result, and 50 to 100 times better than any other method used by other people to measure relativistic time dilation,” says co-author Gerald Gwinner, a physicist at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.

Where’s you link?


----------



## FA_Q2

luchitociencia said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​The dead theory of relativity LOL.  The very same math that runs the cell phone in your hand and the GPS that enables a thousand other technological advances a reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently you are just repeating propaganda made to resuscitate the dead and good for nothing theory of relativity.
> 
> Show me exactly how that theory is used for the purposes mentioned by you.
> 
> Explain with details each one of your reasons.
> 
> One more thing, dilatation of time doesn't happen, simply because time doesn't exist. You can't call dilatation of time when clocks malfunction when exposed to environments different to the one those were calibrated.
> 
> So, go ahead,make my day.
Click to expand...

Ha, why would I do that?  You already think that you are more insightful and knowledgeable than Einstein himself while using technology (such as the computer you are reading this on) that relies on his discoveries yet not understanding anything whatsoever about them.

It is pretty idiotic to demand that you know these scientific findings are untrue yet be perfectly comfortable using technology directly based on said theories.  Such hubris is staggering.


----------



## RWS

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As this is a thread in the science section, we will proceed without any deference to the voodoo incantations being vomited by Shaman Bond.
> 
> Signs of Life on Europa May Be Just beneath the Surface
> 
> *Signs of Life on Europa May Be Just beneath the Surface*
> New maps suggest evidence of alien life in the icy moon’s buried ocean could be surprisingly easy to find


Lol! How would shaman Bond respond (rhymes) if life is discovered on Mars or elsewhere?


----------



## RWS

xband said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame and you did not come close to answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP basically asked with an octillion of planets in the Universe, how many can support intelligent life?
Click to expand...

Zillions.


----------



## RWS

xband said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Goldilocks Zone does not guarantee Intelligent Life
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said it does.
> 
> The chicken or egg question is dumb. Eggs were around for 100s of millions of years before chickens ever appeared on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The chicken or egg question is the Creation of the Universe. The chicken is God and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event.
Click to expand...


The egg came first. I don't get it... The chicken was a mutation that created more chickens by laying more eggs. But it was borne from a previous species' egg.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what is claimed.  We do not see abiogenesis happen today.  Before that, the evolutionist claim was spontaneous combustion, but Pasteur showed that it does not happen.  Thus, the predecessor to abiogenesis did not happen.
> 
> No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.  Thus, you have to learn about creation.  I googled days of creation and aig (answers in genesis) and got:
> Life from Life...or Not?.  Once we learn about the days of creation, then we ask when was it?  If we google that, then we get...
> The World: Born in 4004 BC?.
> 
> Next, would be to compare evolution on creation of Adam and Eve and also when the evolution story is correct.
> 
> I'll continue the next time I visit USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We do not see abiogenesis happen today.*
> 
> Maybe it doesn't happen very often?
> 
> *No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.*
> 
> What about planetary orbits?​
Click to expand...


"Maybe" means you are making stuff up.  Thus, you are wrong again.  No science person in their right mind follows a "maybe."

You keep asking questions, but do not learn.  This is why you must go out and learn for yourself.  An evo scientist must make good coin for himself despite following fake science.

You keep asserting that evo is right.  What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits?  They don't say anything because creation scientist Johannes Kepler created the 3 laws of planetary motion.  After that, Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and Einstein created his theories of relativity.  *What were the big discoveries of atheist scientists after that today?*  Edwin Hubble was raised a Christian, but went for astronomy instead.  He did well.  The company I worked for built the Hubble Telescope named after him.  Thus, you can be an atheist scientist and make big coin.

Anyway, we are done.  You won't answer my questions and I'm bored af with your internet atheism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is what is claimed.  We do not see abiogenesis happen today.  Before that, the evolutionist claim was spontaneous combustion, but Pasteur showed that it does not happen.  Thus, the predecessor to abiogenesis did not happen.
> 
> No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.  Thus, you have to learn about creation.  I googled days of creation and aig (answers in genesis) and got:
> Life from Life...or Not?.  Once we learn about the days of creation, then we ask when was it?  If we google that, then we get...
> The World: Born in 4004 BC?.
> 
> Next, would be to compare evolution on creation of Adam and Eve and also when the evolution story is correct.
> 
> I'll continue the next time I visit USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We do not see abiogenesis happen today.*
> 
> Maybe it doesn't happen very often?
> 
> *No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.*
> 
> What about planetary orbits?​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Maybe" means you are making stuff up.  Thus, you are wrong again.  No science person in their right mind follows a "maybe."
> 
> You keep asking questions, but do not learn.  This is why you must go out and learn for yourself.  An evo scientist must make good coin for himself despite following fake science.
> 
> You keep asserting that evo is right.  What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits?  They don't say anything because creation scientist Johannes Kepler created the 3 laws of planetary motion.  After that, Newton formulated the laws of gravitation and Einstein created his theories of relativity.  *What were the big discoveries of atheist scientists after that today?*  Edwin Hubble was raised a Christian, but went for astronomy instead.  He did well.  The company I worked for built the Hubble Telescope named after him.  Thus, you can be an atheist scientist and make big coin.
> 
> Anyway, we are done.  You won't answer my questions and I'm bored af with your internet atheism.
Click to expand...

*"Maybe" means you are making stuff up.*

Like a 6000 year old Earth?

*You keep asking questions, but do not learn. *

I keep asking for proof of your claims. You keep failing to provide proof.

*What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits?*

"Evo thinking" has zero to do with planetary orbits. 
But you said the Bible explained orbits  and scientists couldn't.
You lied.

*Anyway, we are done.*

You've been done for a while. Run away.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *"Maybe" means you are making stuff up.*
> 
> Like a 6000 year old Earth?
> 
> *You keep asking questions, but do not learn. *
> 
> I keep asking for proof of your claims. You keep failing to provide proof.
> 
> *What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits?*
> 
> "Evo thinking" has zero to do with planetary orbits.
> But you said the Bible explained orbits and scientists couldn't.
> You lied.
> 
> *Anyway, we are done.*
> 
> You've been done for a while. Run away.






 

Haha.  6000 yr old Earth are human based estimates pulled using the Bible dates as well as C14 dating.  What have I told you before?  God said he will keep some things to himself like the age of the Earth and universe.  We will not find the exact age using science.  *How old is your Earth and why?*  Answer carefully because your "faith-based" beliefs will affect what happens in your next life.

No, you keep asking dumb questions (which a school boy or girl could answer and never answer mine.  It means you are of low IQ and lazy af.  Otherwise, you'd know what my questions mean.

I didn't lie.

Yes, I'll run away from you because you are low IQ and boring af.  Ta ta.


----------



## james bond

The fine tuning theory discovered by atheist scientists while investigating the big bang has been hidden by others of the same.  It's checkmate, atheists.


----------



## Wuwei

Toddsterpatriot said:


> "Evo thinking" has zero to do with planetary orbits.
> But you said the Bible explained orbits and scientists couldn't.
> You lied.


The Bible isn't the best source for that. If you want to know about orbits you will have to read a better source: the crystal spheres of Aristotle.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Maybe" means you are making stuff up.*
> 
> Like a 6000 year old Earth?
> 
> *You keep asking questions, but do not learn. *
> 
> I keep asking for proof of your claims. You keep failing to provide proof.
> 
> *What does evo thinking say about planetary orbits?*
> 
> "Evo thinking" has zero to do with planetary orbits.
> But you said the Bible explained orbits and scientists couldn't.
> You lied.
> 
> *Anyway, we are done.*
> 
> You've been done for a while. Run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 297542
> 
> Haha.  6000 yr old Earth are human based estimates pulled using the Bible dates as well as C14 dating.  What have I told you before?  God said he will keep some things to himself like the age of the Earth and universe.  We will not find the exact age using science.  *How old is your Earth and why?*  Answer carefully because your "faith-based" beliefs will affect what happens in your next life.
> 
> No, you keep asking dumb questions (which a school boy or girl could answer and never answer mine.  It means you are of low IQ and lazy af.  Otherwise, you'd know what my questions mean.
> 
> I didn't lie.
> 
> Yes, I'll run away from you because you are low IQ and boring af.  Ta ta.
Click to expand...


*6000 yr old Earth are human based estimates pulled using the Bible dates as well as C14 dating. *

Carbon dating shows the Earth is 6000 years old? LOL!

*God said he will keep some things to himself like the age of the Earth and universe.*

Where did he say that?

*I didn't lie.*

You said scientists couldn't explain planetary orbits. 
That's a lie.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *...*








Go ask your questions to Wuwei now.  He's probably more your speed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go ask your questions to Wuwei now.  He's probably more your speed.
Click to expand...


Liar.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> The Bible isn't the best source for that.



Wrong.  Don't be a heretic.  The Bible is_ always_ the best source, but it's not a science book.

"These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.

God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws."

...

"*The Laws of Planetary Motion*
The creation scientist Johannes Kepler discovered that the planets in our solar system obey three laws of nature. He found that planets orbit in ellipses (not perfect circles as had been previously thought) with the sun at one focus of the ellipse; thus a given planet is sometimes closer to the sun than at other times. Kepler also found that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times—in other words, planets speed up as they get closer to the sun within their orbit. And third, Kepler found the exact mathematical relationship between a planet’s distance from the sun (a) and its orbital period (p); planets that are farther from the sun take much longer to orbit than planets that are closer (expressed as p2=a3). Kepler’s laws also apply to the orbits of moons around a given planet.1

As with the laws of chemistry, these laws of planetary motion are not fundamental. Rather, they are the logical derivation of other laws of nature. In fact, it was another creation scientist (Sir Isaac Newton) who discovered that Kepler’s laws could be derived mathematically from certain laws of physics—specifically, the laws of gravity and motion (which Newton himself formulated)."

God & Natural Law


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible isn't the best source for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Don't be a heretic.  The Bible is_ always_ the best source, but it's not a science book.
> 
> "These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.
> 
> God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws."
> 
> ...
> 
> "*The Laws of Planetary Motion*
> The creation scientist Johannes Kepler discovered that the planets in our solar system obey three laws of nature. He found that planets orbit in ellipses (not perfect circles as had been previously thought) with the sun at one focus of the ellipse; thus a given planet is sometimes closer to the sun than at other times. Kepler also found that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times—in other words, planets speed up as they get closer to the sun within their orbit. And third, Kepler found the exact mathematical relationship between a planet’s distance from the sun (a) and its orbital period (p); planets that are farther from the sun take much longer to orbit than planets that are closer (expressed as p2=a3). Kepler’s laws also apply to the orbits of moons around a given planet.1
> 
> As with the laws of chemistry, these laws of planetary motion are not fundamental. Rather, they are the logical derivation of other laws of nature. In fact, it was another creation scientist (Sir Isaac Newton) who discovered that Kepler’s laws could be derived mathematically from certain laws of physics—specifically, the laws of gravity and motion (which Newton himself formulated)."
> 
> God & Natural Law
Click to expand...



*The creation scientist Johannes Kepler discovered that the planets in our solar system obey three laws of nature. *

He didn't discover that in the Bible.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Wrong. Don't be a heretic. The Bible is_ always_ the best source, but it's not a science book.


The context was orbits of planets. You are saying the Bible is the best source for planetary orbits? At least Aristotle had epicycles. You left out Einstein in your history. He explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Newton's law couldn't. 
.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Don't be a heretic. The Bible is_ always_ the best source, but it's not a science book.
> 
> 
> 
> The context was orbits of planets. You are saying the Bible is the best source for planetary orbits? At least Aristotle had epicycles. You left out Einstein in your history. He explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Newton's law couldn't.
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, the Bible is always the greatest place to start.  From there, we go on to other sources in order to discover more.  I found AIG.  OTOH, you suggested starting with Aristotle.  Why not help brother Toddsterpatriot since he has questions?  Maybe he can help you with evolution since you already discarded the Bible, creation science websites, whatever I say, and anything else as religion.  I included Einstein in a post with @Toodsterpatriot.


----------



## RWS

Jesus supposedly healed the blind.

Here's what I'm gonna do... 

I'm going to make you all see 2020 in a few hours! Depending on time zone...


----------



## RWS




----------



## RWS

Does it matter?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Yes, the Bible is always the greatest place to start.


And there you have it, in an iron aged nutshell. A person like this cannot be reasoned with.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bible is always the greatest place to start.
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, in an iron aged nutshell. A person like this cannot be reasoned with.
Click to expand...


That's your faith in false science speaking.  The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year and belongs in non-fiction and history at the library.  It isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  How many times have I said this and you still do not get it; you still believe in your "faith-based" false science?  The only true part is natural selection which is in the Bible.  It is the true _survival of the fittest_.

'And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.' Genesis 1:24


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Bible is always the greatest place to start.
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, in an iron aged nutshell. A person like this cannot be reasoned with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your faith in false science speaking.  The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year and belongs in non-fiction and history at the library.  It isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  How many times have I said this and you still do not get it; you still believe in your "faith-based" false science?  The only true part is natural selection which is in the Bible.  It is the true _survival of the fittest_.
> 
> 'And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.' Genesis 1:24
Click to expand...


What passage has the inverse square law?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year


Not any more. It doesn't make the top 150 list in USA Today.
USA TODAY Best-Selling Books List


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more. It doesn't make the top 150 list in USA Today.
> USA TODAY Best-Selling Books List
Click to expand...


You are *wrong* just like atheists are usually wrong.  I was trying to get atheist Toddsterpatriot to start asking you questions, but if you're this lame, then he'll just ignore you.  He could've taught you some evolution.

"*The Bible Sells Best Because *
*It Is Living, Powerful And 
Universally Desired*
The Bible is often said to be the world’s best sold book but search the best seller lists and you won’t find it anywhere, top to bottom.

It makes you wonder. If it’s a best seller why isn’t it on the list? Well, the answer is simple.

The annual sales figures for the Bible are so high, averaging between $425m and $650m, repeatedly – year after year – that it dwarfs the sales of all other books. The best any other book can hope for is second place and a very distant second place at that.

A list of “best sellers” is interesting only if the top spot is up for grabs so the real best seller had to give way to all the rest.

The Harry Potter series, which has enjoyed high volume sales in recent years, is a good example. According to The New Yorker even books with Harry Potter stature don’t compete well with the Bible. Not only is the Bible the best seller of all time it continues to be the best seller every year even when compared to the astounding sales figures of a series like Harry Potter."

Why The Bible Is The True Best Seller - NowTHINK!AboutIt

Guiness World Records
Best-selling book


----------



## FA_Q2

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book every year
> 
> 
> 
> Not any more. It doesn't make the top 150 list in USA Today.
> USA TODAY Best-Selling Books List
Click to expand...

^ the US makes up less than 5% of the worlds population so.... 

Really not meaningful in world popularity.  

Then again, if popularity were an indication of truth and meaning then Quotations from Chairman Mao would be right up there as well being that it may very well be the second most popular book by distribution in the world.  And that one has had a LOT less time to propagate.

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung - Wikipedia

I wonder when James Bond is going to join the communist party?


----------



## RWS

Bond said:

You are *wrong*

That'll be a meme... Lol...

Gallaraga losing perfect game in the ninth with two out.

You are *wrong*


----------



## RWS

You are *wrong



 *


----------



## RWS

You are *wrong*


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You are *wrong* just like atheists are usually wrong.


I'm only quoting USA Today. Take it up with them if you think they are wrong.

I agree that it is the best selling of all time, but USA Today is referring to one year sales of the latest year only and that's where they disagree with you.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are *wrong* just like atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only quoting USA Today. Take it up with them if you think they are wrong.
> 
> I agree that it is the best selling of all time, but USA Today is referring to one year sales of the latest year only and that's where they disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Now, you are wrong and a liar .  You're the one who claimed "not any more."  Are you going to say, "You're not Chinese, either?"


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Bond said:
> 
> You are *wrong*
> 
> That'll be a meme... Lol...
> 
> Gallaraga losing perfect game in the ninth with two out.
> 
> You are *wrong*








The meme should be atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## SaxxyBlues

NASA Telescope Reveals Record-Breaking Exoplanet Discovery

Thought this is awesome.  Finally we find another earth like solar system.


----------



## james bond

FA_Q2 said:


> Then again, if popularity were an indication of truth



The truth is we do not want atheism as it leads to Communism.  The indication of truth in the Bible is that it is _inspired_.  You're welcome.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are *wrong* just like atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only quoting USA Today. Take it up with them if you think they are wrong.
> 
> I agree that it is the best selling of all time, but USA Today is referring to one year sales of the latest year only and that's where they disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you are wrong and a liar.  You're the one who claimed "not any more."  Are you going to say, "You're not Chinese, either?"
Click to expand...

You said,


james bond said:


> The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book* every year*


You are right. The statistics from USA Today don't show it was in the top 150 list for the *year*. They show that it is not in the top 150 for the *week*. However Amazon does not have it in their top 100 for the *year*.

If you can't verify your claim:


james bond said:


> The Bible is still the world's best selling non-fiction book *every year*


then you would just be shooting from the hip.

.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> Do you speak with me? Do you expect an answer, Ebenezer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, yes I doodoo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nicho, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyone else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two Plank-seconds can happen a lot of things, because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great explanation! I think...
> 
> But we all agree he has to take bathroom breaks. Does he do it in the bad kids toilets? Or on our random roofs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn to read and to understand what someone says to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a piano player, and Billy is my idol. This was a GREAT cover!!!! Thank you so much!
Click to expand...

You’d probably be a better piano player if you weren’t an atheist because then you could put your soul into it.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, yes I doodoo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to find a curriculum vitae from Santa Claus (alias Miklas, Miklavž, Mikławš, Miklós, Mikołaj, Mikula, Nikola, Mikuláš, Mikulas, Mykola Mikola, Mykolaj, Mikalojus, Néckel, Niccolò, Nicholas, Niclo, Nicol, Nicola, Nicolò, Nicolà, Clà, Clau, Nicolae, Nicolaas, Nicolas, Nicolás, Nicolau, Nicolaus, Nicoli, Niculin, Nicolussi, Niklaas, Niklas, Niclas, Nicklas, Niklaus, Nikola, Nikolai, Nicolai, Nikolei, Nikolaj, Nikolaos, Nikólaos, Nikos, Nikolas, Nikolina, Nikoll, Nikollë, Nikolla, Nikolos, Nikolow, Niels, Níoclas, Claas, Claus, Clau, Col, Colin, Kiko, Koko, Klaas, Klas, Kai, Klaus, Kolja, Kolya, Kolyo, Nicho, Nikos, Nis, Nisse, Niggo, Nigi, Nici, Nicci, Nicky, Nicki, Nikki, Niki, Nikky, Nico, Nicu, Niko, Nick, Niggi, Niggl, Niggel, Niggels, Nigu, Nik, Nikita, Nike, Nils, Niels, Nini, Nino).
> 
> Santa Claus was born in Patra in 270-286 AD. So you can see it was a long birth. And he died on 6th of december (which is at Christmas in the orthodox world) about 4 times in 326, 345, 351 and 365 - so it's not really sure, how often he redied later and how often he was reborn every year and why he is always young ... ah sorry: always old ... or young? .. or old? ... Whatever. And it looks like he pees and poops like everyone else. And Tomte - Tomte is one of his names too - has every time of the world to do so in every bathroom all over the globe. You said on your own he is able to stop time - and between two Plank-seconds can happen a lot of things, because _there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great explanation! I think...
> 
> But we all agree he has to take bathroom breaks. Does he do it in the bad kids toilets? Or on our random roofs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn to read and to understand what someone says to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a piano player, and Billy is my idol. This was a GREAT cover!!!! Thank you so much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’d probably be a better piano player if you weren’t an atheist because then you could put your soul into it.
Click to expand...


True! Seriously, I'm missing that quality to put me over from where I am now. Good observation! I agree.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are *wrong* just like atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only quoting USA Today. Take it up with them if you think they are wrong.
> 
> I agree that it is the best selling of all time, but USA Today is referring to one year sales of the latest year only and that's where they disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you are wrong and a liar .  You're the one who claimed "not any more."  Are you going to say, "You're not Chinese, either?"
Click to expand...

I like Chinese food.

You're a meme now. Thank me for that


----------



## MarathonMike

Maybe the smartest aliens live in the oldest galaxies. That stands to reason since they would have been in existence the longest. But since the oldest galaxies are so freaking far away they don't even want to bother with us.


----------



## james bond

Let's look at this scientifically:

The Bible states God did not create aliens.

Abiogenesis does not happen on Earth, so didn't happen anywhere else.

Fine tuning facts make it less probable life happened somewhere else despite all the countless galaxies.

If there was intelligent life elsewhere, then we would've been contacted already.

Aliens exist because of _______________ (fill in the blank) is just "faith-based" belief.  Magic doesn't happen.

Why are creation scientists usually right while atheist scientists are usually wrong?


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, if popularity were an indication of truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is we do not want atheism as it leads to Communism.  The indication of truth in the Bible is that it is _inspired_.  You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Atheism and Communism are unrelated. Communism is the "heaven" for socialism, a utopia based on socialism with a belief in god as being the state instead of a physical entity. The ultimate goal is communism, which is the Utopia. State is God, and will get followers to their ultimate "utopia" of communism. Which has never happened and never will... They will follow orders and kill and die for it based on the leader's wishes and their dream of martyrdom. Just like any religion. Socialism is a religious belief that we can track in real time and show it's wrong, and not have to wait until we die, like Santa religions.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Because lack of religion has nothing to do with politics.

You place atheists as evil people. We are not. We're just eating popcorn on the side, while watching you do your evil shit, and destroy the world with your lies.

And, working hard on figuring out the scientific realities.


----------



## RWS

Calling non-believers communists means we achieved the ultimate goal, ie heaven. Which we have not. And don't claim to.


----------



## RWS

But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...

You are *wrong*


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...
> 
> You are *wrong*
> View attachment 298224



You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bond , your empty whining is just not compelling. You believe life formed, just like I do. You simply insist your iron aged magical sky daddy did it. So, you sound like a child, and I sound like an adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  Life is precious.  Humans cannot bring back life nor create it.  We can't get life outside the cell.  This is _real science_.  When your goldfish died when you were a kid, it was buried in the back yard or flushed down.  It means life itself is beyond the natural; it's supernatural.  This is observable.  It is evidence for creation, but atheists cannot believe it even though it's right in front of your nose.  Thus, they grasp and cling to the lie of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.  It's all denial and beliefs in the magical sky fairy.  He has pulled the wool over you eyes but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years ago they said men could never fly.  All your claims are tentative until someone accomplishes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to evolutionists, it has been 13.8 billion years (up 0.1 billion years) of no life outside the cell.  You missed the part where life cannot occur outside the cell.  It means only life can begat life.  If there was no life to beging with, thus creation, then life could not happen.  Thus, there has been enough time with evolution for abiogenesis, but this has not happened.  Thus, it is not the creationists who believe in the sky fairy.  It's the evolutionists with their magical abiogenesis and big bang.  It's based on faith in false science.
> 
> OTOH, one person has already accomplished resurrection so the believers can follow.  That took three days while you're still waiting.  Sounds like you are backing the losing horse if this were a horse race for all the marbles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Abiogenesis has obviously happened.  Your syllogism failed to demonstrate otherwise.
> 
> For 13.8 billion years we have had no evidence of your sky fairy.
> 
> Not knowing how something occurred doesn't make it "magic."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just you asserting abiogenesis happened doesn't make it so.  We know it hasn't happened because the evos are trying on Mars and Saturn now .  They have failed on Earth and will fail even worse on Mars and Saturn.  I can figure these things out while you can't.
> 
> With God, it is around 6,000 years so there is no 13.8 billion years or 4.5 billion year Earth.  Maybe you'll get to look for evolution for that long of a time in the next life.  If it doesn't happen, then rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your claim that magic is responsible is just too hilarious for words.  

There is no evidence of your magical gaseous vertebrate with a penis.  None.


----------



## K9Buck

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.




I'm obviously WAY late to this discussion, but my take on discovering life on other planets is sort of like how explorers discovered life in other part of our planet.  If there is life elsewhere in the universe, then they too are part of God's plan.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...
> 
> You are *wrong*
> View attachment 298224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.
Click to expand...

Communism has never existed. It's the Utopia/heaven for people that follow the socialist religion. Isolated communist groups have been created, but ultimately failed, probably due to human greed.

So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.


----------



## RWS

Another thing to add... Religious heaven (if there is one) will be based on communist economy rather than a capitalist one.

Bc we won't have money in heaven. We just gotta share...


----------



## RWS

So your religious heaven is communism.

I'm not there yet, and I'm not a socialist, just saying...

That's where you're going.


----------



## bripat9643

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...
> 
> You are *wrong*
> View attachment 298224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism has never existed. It's the Utopia/heaven for people that follow the socialist religion. Isolated communist groups have been created, but ultimately failed, probably due to human greed.
> 
> So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.
Click to expand...

Communist communities fail because communism can't possibly work. Blaming "greed" only demonstrates that you are in fact a communist.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.



Last point first.  Aren't you the one who is hellbound and hooked by the prince and god?

To the contrary, I've read Karl Marx.  He said, "Communism begins at the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."  Once it takes root, then we know it becomes state atheism.  Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote the same.  Did you miss learning about the 50s in high school or something?

Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> I'm obviously WAY late to this discussion, but my take on discovering life on other planets is sort of like how explorers discovered life in other part of our planet. If there is life elsewhere in the universe, then they too are part of God's plan.


There you have it. There is no need for any conflict between science and theism.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...
> 
> You are *wrong*
> View attachment 298224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism has never existed. It's the Utopia/heaven for people that follow the socialist religion. Isolated communist groups have been created, but ultimately failed, probably due to human greed.
> 
> So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.
Click to expand...

Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.  Was he wrong?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.


For those not familiar with ding's old as dirt parlor tricks, this is the beginning of 9 pages of a fallacy called "non sequitur".

Enjoy!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.
> 
> 
> 
> For those not familiar with ding's old as dirt parlor tricks, this is the beginning of 9 pages of a fallacy called "non sequitur".
> 
> Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Wrong.  Karl Marx wrote is considered the father of communism.  So his views on secular humanism leading to communism are relevant and important.  Especially since that is exactly what history has shown.  

Case in point: The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

The only one using parlor tricks is you as you have no factual or logical argument to make.  Tell you what... you keep slinging mud at me while I continue to make my case.


----------



## james bond

K9Buck said:


> I'm obviously WAY late to this discussion, but my take on discovering life on other planets is sort of like how explorers discovered life in other part of our planet. If there is life elsewhere in the universe, then they too are part of God's plan.



You have to read the Bible about this as God would have told us if he created aliens.  They are not found in Genesis.  The big question is why did Jesus die to save them?  This is not a likely scenario for aliens.  Furthermore, they would have to be like God as we are.  Basically, we would not expect to find aliens based on the Bible, creation science, and scientific theories such as Ferdi's paradox, Drake equation, Great Filter theory, and so on as we would have made contact or discovered aliens by now.

One of the unspoken reasons atheist scientists want to find aliens is to find an error in the Bible.  Atheists and their scientists are getting somewhat desperate to find hard evidence for evolution as to start believing in multiverses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You have to read the Bible about this as God would have told us if he created aliens.


----------



## percysunshine

The end game of the universe is cat videos.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...
> 
> You are *wrong*
> View attachment 298224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism has never existed. It's the Utopia/heaven for people that follow the socialist religion. Isolated communist groups have been created, but ultimately failed, probably due to human greed.
> 
> So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.  Was he wrong?
Click to expand...


I don't follow socialism, nor am I a communist. I'm just pointing out the differences. One is a religious system, one is economic, and also a religious Utopia.

I belong to neither. So calling me those names makes me laugh. Just because I don't believe doesn't make me what you say.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...
> 
> You are *wrong*
> View attachment 298224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism has never existed. It's the Utopia/heaven for people that follow the socialist religion. Isolated communist groups have been created, but ultimately failed, probably due to human greed.
> 
> So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.  Was he wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't follow socialism, nor am I a communist. I'm just pointing out the differences. One is a religious system, one is economic, and also a religious Utopia.
> 
> I belong to neither. So calling me those names makes me laugh. Just because I don't believe doesn't make me what you say.
Click to expand...


It's hard for us to see your credibility on this, so I think we established atheism leads to communism per Marx, Lenin, Stalin, historical facts, etc.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to read the Bible about this as God would have told us if he created aliens.
Click to expand...


What do you know about Genesis?  Nothing.  Thus, you are laughing hysterically about something you do not understand as part of science.  

As has been stated, the Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  There has been absolutely no evidence of aliens while we have discovered the fine tuning facts, solar radiation, the harshness of space, how many planets do not have what is needed to support life, no abiogenesis on Earth and elsewhere, and more.


----------



## RWS

But one thing is for sure. Your wealth and status will not carry over to the afterlife. If there is one. You will follow a communist economy, or none at all.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to read the Bible about this as God would have told us if he created aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you know about Genesis?  Nothing.  Thus, you are laughing hysterically about something you do not understand as part of science.
> 
> As has been stated, the Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  There has been absolutely no evidence of aliens while we have discovered the fine tuning facts, solar radiation, the harshness of space, how many planets do not have what is needed to support life, no abiogenesis on Earth and elsewhere, and more.
Click to expand...

Where does science backup the Bible?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...
> 
> You are *wrong*
> View attachment 298224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism has never existed. It's the Utopia/heaven for people that follow the socialist religion. Isolated communist groups have been created, but ultimately failed, probably due to human greed.
> 
> So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.  Was he wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't follow socialism, nor am I a communist. I'm just pointing out the differences. One is a religious system, one is economic, and also a religious Utopia.
> 
> I belong to neither. So calling me those names makes me laugh. Just because I don't believe doesn't make me what you say.
Click to expand...

Socialism is all three.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Where does science backup the Bible?



Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.


----------



## RWS

Atheism leads to nothing religious. Just exploration.

If the world was left to religious fanatics like you, we would never have tried to leave earth. Since it's flat and we're the center of the universe.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Atheism leads to nothing religious. Just exploration.
> 
> If the world was left to religious fanatics like you, we would never have tried to leave earth. Since it's flat and we're the center of the universe.


Given that Genesis explores the origin questions and atheism doesn’t, it seems you have it backwards.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's really nice out here in heaven....Here's something I can tell ya...
> 
> You are *wrong*
> View attachment 298224
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communism has never existed. It's the Utopia/heaven for people that follow the socialist religion. Isolated communist groups have been created, but ultimately failed, probably due to human greed.
> 
> So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.  Was he wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't follow socialism, nor am I a communist. I'm just pointing out the differences. One is a religious system, one is economic, and also a religious Utopia.
> 
> I belong to neither. So calling me those names makes me laugh. Just because I don't believe doesn't make me what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism is all three.
Click to expand...

No socialism is one. Communism is a different thing.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does science backup the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that backs up nothing.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that I am *wrong*?  That's called _middle _heaven in the Bible or where the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and his demons live.  god has you hooked but good.
> 
> 
> 
> Communism has never existed. It's the Utopia/heaven for people that follow the socialist religion. Isolated communist groups have been created, but ultimately failed, probably due to human greed.
> 
> So calling non-believers communists shows ignorance. Which you show towards common sense too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.  Was he wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't follow socialism, nor am I a communist. I'm just pointing out the differences. One is a religious system, one is economic, and also a religious Utopia.
> 
> I belong to neither. So calling me those names makes me laugh. Just because I don't believe doesn't make me what you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism is all three.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No socialism is one. Communism is a different thing.
Click to expand...

Effectively the same difference. Secular humanism is the religion of choice.


----------



## RWS

Our origins are fully covered and evidenced by science. You're origins are based on a book about 1500 years ago with no science.

Unless you want to go back to the original ot.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> But one thing is for sure. Your wealth and status will not carry over to the afterlife. If there is one. You will follow a communist economy, or none at all.


So you are saying to you heaven is communism?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> Our original are fully covered and evidenced by science. You're origins are based on a book about 1500 years ago with no science.
> 
> Unless you want to go back to the original ot.


~14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence, created from nothing, and then began to expand and cool. 

At conception a separate and genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.  

Science like that?  Because I don’t believe you can handle what science actually says.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing is for sure. Your wealth and status will not carry over to the afterlife. If there is one. You will follow a communist economy, or none at all.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying to you heaven is communism?
Click to expand...

That's what socialist beliefs say. But I'm not socialist.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original are fully covered and evidenced by science. You're origins are based on a book about 1500 years ago with no science.
> 
> Unless you want to go back to the original ot.
> 
> 
> 
> ~14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence, created from nothing, and then began to expand and cool.
> 
> At conception a separate and genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.
> 
> Science like that?  Because I don’t believe you can handle what science actually says.
Click to expand...

Humans popped up about 200,000 years ago. Well beyond the dinosaurs btw.


----------



## RWS

* 
You are wrong*


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does science backup the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that backs up nothing.
Click to expand...


Uh huh.  

"When God began to create heaven and Earth, the Earth was then without form, and void, and darkness was over the deep, and God's breath hovering over the waters."

English Standard Version

We also know God focuses on the Earth.  Science has discovered the Earth is special.

Compare that to the eternal universe.  No, that is not right; that is pseudoscience.  It was the big bang from nothing, i.e. a single invisible particle which contained everything and more and which popped in and out of existence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does science backup the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that backs up nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> "When God began to create heaven and Earth, the Earth was then without form, and void, and darkness was over the deep, and God's breath hovering over the waters."
> 
> English Standard Version
> 
> We also know God focuses on the Earth.  Science has discovered the Earth is special.
> 
> Compare that to the eternal universe.  No, that is not right; that is pseudoscience.  It was the big bang from nothing, i.e. a single invisible particle which contained everything and more and which popped in and out of existence.
Click to expand...


Thanks.
That really clears up my questions about planetary orbits.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does science backup the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that backs up nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> "When God began to create heaven and Earth, the Earth was then without form, and void, and darkness was over the deep, and God's breath hovering over the waters."
> 
> English Standard Version
> 
> We also know God focuses on the Earth.  Science has discovered the Earth is special.
> 
> Compare that to the eternal universe.  No, that is not right; that is pseudoscience.  It was the big bang from nothing, i.e. a single invisible particle which contained everything and more and which popped in and out of existence.
Click to expand...

What does your fairy tale backup?


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing is for sure. Your wealth and status will not carry over to the afterlife. If there is one. You will follow a communist economy, or none at all.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying to you heaven is communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what socialist beliefs say. But I'm not socialist.
Click to expand...

You wouldn’t know it from your behaviors.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original are fully covered and evidenced by science. You're origins are based on a book about 1500 years ago with no science.
> 
> Unless you want to go back to the original ot.
> 
> 
> 
> ~14 billion years ago the universe popped into existence, created from nothing, and then began to expand and cool.
> 
> At conception a separate and genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.
> 
> Science like that?  Because I don’t believe you can handle what science actually says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans popped up about 200,000 years ago. Well beyond the dinosaurs btw.
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## RWS

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing is for sure. Your wealth and status will not carry over to the afterlife. If there is one. You will follow a communist economy, or none at all.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying to you heaven is communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what socialist beliefs say. But I'm not socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn’t know it from your behaviors.
Click to expand...

Fail


----------



## RWS

You better recruit more peeps to back you up. Because just you and bond, ain't happening here. 

Bring in the troops.


----------



## RWS

Give them one more chance to speak, outside of ding and bond bullshit. And then we're done.


----------



## RWS

We're done!

Hi fives!


----------



## MAGAman

RWS said:


> Atheism leads to nothing religious. Just exploration.
> 
> If the world was left to religious fanatics like you, we would never have tried to leave earth. Since it's flat and we're the center of the universe.


"Flat Earth" dogma was the unproven, official government "Scientistific Consensus" of the time.

They said 97% of scientists agreed with Man Made Global Flattening.


----------



## ding

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one thing is for sure. Your wealth and status will not carry over to the afterlife. If there is one. You will follow a communist economy, or none at all.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying to you heaven is communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what socialist beliefs say. But I'm not socialist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn’t know it from your behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail
Click to expand...




RWS said:


> You better recruit more peeps to back you up. Because just you and bond, ain't happening here.
> 
> Bring in the troops.





RWS said:


> Give them one more chance to speak, outside of ding and bond bullshit. And then we're done.





RWS said:


> We're done!
> 
> Hi fives!


Subordinating religion is a time honored tradition of socialists and communists.

So there’s that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MAGAman said:


> Flat Earth" dogma was the unproven, official government "Scientistific Consensus" of the time.


No.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does science backup the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that backs up nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> "When God began to create heaven and Earth, the Earth was then without form, and void, and darkness was over the deep, and God's breath hovering over the waters."
> 
> English Standard Version
> 
> We also know God focuses on the Earth.  Science has discovered the Earth is special.
> 
> Compare that to the eternal universe.  No, that is not right; that is pseudoscience.  It was the big bang from nothing, i.e. a single invisible particle which contained everything and more and which popped in and out of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> That really clears up my questions about planetary orbits.
Click to expand...


What do you know about planetary orbits so far?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does science backup the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that backs up nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> "When God began to create heaven and Earth, the Earth was then without form, and void, and darkness was over the deep, and God's breath hovering over the waters."
> 
> English Standard Version
> 
> We also know God focuses on the Earth.  Science has discovered the Earth is special.
> 
> Compare that to the eternal universe.  No, that is not right; that is pseudoscience.  It was the big bang from nothing, i.e. a single invisible particle which contained everything and more and which popped in and out of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does your fairy tale backup?
Click to expand...


It's not fairy tales, but creation science.  We discover from the first day that God focused on the planet Earth.  We find from the fine tuning facts that Earth is special.  No other planets and galaxies can provide life and this is the evidence we find.

The fine tuning facts were discovered by secular/atheist scientists studying the big bang, but it contradicts evolution so they have hidden or dismantled it.  The scientists and astrophysicists who knew have mostly, if not all, have gone to multiverse hypothesis.  All of the online articles I've read about it from 2007 - 2011 are gone.  They only exist on creation and ID websites -- The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does science backup the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that backs up nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> "When God began to create heaven and Earth, the Earth was then without form, and void, and darkness was over the deep, and God's breath hovering over the waters."
> 
> English Standard Version
> 
> We also know God focuses on the Earth.  Science has discovered the Earth is special.
> 
> Compare that to the eternal universe.  No, that is not right; that is pseudoscience.  It was the big bang from nothing, i.e. a single invisible particle which contained everything and more and which popped in and out of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does your fairy tale backup?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not fairy tales, but creation science.  We discover from the first day that God focused on the planet Earth.  We find from the fine tuning facts that Earth is special.  No other planets and galaxies can provide life and this is the evidence we find.
> 
> The fine tuning facts were discovered by secular/atheist scientists studying the big bang, but it contradicts evolution so they have hidden or dismantled it.  The scientists and astrophysicists who knew have mostly, if not all, have gone to multiverse hypothesis.  All of the online articles I've read about it from 2007 - 2011 are gone.  They only exist on creation and ID websites -- The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning.
Click to expand...

That's a fairy tail, not science.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*



How can us believers be wrong when you are wrong about all your theories and the scientific evidence does not back it up?  The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.  For example, 3/4 of the earth's surface is water.  It follows Noah's Flood.

We have the following evidence while your claim is based on wrong radiometric dating assumptions.  "Assume makes an ass of you and me."

Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted  
The Institute for Creation Research

Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]

Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can us believers be wrong when you are wrong about all your theories and the scientific evidence does not back it up?  The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.  For example, 3/4 of the earth's surface is water.  It follows Noah's Flood.
> 
> We have the following evidence while your claim is based on wrong radiometric dating assumptions.  "Assume makes an ass of you and me."
> 
> Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted
> The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
Click to expand...

Your sentences don't make sense.  As always, you rely on the Bible, which is a fairy tale.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does science backup the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let there be light.  Science has found the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) as light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that backs up nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> "When God began to create heaven and Earth, the Earth was then without form, and void, and darkness was over the deep, and God's breath hovering over the waters."
> 
> English Standard Version
> 
> We also know God focuses on the Earth.  Science has discovered the Earth is special.
> 
> Compare that to the eternal universe.  No, that is not right; that is pseudoscience.  It was the big bang from nothing, i.e. a single invisible particle which contained everything and more and which popped in and out of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> That really clears up my questions about planetary orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you know about planetary orbits so far?
Click to expand...


That you can't calculate orbits with Bible math or Bible science.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> You better recruit more peeps to back you up. Because just you and bond, ain't happening here.
> 
> Bring in the troops.




I already covered this with every eye will see.  Jesus makes his return and battles Satan and his followers.  He will be the conquering king with his armies of heaven.  You should be knocking knees and shivering in your atheism being wrong once more when it counts.[/MEDIA]


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can us believers be wrong when you are wrong about all your theories and the scientific evidence does not back it up?  The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.  For example, 3/4 of the earth's surface is water.  It follows Noah's Flood.
> 
> We have the following evidence while your claim is based on wrong radiometric dating assumptions.  "Assume makes an ass of you and me."
> 
> Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted
> The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sentences don't make sense.  As always, you rely on the Bible, which is a fairy tale.
Click to expand...


It goes to show you believe in evolution which is a lie.  The Bible took about 1500 years to write and compile.  Satan's Antibible of evolution has been written since the beginning of time and written by different humans and scientists; it's still being written.  This cannot be a coincidence because different writers and people from all walks of life contributed.  Your side mostly by secular and atheist scientists.  I even created a thread about it as evolution and evolutionary thinking and history contradicts everything that God stated and is backed up by science -- Is This Evidence For Satan?. 

I can see a few contradictions, but it contradicts everything.  Again, God's word cannot be changed now while Satan's fake science keeps changing.  Furthermore, creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from today's science.  This is why evolution is all wrong.

So far, I have been able to back up why we have EMS, day and night, the atmosphere, the sun, stars, moon, planets, and more.  You have not been able to explain the big bang and anything regarding science using evolution.  Thus, your big bang and cosmic expansion is deemed a lie.

I have provided evidence of what's written in the Bible as science such as Noah's Flood, humans and dinosaurs co-existing, and more.

All you do is claim the Bible is a fairy tale and that is wrong.  The Bible is a non-fiction and history book.

Thus, in around three of my scientific posts, you have been rendered as an incompetent in the S&T section.  Maybe you do better in the politics section .

I read some of the news today and no headlines about aliens.  What else do you believe about fake science -- Abiogenesis?  Aliens?  Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs)?  Billions of year old universe and Earth?  Earth is not special?  Multiverses?  Singularity and Cosmic Expansion?  Quantum paricles pop into and out of existence?  Things happen through dark energy and dark matter?  Universe is boundless and does not have a center?  Nothing special about Earth?  There is no hell nor heaven?  There is nothing after we die?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can us believers be wrong when you are wrong about all your theories and the scientific evidence does not back it up?  The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.  For example, 3/4 of the earth's surface is water.  It follows Noah's Flood.
> 
> We have the following evidence while your claim is based on wrong radiometric dating assumptions.  "Assume makes an ass of you and me."
> 
> Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted
> The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sentences don't make sense.  As always, you rely on the Bible, which is a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show you believe in evolution which is a lie.  The Bible took about 1500 years to write and compile.  Satan's Antibible of evolution has been written since the beginning of time and written by different humans and scientists; it's still being written.  This cannot be a coincidence because different writers and people from all walks of life contributed.  Your side mostly by secular and atheist scientists.  I even created a thread about it as evolution and evolutionary thinking and history contradicts everything that God stated and is backed up by science -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.
> 
> I can see a few contradictions, but it contradicts everything.  Again, God's word cannot be changed now while Satan's fake science keeps changing.  Furthermore, creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from today's science.  This is why evolution is all wrong.
> 
> So far, I have been able to back up why we have EMS, day and night, the atmosphere, the sun, stars, moon, planets, and more.  You have not been able to explain the big bang and anything regarding science using evolution.  Thus, your big bang and cosmic expansion is deemed a lie.
> 
> I have provided evidence of what's written in the Bible as science such as Noah's Flood, humans and dinosaurs co-existing, and more.
> 
> All you do is claim the Bible is a fairy tale and that is wrong.  The Bible is a non-fiction and history book.
> 
> Thus, in around three of my scientific posts, you have been rendered as an incompetent in the S&T section.
> 
> I read some of the news today and no headlines about aliens.  What else do you believe about fake science -- Abiogenesis?  Aliens?  Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs)?  Billions of year old universe and Earth?  Earth is not special?  Multiverses?  Singularity and Cosmic Expansion?  Quantum paricles pop into and out of existence?  Things happen through dark energy and dark matter?  Universe is boundless and does not have a center?  Nothing special about Earth?  There is no hell nor heaven?  There is nothing after we die?
Click to expand...

The Bible is a fairy tale.  Any claims based on the Bible are fairy tales.  It doesn't matter when it was written or who wrote it, it's still a fairy tale.  Whenever you quote the Bible, you're rejecting all facts and proven methods for obtaining knowledge.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That you can't calculate orbits with Bible math or Bible science.



Nope.  I'm the one who has been answering your _dumb_ questions while you can't and refuse to answer any of mine because you are a dumb farker .

Why don't you just leave instead of continuing to bother me?  I have no interest in wasting time reading your inane posts.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The Bible is a fairy tale. Any claims based on the Bible are fairy tales. It doesn't matter when it was written or who wrote it, it's still a fairy tale. Whenever you quote the Bible, you're rejecting all facts and proven methods for obtaining knowledge.



See.  What you rant are all assertions.  You have no evidence to back it up nor scientific intelligence to come up with a valid argument.  Thus, you have been embarrassed badly in the S&T section.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can us believers be wrong when you are wrong about all your theories and the scientific evidence does not back it up?  The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.  For example, 3/4 of the earth's surface is water.  It follows Noah's Flood.
> 
> We have the following evidence while your claim is based on wrong radiometric dating assumptions.  "Assume makes an ass of you and me."
> 
> Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted
> The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
Click to expand...

You reject science, so why are you trying to use science to back a fairy tale?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can us believers be wrong when you are wrong about all your theories and the scientific evidence does not back it up?  The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.  For example, 3/4 of the earth's surface is water.  It follows Noah's Flood.
> 
> We have the following evidence while your claim is based on wrong radiometric dating assumptions.  "Assume makes an ass of you and me."
> 
> Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted
> The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sentences don't make sense.  As always, you rely on the Bible, which is a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show you believe in evolution which is a lie.  The Bible took about 1500 years to write and compile.  Satan's Antibible of evolution has been written since the beginning of time and written by different humans and scientists; it's still being written.  This cannot be a coincidence because different writers and people from all walks of life contributed.  Your side mostly by secular and atheist scientists.  I even created a thread about it as evolution and evolutionary thinking and history contradicts everything that God stated and is backed up by science -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.
> 
> I can see a few contradictions, but it contradicts everything.  Again, God's word cannot be changed now while Satan's fake science keeps changing.  Furthermore, creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from today's science.  This is why evolution is all wrong.
> 
> So far, I have been able to back up why we have EMS, day and night, the atmosphere, the sun, stars, moon, planets, and more.  You have not been able to explain the big bang and anything regarding science using evolution.  Thus, your big bang and cosmic expansion is deemed a lie.
> 
> I have provided evidence of what's written in the Bible as science such as Noah's Flood, humans and dinosaurs co-existing, and more.
> 
> All you do is claim the Bible is a fairy tale and that is wrong.  The Bible is a non-fiction and history book.
> 
> Thus, in around three of my scientific posts, you have been rendered as an incompetent in the S&T section.  Maybe you do better in the politics section .
> 
> I read some of the news today and no headlines about aliens.  What else do you believe about fake science -- Abiogenesis?  Aliens?  Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs)?  Billions of year old universe and Earth?  Earth is not special?  Multiverses?  Singularity and Cosmic Expansion?  Quantum paricles pop into and out of existence?  Things happen through dark energy and dark matter?  Universe is boundless and does not have a center?  Nothing special about Earth?  There is no hell nor heaven?  There is nothing after we die?
Click to expand...


*So far, I have been able to back up why we have EMS, day and night, the atmosphere, the sun, stars, moon, planets, and more. * 

EMS?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you can't calculate orbits with Bible math or Bible science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I'm the one who has been answering your _dumb_ questions while you can't and refuse to answer any of mine because you are a dumb farker .
> 
> Why don't you just leave instead of continuing to bother me?  I have no interest in wasting time reading your inane posts.
Click to expand...


*Nope.*

That is great news!!

Please post the Bible passage which includes the math and science needed to calculate orbits.

*Why don't you just leave instead of continuing to bother me?*

As soon as you post actual proof of your claims, I'll happily leave you alone.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale. Any claims based on the Bible are fairy tales. It doesn't matter when it was written or who wrote it, it's still a fairy tale. Whenever you quote the Bible, you're rejecting all facts and proven methods for obtaining knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See.  What you rant are all assertions.  You have no evidence to back it up nor scientific intelligence to come up with a valid argument.  Thus, you have been embarrassed badly in the S&T section.
Click to expand...

Nope. What I'm saying is that science says, the only proven means of learning about reality.  The claim that I have no evidence is laughable.  All the evidence says the Bible is a fairy tale.  The Bible is evidence of only that you're a gullible fool.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can us believers be wrong when you are wrong about all your theories and the scientific evidence does not back it up?  The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.  For example, 3/4 of the earth's surface is water.  It follows Noah's Flood.
> 
> We have the following evidence while your claim is based on wrong radiometric dating assumptions.  "Assume makes an ass of you and me."
> 
> Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted
> The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sentences don't make sense.  As always, you rely on the Bible, which is a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show you believe in evolution which is a lie.  The Bible took about 1500 years to write and compile.  Satan's Antibible of evolution has been written since the beginning of time and written by different humans and scientists; it's still being written.  This cannot be a coincidence because different writers and people from all walks of life contributed.  Your side mostly by secular and atheist scientists.  I even created a thread about it as evolution and evolutionary thinking and history contradicts everything that God stated and is backed up by science -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.
> 
> I can see a few contradictions, but it contradicts everything.  Again, God's word cannot be changed now while Satan's fake science keeps changing.  Furthermore, creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from today's science.  This is why evolution is all wrong.
> 
> So far, I have been able to back up why we have EMS, day and night, the atmosphere, the sun, stars, moon, planets, and more.  You have not been able to explain the big bang and anything regarding science using evolution.  Thus, your big bang and cosmic expansion is deemed a lie.
> 
> I have provided evidence of what's written in the Bible as science such as Noah's Flood, humans and dinosaurs co-existing, and more.
> 
> All you do is claim the Bible is a fairy tale and that is wrong.  The Bible is a non-fiction and history book.
> 
> Thus, in around three of my scientific posts, you have been rendered as an incompetent in the S&T section.  Maybe you do better in the politics section .
> 
> I read some of the news today and no headlines about aliens.  What else do you believe about fake science -- Abiogenesis?  Aliens?  Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs)?  Billions of year old universe and Earth?  Earth is not special?  Multiverses?  Singularity and Cosmic Expansion?  Quantum paricles pop into and out of existence?  Things happen through dark energy and dark matter?  Universe is boundless and does not have a center?  Nothing special about Earth?  There is no hell nor heaven?  There is nothing after we die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So far, I have been able to back up why we have EMS, day and night, the atmosphere, the sun, stars, moon, planets, and more. *
> 
> EMS?
Click to expand...


Electro Magnetic Spectrum.  He thinks the existence of light proves the Bible is true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can us believers be wrong when you are wrong about all your theories and the scientific evidence does not back it up?  The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.  For example, 3/4 of the earth's surface is water.  It follows Noah's Flood.
> 
> We have the following evidence while your claim is based on wrong radiometric dating assumptions.  "Assume makes an ass of you and me."
> 
> Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted
> The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]
> 
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> Did people and dinosaurs live at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sentences don't make sense.  As always, you rely on the Bible, which is a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show you believe in evolution which is a lie.  The Bible took about 1500 years to write and compile.  Satan's Antibible of evolution has been written since the beginning of time and written by different humans and scientists; it's still being written.  This cannot be a coincidence because different writers and people from all walks of life contributed.  Your side mostly by secular and atheist scientists.  I even created a thread about it as evolution and evolutionary thinking and history contradicts everything that God stated and is backed up by science -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.
> 
> I can see a few contradictions, but it contradicts everything.  Again, God's word cannot be changed now while Satan's fake science keeps changing.  Furthermore, creation scientists have been systematically eliminated from today's science.  This is why evolution is all wrong.
> 
> So far, I have been able to back up why we have EMS, day and night, the atmosphere, the sun, stars, moon, planets, and more.  You have not been able to explain the big bang and anything regarding science using evolution.  Thus, your big bang and cosmic expansion is deemed a lie.
> 
> I have provided evidence of what's written in the Bible as science such as Noah's Flood, humans and dinosaurs co-existing, and more.
> 
> All you do is claim the Bible is a fairy tale and that is wrong.  The Bible is a non-fiction and history book.
> 
> Thus, in around three of my scientific posts, you have been rendered as an incompetent in the S&T section.  Maybe you do better in the politics section .
> 
> I read some of the news today and no headlines about aliens.  What else do you believe about fake science -- Abiogenesis?  Aliens?  Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs)?  Billions of year old universe and Earth?  Earth is not special?  Multiverses?  Singularity and Cosmic Expansion?  Quantum paricles pop into and out of existence?  Things happen through dark energy and dark matter?  Universe is boundless and does not have a center?  Nothing special about Earth?  There is no hell nor heaven?  There is nothing after we die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So far, I have been able to back up why we have EMS, day and night, the atmosphere, the sun, stars, moon, planets, and more. *
> 
> EMS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electro Magnetic Spectrum.  He thinks the existence of light proves the Bible is true.
Click to expand...


He's a strange one.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Why don't you just leave instead of continuing to bother me?


hey troll, you are in the science section rejecting science and pestering everyone with religion. Who is bothering whom?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> You reject science, so why are you trying to use science to back a fairy tale?



I reject false science where the age of the universe and Earth is based on false assumptions.  Can you explain why a secular scientist measured a meteorite to determine the age of the Earth that we use today?  What about to follow the topic of this thread that aliens exist elsewhere?  What scientific basis can you use now when we should've found them or have been contacted by them by now.  More than enough time has passed.  Why not just say it's evidence for no aliens?

OTOH, the book of Genesis states God did not create aliens.  Also, aliens would cause problems with Biblical teachings, but that's religion.

Thus, it is not I who rejects science.  I am stating it while all you have a your worthless and meaningless assertions.  It does not appear that you can discuss science.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> What I'm saying is that science says, the only proven means of learning about reality.



Already covered.  Evolution is _fake_ science.  How else can atheists be so wrong?



bripat9643 said:


> Electro Magnetic Spectrum.  He thinks the existence of light proves the Bible is true.



How did EMS come into being otherwise?  It is stated God _created_ it on the first day.  It had to eliminate the void and separate the dark and the light and the light represented day while the dark represented night.  What else would have had to start from this?

I provided the link already, but you have nothing to back up your claims.  Just how stupid are you being in the science section?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You reject science, so why are you trying to use science to back a fairy tale?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reject false science where the age of the universe and Earth is based on false assumptions.  Can you explain why a secular scientist measured a meteorite to determine the age of the Earth that we use today?  What about to follow the topic of this thread that aliens exist elsewhere?  What scientific basis can you use now when we should've found them or have been contacted by them by now.  More than enough time has passed.  Why not just say it's evidence for no aliens?
> 
> OTOH, the book of Genesis states God did not create aliens.  Also, aliens would cause problems with Biblical teachings, but that's religion.
> 
> Thus, it is not I who rejects science.  I am stating it while all you have a your worthless and meaningless assertions.  It does not appear that you can discuss science.
Click to expand...

Any so-called "science" based on the Bible is false.  The term "Bible science" is an oxymoron.  

Your understanding of science is rudimentary, to say the least.  The fact that science doesn't know the answer to a particular question isn't proof that science isn't valid.  In fact, precisely the opposite is the case.  You questions are so idiotic that I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing after I read them.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electro Magnetic Spectrum.  He thinks the existence of light proves the Bible is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did EMS come into being otherwise?  It is stated God _created_ it on the first day.  It had to eliminate the void and separate the dark and the light and the light represented day while the dark represented night.  What else would have had to start from this?
Click to expand...


The fact that we don't know how something happened doesn't mean you get to assume God is the answer.  How many times do you have to be told that?

EMS came into being at the same time the universe came into being.  It's one of those questions we haven't answered yet.  One thing we do know is that God didn't do it.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hey troll, you are in the science section rejecting science and pestering everyone with religion. Who is bothering whom?



Besides Toddsterpatriot, it may as well apply to you.  He's even more boring than you.  Just asks leading questions and doesn't have the brains to answer my questions.  

Speaking of not having brains, do you have any comments regarding what I _proved_ using creation science and _not proved_ by atheist scientists (last paragraph) in post #1331.  bripat9643 got so flustered that all he could do was rant and go on a religious atheistic rage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey troll, you are in the science section rejecting science and pestering everyone with religion. Who is bothering whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides Toddsterpatriot, it may as well apply to you.  He's even more boring than you.  Just asks leading questions and doesn't have the brains to answer my questions.
> 
> Speaking of not having brains, do you have any comments regarding what I _proved_ using creation science and _not proved_ by atheist scientists (last paragraph) in post #1331.  bripat9643 got so flustered that all he could do was rant and go on a religious atheistic rage.
Click to expand...


 Run away......again.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Any so-called "science" based on the Bible is false. The term "Bible science" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Your understanding of science is rudimentary, to say the least. The fact that science doesn't know the answer to a particular question isn't proof that science isn't valid. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case. You questions are so idiotic that I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing after I read them.



More assertions.  Ho hum.



bripat9643 said:


> The fact that we don't know how something happened doesn't mean you get to assume God is the answer. How many times do you have to be told that?
> 
> EMS came into being at the same time the universe came into being. It's one of those questions we haven't answered yet. One thing we do know is that God didn't do it.



Ah hem.  God is the answer because we found it in the Bible and found the science backs up what it was said by God in the Bible.

>>EMS came into being at the same time the universe came into being.<<

"The Creation of the World

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:1-2

Wrong.  I gave you the verse.  God created the heavens and Earth first along with spacetime.  We know from science there is the concept of spacetime even though it has not been discovered (proven) yet.  The Nobel Prize is waiting.  What else have we discovered that exists in spacetime (required)?  Higgs boson?  Higgs field?  Planck constant?  Fine tuning parameters?  C'mon, you have to keep up with this using your science knowledge .  See why I don't think you're cut out for the science stuff even though you rant and rage about it?

OTOH, there was no singularity nor cosmic expansion.  That eliminates the big bang.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey troll, you are in the science section rejecting science and pestering everyone with religion. Who is bothering whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides Toddsterpatriot, it may as well apply to you.  He's even more boring than you.  Just asks leading questions and doesn't have the brains to answer my questions.
> 
> Speaking of not having brains, do you have any comments regarding what I _proved_ using creation science and _not proved_ by atheist scientists (last paragraph) in post #1331.  bripat9643 got so flustered that all he could do was rant and go on a religious atheistic rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Run away......again.
Click to expand...



The days of being able to shake my hair like are gone, but to get away from your dumb questions, no answers, and boring, brainless arguments, I can wear a wig .


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any so-called "science" based on the Bible is false. The term "Bible science" is an oxymoron.
> 
> Your understanding of science is rudimentary, to say the least. The fact that science doesn't know the answer to a particular question isn't proof that science isn't valid. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case. You questions are so idiotic that I'm literally rolling on the floor laughing after I read them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More assertions.  Ho hum.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we don't know how something happened doesn't mean you get to assume God is the answer. How many times do you have to be told that?
> 
> EMS came into being at the same time the universe came into being. It's one of those questions we haven't answered yet. One thing we do know is that God didn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah hem.  God is the answer because we found it in the Bible and found the science backs up what it was said by God in the Bible.
> 
> >>EMS came into being at the same time the universe came into being.<<
> 
> "The Creation of the World
> 
> In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:1-2
> 
> Wrong.  I gave you the verse.  God created the heavens and Earth first along with spacetime.  We know from science there is the concept of spacetime even though it has not been discovered (proven) yet.  The Nobel Prize is waiting.  What else have we discovered that exists in spacetime (required)?  Higgs boson?  Higgs field?  Planck constant?  Fine tuning parameters?  C'mon, you have to keep up with this using your science knowledge .  See why I don't think you're cut out for the science stuff even though you rant and rage about it?
> 
> OTOH, there was no singularity nor cosmic expansion.  That eliminates the big bang.
Click to expand...

The fact that you found it in the Bible means it's fiction.  That's what science tells us.

End of story.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that science says, the only proven means of learning about reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already covered.  Evolution is _fake_ science.  How else can atheists be so wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electro Magnetic Spectrum.  He thinks the existence of light proves the Bible is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did EMS come into being otherwise?  It is stated God _created_ it on the first day.  It had to eliminate the void and separate the dark and the light and the light represented day while the dark represented night.  What else would have had to start from this?
> 
> I provided the link already, but you have nothing to back up your claims.  Just how stupid are you being in the science section?
Click to expand...

Evolution is science.  The Bible is a fairy tale.

The fact that we don't know how the universe and EMS came into being doesn't mean you get to assume God.  That's your entire argument, and it's wrong.


----------



## SaxxyBlues

FAITH


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The fact that you found it in the Bible means it's fiction. That's what science tells us.
> 
> End of story.



Still  .  The Bible means something is true.  

You believe in fake science, so that's why you have it wrong.  Anyway, I'm bored now with you saying the same tired assertion over and over and not discussing any science in the S&T forum.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 298615*
> You are wrong*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible cannot change, but your theories change all the time when proven wrong.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem. Same thing with  all religions. YOU cannot change, even in the the face of new evidence.

Science evolves as new discoveries are made. Religion is frozen in the time it was made up.


----------



## RWS

And religious followers are frozen to their birth beliefs. You didn't figure it out. You were borne your religioun and never released.


----------



## RWS

And now we are hurtling towards another religious war. 

When will we have enough? When will God pop up and say "stop it!"?

Ain't gonna happen because he doesn't exist, and if he does, he gets entertainment from it.

Nice God to believe in...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> That's exactly the problem. Same thing with  all religions. YOU cannot change, even in the the face of new evidence.
> 
> Science evolves as new discoveries are made. Religion is frozen in the time it was made up.



It's not just religion; it's Christianity and the Bible.  It is not frozen in time, but the truth as to what happened so it does not need to change.  There is creation science or real science that science backs up the Bible.  Just the fact that life itself cannot be created by non-life shows that the life spirit is supernatural.  The supernatural alongside the natural is evidence for God.  This is observable.

The reason why evolution contradicts everything that is stated in the Bible about Genesis and science means something is really wrong.  That something is bad.  Such coincidence means usually bad things for evolution, evolutionary thinking, and evolutionists.  They have been fooled and I can understand how they can have been fooled by someone so clever and devious.


----------



## RWS

Bullshit


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Bullshit



So you found evidence for the following ?  You atheists believe in magic and hocus pocus.

What do you believe about fake science?:
Abiogenesis?
Aliens?
Macroevolution (humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs)?
Billions of year old universe and Earth?
Earth is not special?
Multiverses?
Singularity and Cosmic Expansion?
Quantum particles that pop in and out of existence?
Things happen through dark energy and dark matter?
Universe is boundless and does not have a center?
There is no hell nor heaven?
There is nothing after we die?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you found it in the Bible means it's fiction. That's what science tells us.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still  .  The Bible means something is true.
> 
> You believe in fake science, so that's why you have it wrong.  Anyway, I'm bored now with you saying the same tired assertion over and over and not discussing any science in the S&T forum.
Click to expand...


The Bible means something is true?  What does that even mean?

The Bible is a fairy tale.  Virtually none of it is true.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The Bible means something is true? What does that even mean?
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale. Virtually none of it is true.



It means the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible, but you go on believing whatever.

It isn't a fairy tale like evolution, so put it together and it means you are wrong and not one of the chosen ones.  It means you are on the same side as Toddsterpatriot who knows nothing, RWS who is a commie, and have Fort Fun Indiana as spokesman in terms of S&T.

Ta ta haha .


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible means something is true? What does that even mean?
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale. Virtually none of it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible, but you go on believing whatever.
> 
> It isn't a fairy tale like evolution, so put it together and it means you are wrong and not one of the chosen ones.  It means you are on the same side as Toddsterpatriot who knows nothing, RWS who is a commie, and have Fort Fun Indiana as spokesman in terms of S&T.
> 
> Ta ta haha .
Click to expand...

Which is absurd, of course.  The Bible is infallible?

*1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?*


God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
*2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?*


Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
*3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?*


Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
*4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?*


Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
*5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?*


Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
*6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?*


Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
*7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?*


Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
*8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?*


Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
*9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?*


After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
*10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?*


Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> [
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale.  Virtually none of it is true.



That is not exactly correct.  There are actually many parts of it that are historically correct.

However, it is neither a science book or a history book.  It is basically a book about the relationship between Man and God.


----------



## bripat9643

Flash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale.  Virtually none of it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not exactly correct.  There are actually many parts of it that are historically correct.
> 
> However, it is neither a science book or a history book.  It is basically a book about the relationship between Man and God.
Click to expand...

Which parts of the old testament are proven to be correct?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible means something is true? What does that even mean?
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale. Virtually none of it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible, but you go on believing whatever.
> 
> It isn't a fairy tale like evolution, so put it together and it means you are wrong and not one of the chosen ones.  It means you are on the same side as Toddsterpatriot who knows nothing, RWS who is a commie, and have Fort Fun Indiana as spokesman in terms of S&T.
> 
> Ta ta haha .
Click to expand...


Still waiting for you to post that orbital formula.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible means something is true? What does that even mean?
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale. Virtually none of it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible, but you go on believing whatever.
> 
> It isn't a fairy tale like evolution, so put it together and it means you are wrong and not one of the chosen ones.  It means you are on the same side as Toddsterpatriot who knows nothing, RWS who is a commie, and have Fort Fun Indiana as spokesman in terms of S&T.
> 
> Ta ta haha .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is absurd, of course.  The Bible is infallible?
> 
> *1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?*
> 
> 
> God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
> Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
> *2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?*
> 
> 
> Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
> One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
> *3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?*
> 
> 
> Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
> Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
> *4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?*
> 
> 
> Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
> Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
> *5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
> Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
> *6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
> Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
> *7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
> Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
> *8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?*
> 
> 
> Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
> Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
> *9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?*
> 
> 
> After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
> Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
> *10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?*
> 
> 
> Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
> Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)
Click to expand...


We are in the S&T forum, so it shows you do not know the difference between religion and science.  You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.

It proves you have not read the Bible and taken it seriously.  All you are doing is being a low brow internet atheist.

You are atheist and atheists are usually wrong.  In this case, you were 100% wrong in claiming the Bible is not infallible.  For example, both are correct in question 1.

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God or Satan? | CARM.org

You can google to get the answers for all your questions.

Anyway, you had no scientific answers like Toddsterpatriot and Fort Fun Indiana could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.  Thus, it's your side who believes in magic.  I was able to explain why we, the heavens, and Earth are here while you could explain one item.

Can't you see that you and your fellow atheists cannot answer the items that were brought up scientifically?  If any of you did, then you wouldn't have anything to be worried about.  However, we discovered science backs up the Bible and science does not back up evolution.

I'll let you go now as you could not present any scientific argument, you are not chosen, and there isn't much point as my time is too valuable to be wasted.  Good day.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible means something is true? What does that even mean?
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale. Virtually none of it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible, but you go on believing whatever.
> 
> It isn't a fairy tale like evolution, so put it together and it means you are wrong and not one of the chosen ones.  It means you are on the same side as Toddsterpatriot who knows nothing, RWS who is a commie, and have Fort Fun Indiana as spokesman in terms of S&T.
> 
> Ta ta haha .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is absurd, of course.  The Bible is infallible?
> 
> *1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?*
> 
> 
> God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
> Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
> *2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?*
> 
> 
> Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
> One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
> *3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?*
> 
> 
> Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
> Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
> *4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?*
> 
> 
> Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
> Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
> *5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
> Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
> *6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
> Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
> *7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
> Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
> *8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?*
> 
> 
> Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
> Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
> *9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?*
> 
> 
> After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
> Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
> *10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?*
> 
> 
> Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
> Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are in the S&T forum, so it shows you do not know the difference between religion and science.  You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.
> 
> It proves you have not read the Bible and taken it seriously.  All you are doing is being a low brow internet atheist.
> 
> You are atheist and atheists are usually wrong.  In this case, you were 100% wrong in claiming the Bible is not infallible.  For example, both are correct in question 1.
> 
> Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God or Satan? | CARM.org
> 
> You can google to get the answers for all your questions.
> 
> Anyway, you had no scientific answers like Toddsterpatriot and Fort Fun Indiana could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.  Thus, it's your side who believes in magic.  I was able to explain why we, the heavens, and Earth are here while you could explain one item.
> 
> Can't you see that you and your fellow atheists cannot answer the items that were brought up scientifically?  If any of you did, then you wouldn't have anything to be worried about.  However, we discovered science backs up the Bible and science does not back up evolution.
> 
> I'll let you go now as you could not present any scientific argument, you are not chosen, and there isn't much point as my time is too valuable to be wasted.  Good day.
Click to expand...

You said the Bible is infallible.  Are you now admitting the Bible has errors?  You can't seem to address the errors in the Bible that I pointed out.

We certainly haven't discovered that science backs up the Bible.  We have know precisely the opposite for 150 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible means something is true? What does that even mean?
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale. Virtually none of it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible, but you go on believing whatever.
> 
> It isn't a fairy tale like evolution, so put it together and it means you are wrong and not one of the chosen ones.  It means you are on the same side as Toddsterpatriot who knows nothing, RWS who is a commie, and have Fort Fun Indiana as spokesman in terms of S&T.
> 
> Ta ta haha .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is absurd, of course.  The Bible is infallible?
> 
> *1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?*
> 
> 
> God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
> Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
> *2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?*
> 
> 
> Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
> One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
> *3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?*
> 
> 
> Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
> Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
> *4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?*
> 
> 
> Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
> Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
> *5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
> Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
> *6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
> Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
> *7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?*
> 
> 
> Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
> Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
> *8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?*
> 
> 
> Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
> Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)
> *9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?*
> 
> 
> After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
> Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)
> *10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?*
> 
> 
> Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
> Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are in the S&T forum, so it shows you do not know the difference between religion and science.  You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.
> 
> It proves you have not read the Bible and taken it seriously.  All you are doing is being a low brow internet atheist.
> 
> You are atheist and atheists are usually wrong.  In this case, you were 100% wrong in claiming the Bible is not infallible.  For example, both are correct in question 1.
> 
> Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God or Satan? | CARM.org
> 
> You can google to get the answers for all your questions.
> 
> Anyway, you had no scientific answers like Toddsterpatriot and Fort Fun Indiana could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.  Thus, it's your side who believes in magic.  I was able to explain why we, the heavens, and Earth are here while you could explain one item.
> 
> Can't you see that you and your fellow atheists cannot answer the items that were brought up scientifically?  If any of you did, then you wouldn't have anything to be worried about.  However, we discovered science backs up the Bible and science does not back up evolution.
> 
> I'll let you go now as you could not present any scientific argument, you are not chosen, and there isn't much point as my time is too valuable to be wasted.  Good day.
Click to expand...


*You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.*

Show us. Start with the part about orbits.

*could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.*

Your "argument" was that scientists couldn't explain orbits, but the Bible could.

Both lies.

*I'll let you go now *

Yes, you'd best run away.


----------



## RWS

Why God really killed the dinosaurs...


----------



## RWS

Kinda like b&d. Always having to eat their own shit.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> You said the Bible is infallible.  Are you now admitting the Bible has errors?  You can't seem to address the errors in the Bible that I pointed out.
> 
> We certainly haven't discovered that science backs up the Bible.  We have know precisely the opposite for 150 years.



You can go to google to find out you are wrong about your questions.  I'm not going to waste time on such blather as I'm smarter than you in science and Biblical matters. 

In terms of both science and religion, the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible.  I've said as much stating going to it first isn't a bad idea.  Of course, ti doesn't mean that is the only reference.  One should go to other books and formulate new thought and ideas in science from the facts.  Thus, evolution is not a fact, but a huge lie.

This is what's so upsetting about evolution in regards to science as it contradicts every single scientific thing God said.  For example, how he focused on the Earth and thus made Earth _special_.  It's the Anthropic principle, not the Copernican principle.  While Copernicus was correct in his time, we've found out the Milky Way resides in the center.  But what good is real science if the creation scientists are not allowed to publish their papers?

Anyway, the discussion of science has been relegated to these types of forums.  We have 50% of the people who believe today's science while people, including secular scientists, do not believe in evolution but just go along with it to get their funding.  Certain fields like paleontology emphasize the ToE and evolutionary thinking like Nazis so we get stupid and silly things such as 











These images show dinosaurs aren't really 'extinct' after all

The world has gone mad.  None of this is observable, so Disney will capitulate and make weird Jurassic Park based movies in the future.  

The world may as well be destroyed by the big fire or giant asteroid -- pick your own poison .  I'm not going to worry about it.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.*
> 
> Show us. Start with the part about orbits.
> 
> *could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.*
> 
> Your "argument" was that scientists couldn't explain orbits, but the Bible could.
> 
> Both lies.
> 
> *I'll let you go now *
> 
> Yes, you'd best run away.



I didn't lie, you lied.  There you go.  Why don't you go run along now while the adults are talking?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Why God really killed the dinosaurs...



smh.  God killed all the humans except for Noah and his family.  Most of the animals were collateral damage except for the dinos and other animals on the ark.

Where's the science?  Floods cause the most global damage and kill the most people in terms of natural disasters.  Now, this one was different in that it caused damage underneath the seafloor and caused lower elevations to rise up.  We have mountain ranges underneath the sea today and Mt. Everest and the Himalayas as one of the highest mountain ranges.  The geology of the Earth happens rapidly and is formed during catastrophes.  We have evidence of marine fossils on tops of these ranges.  They even found an entire whale skeleton on top.  Stupid af atheist scientists thought it had walked up there .  Again, atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  They ignore the evidence that marine fossils make up much of the fossil record.  They and you cannot explain why the Earth is covered with 3/4 surface water.  The evidence is right in front of you, but you will not believe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.*
> 
> Show us. Start with the part about orbits.
> 
> *could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.*
> 
> Your "argument" was that scientists couldn't explain orbits, but the Bible could.
> 
> Both lies.
> 
> *I'll let you go now *
> 
> Yes, you'd best run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't lie, you lied.  There you go.  Why don't you go run along now while the adults are talking?
Click to expand...


*I didn't lie*

You said scientists couldn't explain orbits.
Inverse square law is proof you lied.

You said only the Bible could explain orbits.
Still haven't posted the passage. 

Liar.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the Bible is infallible.  Are you now admitting the Bible has errors?  You can't seem to address the errors in the Bible that I pointed out.
> 
> We certainly haven't discovered that science backs up the Bible.  We have know precisely the opposite for 150 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to google to find out you are wrong about your questions.  I'm not going to waste time on such blather as I'm smarter than you in science and Biblical matters.
> 
> In terms of both science and religion, the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible.  I've said as much stating going to it first isn't a bad idea.  Of course, ti doesn't mean that is the only reference.  One should go to other books and formulate new thought and ideas in science from the facts.  Thus, evolution is not a fact, but a huge lie.
> 
> This is what's so upsetting about evolution in regards to science as it contradicts every single scientific thing God said.  For example, how he focused on the Earth and thus made Earth _special_.  It's the Anthropic principle, not the Copernican principle.  While Copernicus was correct in his time, we've found out the Milky Way resides in the center.  But what good is real science if the creation scientists are not allowed to publish their papers?
> 
> Anyway, the discussion of science has been relegated to these types of forums.  We have 50% of the people who believe today's science while people, including secular scientists, do not believe in evolution but just go along with it to get their funding.  Certain fields like paleontology emphasize the ToE and evolutionary thinking like Nazis so we get stupid and silly things such as
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These images show dinosaurs aren't really 'extinct' after all
> 
> The world has gone mad.  None of this is observable, so Disney will capitulate and make weird Jurassic Park based movies in the future.
> 
> The world may as well be destroyed by the big fire or giant asteroid -- pick your own poison .  I'm not going to worry about it.
Click to expand...

The Bible is not infallible.  I just proved it.

I won't waste my time addressing the rest of your idiotic drek.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.*
> 
> Show us. Start with the part about orbits.
> 
> *could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.*
> 
> Your "argument" was that scientists couldn't explain orbits, but the Bible could.
> 
> Both lies.
> 
> *I'll let you go now *
> 
> Yes, you'd best run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't lie, you lied.  There you go.  Why don't you go run along now while the adults are talking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I didn't lie*
> 
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits.
> Inverse square law is proof you lied.
> 
> You said only the Bible could explain orbits.
> Still haven't posted the passage.
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


It wasn't me then.  I did not get involved with any discussions with you as such because you never answer my questions while I have answered yours.  Quid pro quo.  Besides, you ask leading questions.  So, instead of being bored spit less as our conversations lead nowhere, I just ignore your silly posts.  Why don't you go talk with someone else?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the Bible is infallible.  Are you now admitting the Bible has errors?  You can't seem to address the errors in the Bible that I pointed out.
> 
> We certainly haven't discovered that science backs up the Bible.  We have know precisely the opposite for 150 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to google to find out you are wrong about your questions.  I'm not going to waste time on such blather as I'm smarter than you in science and Biblical matters.
> 
> In terms of both science and religion, the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible.  I've said as much stating going to it first isn't a bad idea.  Of course, ti doesn't mean that is the only reference.  One should go to other books and formulate new thought and ideas in science from the facts.  Thus, evolution is not a fact, but a huge lie.
> 
> This is what's so upsetting about evolution in regards to science as it contradicts every single scientific thing God said.  For example, how he focused on the Earth and thus made Earth _special_.  It's the Anthropic principle, not the Copernican principle.  While Copernicus was correct in his time, we've found out the Milky Way resides in the center.  But what good is real science if the creation scientists are not allowed to publish their papers?
> 
> Anyway, the discussion of science has been relegated to these types of forums.  We have 50% of the people who believe today's science while people, including secular scientists, do not believe in evolution but just go along with it to get their funding.  Certain fields like paleontology emphasize the ToE and evolutionary thinking like Nazis so we get stupid and silly things such as
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These images show dinosaurs aren't really 'extinct' after all
> 
> The world has gone mad.  None of this is observable, so Disney will capitulate and make weird Jurassic Park based movies in the future.
> 
> The world may as well be destroyed by the big fire or giant asteroid -- pick your own poison .  I'm not going to worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is not infallible.  I just proved it.
> 
> I won't waste my time addressing the rest of your idiotic drek.
Click to expand...


If you did, then why don't you go write the Bible scholars?  The Bible has withstood the test of time.  Besides, I doubt you came up with any of it, but just copied and pasted from some idiotic internet atheist blog.  

If this is such a big deal to you, the why don't you post it in the proper forum in Religion and Ethics?  Thus, we can all discuss.

I am the one who discusses science here, but you do not even know about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.  I can provide a nice website to learn about evolution instead of just trying to win a dumb internet argument that has nothing to do with anything in S&T..


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the Bible is infallible.  Are you now admitting the Bible has errors?  You can't seem to address the errors in the Bible that I pointed out.
> 
> We certainly haven't discovered that science backs up the Bible.  We have know precisely the opposite for 150 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to google to find out you are wrong about your questions.  I'm not going to waste time on such blather as I'm smarter than you in science and Biblical matters.
> 
> In terms of both science and religion, the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible.  I've said as much stating going to it first isn't a bad idea.  Of course, ti doesn't mean that is the only reference.  One should go to other books and formulate new thought and ideas in science from the facts.  Thus, evolution is not a fact, but a huge lie.
> 
> This is what's so upsetting about evolution in regards to science as it contradicts every single scientific thing God said.  For example, how he focused on the Earth and thus made Earth _special_.  It's the Anthropic principle, not the Copernican principle.  While Copernicus was correct in his time, we've found out the Milky Way resides in the center.  But what good is real science if the creation scientists are not allowed to publish their papers?
> 
> Anyway, the discussion of science has been relegated to these types of forums.  We have 50% of the people who believe today's science while people, including secular scientists, do not believe in evolution but just go along with it to get their funding.  Certain fields like paleontology emphasize the ToE and evolutionary thinking like Nazis so we get stupid and silly things such as
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These images show dinosaurs aren't really 'extinct' after all
> 
> The world has gone mad.  None of this is observable, so Disney will capitulate and make weird Jurassic Park based movies in the future.
> 
> The world may as well be destroyed by the big fire or giant asteroid -- pick your own poison .  I'm not going to worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is not infallible.  I just proved it.
> 
> I won't waste my time addressing the rest of your idiotic drek.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did, then why don't you go write the Bible scholars?  The Bible has withstood the test of time.  Besides, I doubt you came up with any of it, but just copied and pasted from some idiotic internet atheist blog.
> 
> If this is such a big deal to you, the why don't you post it in the proper forum in Religion and Ethics?  Thus, we can all discuss.
> 
> I am the one who discusses science here, but you do not even know about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.  I can provide a nice website to learn about evolution instead of just trying to win a dumb internet argument that has nothing to do with anything in S&T..
Click to expand...


Whether I came up with it is irrelevant.  It's in the Bible that you claim is infallible.

Why would I waste my time writing to a bunch of fools like you?  Also, I didn't start this thread in the Science and Technology section.  I'm simply responded to the idiocies you post in here.  

The Bible has not stood the test of time.  It has been proven false time and time again.  

You don't discuss science.   You discuss magic and horse manure.  Nothing in the Bible is science.  It's a fairy tale.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.*
> 
> Show us. Start with the part about orbits.
> 
> *could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.*
> 
> Your "argument" was that scientists couldn't explain orbits, but the Bible could.
> 
> Both lies.
> 
> *I'll let you go now *
> 
> Yes, you'd best run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't lie, you lied.  There you go.  Why don't you go run along now while the adults are talking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I didn't lie*
> 
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits.
> Inverse square law is proof you lied.
> 
> You said only the Bible could explain orbits.
> Still haven't posted the passage.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't me then.  I did not get involved with any discussions with you as such because you never answer my questions while I have answered yours.  Quid pro quo.  Besides, you ask leading questions.  So, instead of being bored spit less as our conversations lead nowhere, I just ignore your silly posts.  Why don't you go talk with someone else?
Click to expand...


*It wasn't me then.*

Liar.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the Bible is infallible.  Are you now admitting the Bible has errors?  You can't seem to address the errors in the Bible that I pointed out.
> 
> We certainly haven't discovered that science backs up the Bible.  We have know precisely the opposite for 150 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to google to find out you are wrong about your questions.  I'm not going to waste time on such blather as I'm smarter than you in science and Biblical matters.
> 
> In terms of both science and religion, the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible.  I've said as much stating going to it first isn't a bad idea.  Of course, ti doesn't mean that is the only reference.  One should go to other books and formulate new thought and ideas in science from the facts.  Thus, evolution is not a fact, but a huge lie.
> 
> This is what's so upsetting about evolution in regards to science as it contradicts every single scientific thing God said.  For example, how he focused on the Earth and thus made Earth _special_.  It's the Anthropic principle, not the Copernican principle.  While Copernicus was correct in his time, we've found out the Milky Way resides in the center.  But what good is real science if the creation scientists are not allowed to publish their papers?
> 
> Anyway, the discussion of science has been relegated to these types of forums.  We have 50% of the people who believe today's science while people, including secular scientists, do not believe in evolution but just go along with it to get their funding.  Certain fields like paleontology emphasize the ToE and evolutionary thinking like Nazis so we get stupid and silly things such as
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These images show dinosaurs aren't really 'extinct' after all
> 
> The world has gone mad.  None of this is observable, so Disney will capitulate and make weird Jurassic Park based movies in the future.
> 
> The world may as well be destroyed by the big fire or giant asteroid -- pick your own poison .  I'm not going to worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is not infallible.  I just proved it.
> 
> I won't waste my time addressing the rest of your idiotic drek.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did, then why don't you go write the Bible scholars?  The Bible has withstood the test of time.  Besides, I doubt you came up with any of it, but just copied and pasted from some idiotic internet atheist blog.
> 
> If this is such a big deal to you, the why don't you post it in the proper forum in Religion and Ethics?  Thus, we can all discuss.
> 
> I am the one who discusses science here, but you do not even know about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.  I can provide a nice website to learn about evolution instead of just trying to win a dumb internet argument that has nothing to do with anything in S&T..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether I came up with it is irrelevant.  It's in the Bible that you claim is infallible.
> 
> Why would I waste my time writing to a bunch of fools like you?  Also, I didn't start this thread in the Science and Technology section.  I'm simply responded to the idiocies you post in here.
> 
> The Bible has not stood the test of time.  It has been proven false time and time again.
> 
> You don't discuss science.   You discuss magic and horse manure.  Nothing in the Bible is science.  It's a fairy tale.
Click to expand...


Yes, I talked science with you from electromagnettic spectrum to macroevolution.  I can't help it if you're wrong and not able to present your arguments in a scientific manner.  You just don't have the science background.  Thus, we never got into any of those topics.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.*
> 
> Show us. Start with the part about orbits.
> 
> *could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.*
> 
> Your "argument" was that scientists couldn't explain orbits, but the Bible could.
> 
> Both lies.
> 
> *I'll let you go now *
> 
> Yes, you'd best run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't lie, you lied.  There you go.  Why don't you go run along now while the adults are talking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I didn't lie*
> 
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits.
> Inverse square law is proof you lied.
> 
> You said only the Bible could explain orbits.
> Still haven't posted the passage.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't me then.  I did not get involved with any discussions with you as such because you never answer my questions while I have answered yours.  Quid pro quo.  Besides, you ask leading questions.  So, instead of being bored spit less as our conversations lead nowhere, I just ignore your silly posts.  Why don't you go talk with someone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It wasn't me then.*
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


It's boring to hear two people calling each other a liar.  Why don't you explain what you are talking about with Kepler's law of planetary motion, a creation scientist btw, and whatever.  What are your issues between the two opposing points of view if that's what it is?  Why don't you explain it in such a way that we can all participate and isn't accusatory at anyone?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the Bible is infallible.  Are you now admitting the Bible has errors?  You can't seem to address the errors in the Bible that I pointed out.
> 
> We certainly haven't discovered that science backs up the Bible.  We have know precisely the opposite for 150 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go to google to find out you are wrong about your questions.  I'm not going to waste time on such blather as I'm smarter than you in science and Biblical matters.
> 
> In terms of both science and religion, the Bible is complete, inerrant, and infallible.  I've said as much stating going to it first isn't a bad idea.  Of course, ti doesn't mean that is the only reference.  One should go to other books and formulate new thought and ideas in science from the facts.  Thus, evolution is not a fact, but a huge lie.
> 
> This is what's so upsetting about evolution in regards to science as it contradicts every single scientific thing God said.  For example, how he focused on the Earth and thus made Earth _special_.  It's the Anthropic principle, not the Copernican principle.  While Copernicus was correct in his time, we've found out the Milky Way resides in the center.  But what good is real science if the creation scientists are not allowed to publish their papers?
> 
> Anyway, the discussion of science has been relegated to these types of forums.  We have 50% of the people who believe today's science while people, including secular scientists, do not believe in evolution but just go along with it to get their funding.  Certain fields like paleontology emphasize the ToE and evolutionary thinking like Nazis so we get stupid and silly things such as
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These images show dinosaurs aren't really 'extinct' after all
> 
> The world has gone mad.  None of this is observable, so Disney will capitulate and make weird Jurassic Park based movies in the future.
> 
> The world may as well be destroyed by the big fire or giant asteroid -- pick your own poison .  I'm not going to worry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is not infallible.  I just proved it.
> 
> I won't waste my time addressing the rest of your idiotic drek.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you did, then why don't you go write the Bible scholars?  The Bible has withstood the test of time.  Besides, I doubt you came up with any of it, but just copied and pasted from some idiotic internet atheist blog.
> 
> If this is such a big deal to you, the why don't you post it in the proper forum in Religion and Ethics?  Thus, we can all discuss.
> 
> I am the one who discusses science here, but you do not even know about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.  I can provide a nice website to learn about evolution instead of just trying to win a dumb internet argument that has nothing to do with anything in S&T..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether I came up with it is irrelevant.  It's in the Bible that you claim is infallible.
> 
> Why would I waste my time writing to a bunch of fools like you?  Also, I didn't start this thread in the Science and Technology section.  I'm simply responded to the idiocies you post in here.
> 
> The Bible has not stood the test of time.  It has been proven false time and time again.
> 
> You don't discuss science.   You discuss magic and horse manure.  Nothing in the Bible is science.  It's a fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I talked science with you from electromagnettic spectrum to macroevolution.  I can't help it if you're wrong and not able to present your arguments in a scientific manner.  You just don't have the science background.  Thus, we never got into any of those topics.
Click to expand...

You used some babble that you believed to be scientific, but all you did is display your complete ignorance of science.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> You used some babble that you believed to be scientific, but all you did is display your complete ignorance of science.



Are you talking to yourself in front of a mirror?  It sure sounds like it as we can all see how lacking you are in science.

What other science subjects do you have to discuss?  I can provide how creation science is involved or not.  For example, how does dark matter and dark energy affect our Earth?  Has dark matter been debunked?  How about dark energy?

Has Dark Energy Been Debunked? Probably Not. | Space


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You used some babble that you believed to be scientific, but all you did is display your complete ignorance of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking to yourself in front of a mirror?  It sure sounds like it as we can all see how lacking you are in science.
> 
> What other science subjects do you have to discuss?  I can provide how creation science is involved or not.  For example, how does dark matter and dark energy affect our Earth?  Has dark matter been debunked?  How about dark energy?
> 
> Has Dark Energy Been Debunked? Probably Not. | Space
Click to expand...

Why would I want to read your psuedoscientific babble?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You do not know what parts of the Bible is science.*
> 
> Show us. Start with the part about orbits.
> 
> *could not answer nor make an argument for the points I brought up.*
> 
> Your "argument" was that scientists couldn't explain orbits, but the Bible could.
> 
> Both lies.
> 
> *I'll let you go now *
> 
> Yes, you'd best run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't lie, you lied.  There you go.  Why don't you go run along now while the adults are talking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I didn't lie*
> 
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits.
> Inverse square law is proof you lied.
> 
> You said only the Bible could explain orbits.
> Still haven't posted the passage.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't me then.  I did not get involved with any discussions with you as such because you never answer my questions while I have answered yours.  Quid pro quo.  Besides, you ask leading questions.  So, instead of being bored spit less as our conversations lead nowhere, I just ignore your silly posts.  Why don't you go talk with someone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It wasn't me then.*
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's boring to hear two people calling each other a liar.  Why don't you explain what you are talking about with Kepler's law of planetary motion, a creation scientist btw, and whatever.  What are your issues between the two opposing points of view if that's what it is?  Why don't you explain it in such a way that we can all participate and isn't accusatory at anyone?
Click to expand...


*Why don't you explain what you are talking about with Kepler's law of planetary motion, a creation scientist btw, and whatever.  *

A creation of science, not an explanation from the Bible.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't lie, you lied.  There you go.  Why don't you go run along now while the adults are talking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't lie*
> 
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits.
> Inverse square law is proof you lied.
> 
> You said only the Bible could explain orbits.
> Still haven't posted the passage.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't me then.  I did not get involved with any discussions with you as such because you never answer my questions while I have answered yours.  Quid pro quo.  Besides, you ask leading questions.  So, instead of being bored spit less as our conversations lead nowhere, I just ignore your silly posts.  Why don't you go talk with someone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It wasn't me then.*
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's boring to hear two people calling each other a liar.  Why don't you explain what you are talking about with Kepler's law of planetary motion, a creation scientist btw, and whatever.  What are your issues between the two opposing points of view if that's what it is?  Why don't you explain it in such a way that we can all participate and isn't accusatory at anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why don't you explain what you are talking about with Kepler's law of planetary motion, a creation scientist btw, and whatever.  *
> 
> A creation of science, not an explanation from the Bible.
Click to expand...


What does that even mean?  That you can't explain what the issues are beyond your little bitching haha?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't lie*
> 
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits.
> Inverse square law is proof you lied.
> 
> You said only the Bible could explain orbits.
> Still haven't posted the passage.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't me then.  I did not get involved with any discussions with you as such because you never answer my questions while I have answered yours.  Quid pro quo.  Besides, you ask leading questions.  So, instead of being bored spit less as our conversations lead nowhere, I just ignore your silly posts.  Why don't you go talk with someone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It wasn't me then.*
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's boring to hear two people calling each other a liar.  Why don't you explain what you are talking about with Kepler's law of planetary motion, a creation scientist btw, and whatever.  What are your issues between the two opposing points of view if that's what it is?  Why don't you explain it in such a way that we can all participate and isn't accusatory at anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why don't you explain what you are talking about with Kepler's law of planetary motion, a creation scientist btw, and whatever.  *
> 
> A creation of science, not an explanation from the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that even mean?  That you can't explain what the issues are beyond your little bitching haha?
Click to expand...


*What does that even mean?  *

It means the explanation came from math and science, not from the pages of the Bible.
You said scientists couldn't explain orbits, only the Bible could.

You lied, twice.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It means the explanation came from math and science, not from the pages of the Bible.
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits, only the Bible could.



It must mean that I kicked your stupid ass *good* in front of all these people.  You could not even go one post without cracking up under the strain.  Besides, your explanation now contradicts your previous bitching.  My my, what a miserable feeble little person you are not having the brains to explain the issues.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means the explanation came from math and science, not from the pages of the Bible.
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits, only the Bible could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must mean that I kicked your stupid ass *good* in front of all these people.  You could not even go one post without cracking up under the strain.  Besides, your explanation now contradicts your previous bitching.  My my, what a miserable feeble little person you are not having the brains to explain the issues.
Click to expand...


Your lies didn't kick any ass.

Liar.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means the explanation came from math and science, not from the pages of the Bible.
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits, only the Bible could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must mean that I kicked your stupid ass *good* in front of all these people.  You could not even go one post without cracking up under the strain.  Besides, your explanation now contradicts your previous bitching.  My my, what a miserable feeble little person you are not having the brains to explain the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lies didn't kick any ass.
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


You must've been really butt hurt because of your reaction.

This is how I remember what happened.  I brought up Kepler as an example of a creation scientist who came up with the laws of planetary motion.

_My question to you in order to keep you honest:  Do the planets move in an oval orbit?  Yes or no?_

Afterward, you tried to pin the dodge that of geocentricity on the Bible and me.  No where does the Bible teach geocentricity and being against Copernicus and Galileo (another two creation scientists) nor that of a flat Earth.  The geocentricity claim is from Pope Gregory.  This is your mistake of what the Bible actually states.  Instead, I explained that Kepler came up with the laws of planetary motion.

ETA:  Here are the verses in the Bible regarding planetary motion.  You have to know what to look up.

What Does the Bible Say About Center Gravity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means the explanation came from math and science, not from the pages of the Bible.
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits, only the Bible could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must mean that I kicked your stupid ass *good* in front of all these people.  You could not even go one post without cracking up under the strain.  Besides, your explanation now contradicts your previous bitching.  My my, what a miserable feeble little person you are not having the brains to explain the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lies didn't kick any ass.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must've been really butt hurt because of your reaction.
> 
> This is how I remember what happened.  I brought up Kepler as an example of a creation scientist who came up with the laws of planetary motion.
> 
> _My question to you in order to keep you honest:  Do the planets move in an oval orbit?  Yes or no?_
> 
> Afterward, you tried to pin the dodge that of geocentricity on the Bible and me.  No where does the Bible teach geocentricity and being against Copernicus and Galileo (another two creation scientists) nor that of a flat Earth.  The geocentricity claim is from Pope Gregory.  This is your mistake of what the Bible actually states.  Instead, I explained that Kepler came up with the laws of planetary motion.
> 
> ETA:  Here are the verses in the Bible regarding planetary motion.  You have to know what to look up.
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Center Gravity?
Click to expand...


No, your idiocy, and lies, don't hurt me anywhere on my body.

* I brought up Kepler as an example of a creation scientist who came up with the laws of planetary motion.*

No, you claimed the Bible had the scientific explanation and that scientists.....couldn't explain.
Both lies.

_My question to you in order to keep you honest:  Do the planets move in an oval orbit? _

Elliptical orbits.

*Afterward, you tried to pin the dodge that of geocentricity on the Bible and me. *

I never mentioned geocentrism. Confusing me with someone else.

Thanks for the link.
Do you have any that actually help your claims?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means the explanation came from math and science, not from the pages of the Bible.
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits, only the Bible could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must mean that I kicked your stupid ass *good* in front of all these people.  You could not even go one post without cracking up under the strain.  Besides, your explanation now contradicts your previous bitching.  My my, what a miserable feeble little person you are not having the brains to explain the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lies didn't kick any ass.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must've been really butt hurt because of your reaction.
> 
> This is how I remember what happened.  I brought up Kepler as an example of a creation scientist who came up with the laws of planetary motion.
> 
> _My question to you in order to keep you honest:  Do the planets move in an oval orbit?  Yes or no?_
> 
> Afterward, you tried to pin the dodge that of geocentricity on the Bible and me.  No where does the Bible teach geocentricity and being against Copernicus and Galileo (another two creation scientists) nor that of a flat Earth.  The geocentricity claim is from Pope Gregory.  This is your mistake of what the Bible actually states.  Instead, I explained that Kepler came up with the laws of planetary motion.
> 
> ETA:  Here are the verses in the Bible regarding planetary motion.  You have to know what to look up.
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Center Gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your idiocy, and lies, don't hurt me anywhere on my body.
> 
> * I brought up Kepler as an example of a creation scientist who came up with the laws of planetary motion.*
> 
> No, you claimed the Bible had the scientific explanation and that scientists.....couldn't explain.
> Both lies.
> 
> _My question to you in order to keep you honest:  Do the planets move in an oval orbit? _
> 
> Elliptical orbits.
> 
> *Afterward, you tried to pin the dodge that of geocentricity on the Bible and me. *
> 
> I never mentioned geocentrism. Confusing me with someone else.
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> Do you have any that actually help your claims?
Click to expand...


You are a liar.  You are not consistent in your claims as to what lies I have told in three posts.  I have no idiocy and do not lie about the Bible nor creation science.  You lie like a cheap rug -- badly.

The Bible is not a science book; it was written long ago in ancient times.  However, we find science backs up the Bible.  You are lying because you have not read the Bible and understand it.  I just linked where the Bible discusses gravity.  Kepler studied Copernicus to become professor of astronomy and then came up with the laws of planetary motion.  In turn, it helped Newton formulate the theory of gravity.  I'm sure I posted about Kepler and Newton.  That should've gave you a clue of what to look up if you could not find planetary motion.

Yes, I gave you the links.  What you should do now is to read and study the verses.  Look up the whole section and what it refers to.  One should get help if they cannot understand it and then verify it for themselves.  Creation vs. evolution arguments did not start with Darwin, Lyell, nor Hutton.  All of these arguments or similar ones have been going on since the OT days.  

You have to understand what evolution teaches you is not true.  What they state about creation is wrong.  What they state about ToE, evolutionary thinking and history is a lie or not true.  One cannot verify a billion years of anything using science.  How can they when a billion years hasn't happened yet.  We had an infinite universe and not it's down to 13.8 billion years (went down and then up 0.1 billion years old).  When will the next change occur?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means the explanation came from math and science, not from the pages of the Bible.
> You said scientists couldn't explain orbits, only the Bible could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must mean that I kicked your stupid ass *good* in front of all these people.  You could not even go one post without cracking up under the strain.  Besides, your explanation now contradicts your previous bitching.  My my, what a miserable feeble little person you are not having the brains to explain the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lies didn't kick any ass.
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must've been really butt hurt because of your reaction.
> 
> This is how I remember what happened.  I brought up Kepler as an example of a creation scientist who came up with the laws of planetary motion.
> 
> _My question to you in order to keep you honest:  Do the planets move in an oval orbit?  Yes or no?_
> 
> Afterward, you tried to pin the dodge that of geocentricity on the Bible and me.  No where does the Bible teach geocentricity and being against Copernicus and Galileo (another two creation scientists) nor that of a flat Earth.  The geocentricity claim is from Pope Gregory.  This is your mistake of what the Bible actually states.  Instead, I explained that Kepler came up with the laws of planetary motion.
> 
> ETA:  Here are the verses in the Bible regarding planetary motion.  You have to know what to look up.
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Center Gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your idiocy, and lies, don't hurt me anywhere on my body.
> 
> * I brought up Kepler as an example of a creation scientist who came up with the laws of planetary motion.*
> 
> No, you claimed the Bible had the scientific explanation and that scientists.....couldn't explain.
> Both lies.
> 
> _My question to you in order to keep you honest:  Do the planets move in an oval orbit? _
> 
> Elliptical orbits.
> 
> *Afterward, you tried to pin the dodge that of geocentricity on the Bible and me. *
> 
> I never mentioned geocentrism. Confusing me with someone else.
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> Do you have any that actually help your claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  You are not consistent in your claims as to what lies I have told in three posts.  I have no idiocy and do not lie about the Bible nor creation science.  You lie like a cheap rug -- badly.
> 
> The Bible is not a science book; it was written long ago in ancient times.  However, we find science backs up the Bible.  You are lying because you have not read the Bible and understand it.  I just linked where the Bible discusses gravity.  Kepler studied Copernicus to become professor of astronomy and then came up with the laws of planetary motion.  In turn, it helped Newton formulate the theory of gravity.  I'm sure I posted about Kepler and Newton.  That should've gave you a clue of what to look up if you could not find planetary motion.
> 
> Yes, I gave you the links.  What you should do now is to read and study the verses.  Look up the whole section and what it refers to.  One should get help if they cannot understand it and then verify it for themselves.  Creation vs. evolution arguments did not start with Darwin, Lyell, nor Hutton.  All of these arguments or similar ones have been going on since the OT days.
> 
> You have to understand what evolution teaches you is not true.  What they state about creation is wrong.  What they state about ToE, evolutionary thinking and history is a lie or not true.  One cannot verify a billion years of anything using science.  How can they when a billion years hasn't happened yet.  We had an infinite universe and not it's down to 13.8 billion years (went down and then up 0.1 billion years old).  When will the next change occur?
Click to expand...

* You are not consistent in your claims as to what lies I have told in three posts.*

You said the Bible explains planetary orbits.

Are you changing that claim?

You said scientists could not explain planetary orbits.

Are you changing that claim?

* I just linked where the Bible discusses gravity. *

Post the passage, in full, that backs up your claims.

*What they state about creation is wrong. *

Evolution doesn't state anything about creation.

*What they state about ToE, evolutionary thinking and history is a lie or not true.*

I don't believe you.

*One cannot verify a billion years of anything using science.*

One cannot verify a billion years of anything using the Bible.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why God really killed the dinosaurs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  God killed all the humans except for Noah and his family.  Most of the animals were collateral damage except for the dinos and other animals on the ark.
Click to expand...

Hold on a sec, the video was a joke. It's from Preacher. But you think Noah brought dinos on the ark? And if it was just Noah and his family, and other animals, are we the product of incest?

How do you feel about incest? Because it has occurred at least twice based on your religion (and many more). Is it ok?


----------



## RWS

Adam fucked Eve and had three boys.

Outside of circle-jerking, the only way they could have kids was by fucking Eve. 

Adam and Eve may have had 2 daughters after. So the boys fucked them too. 

So now we have a whole generation of kids that are all very closely related. And they're all fucking each other! That's crazy! 

Same thing would have happened with Noah. Dang, god knows who he fucked... Could have been his daughters and boys... 

But I guess this is part of religion, and why clergy behave badly, and why it's allowed.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why God really killed the dinosaurs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  God killed all the humans except for Noah and his family.  Most of the animals were collateral damage except for the dinos and other animals on the ark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on a sec, the video was a joke. It's from Preacher. But you think Noah brought dinos on the ark? And if it was just Noah and his family, and other animals, are we the product of incest?
> 
> How do you feel about incest? Because it has occurred at least twice based on your religion (and many more). Is it ok?
Click to expand...


You do not understand genetics as we just learned.  Incest was the only way to populate and repopulate the planet after the flood.  Adam and Eve's generation were fine because they were perfect human physical specimens except for their sin.  Noah's generation which we are part of was more diluted, but still was able to repopulate.  Today, incest would turn out some deformed and not suitable for life specimens so would not be suitable.  The genetics have not evolved; it is further evidence for creation and not evolution.

I learned that if we are to repopulate now then it would take about 50,000 (25K men, 25K women) people.  Thus, it is more difficult to be able to successfully colonize another planet even if there is one like Earth (there isn't).  Secular scientists think some form of terra-forming can be done which may be possible.  I don't know.  I used to think we could be multi-planetary, but now I'm not so sure.  We may be stuck here.


----------



## FA_Q2

james bond said:


> While Copernicus was correct in his time, *we've found out the Milky Way resides in the center. *


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Every time he says something colossally ignorant, just wait.  Something even more ignorant is coming along.  Can't wait to see how he beats this one though, lol.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why God really killed the dinosaurs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh.  God killed all the humans except for Noah and his family.  Most of the animals were collateral damage except for the dinos and other animals on the ark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on a sec, the video was a joke. It's from Preacher. But you think Noah brought dinos on the ark? And if it was just Noah and his family, and other animals, are we the product of incest?
> 
> How do you feel about incest? Because it has occurred at least twice based on your religion (and many more). Is it ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not understand genetics as we just learned.  Incest was the only way to populate and repopulate the planet after the flood.  Adam and Eve's generation were fine because they were perfect human physical specimens except for their sin.  Noah's generation which we are part of was more diluted, but still was able to repopulate.  Today, incest would turn out some deformed and not suitable for life specimens so would not be suitable.  The genetics have not evolved; it is further evidence for creation and not evolution.
> 
> I learned that if we are to repopulate now then it would take about 50,000 (25K men, 25K women) people.  Thus, it is more difficult to be able to successfully colonize another planet even if there is one like Earth (there isn't).  Secular scientists think some form of terra-forming can be done which may be possible.  I don't know.  I used to think we could be multi-planetary, but now I'm not so sure.  We may be stuck here.
Click to expand...

What were the genes of Noah's generation diluted by?  Every person on the planet could trace his ancestry directly back to Adam and Eve.  They all had the same genes.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Adam fucked Eve and had three boys.
> 
> Outside of circle-jerking, the only way they could have kids was by fucking Eve.
> 
> Adam and Eve may have had 2 daughters after. So the boys fucked them too.
> 
> So now we have a whole generation of kids that are all very closely related. And they're all fucking each other! That's crazy!
> 
> Same thing would have happened with Noah. Dang, god knows who he fucked... Could have been his daughters and boys...
> 
> But I guess this is part of religion, and why clergy behave badly, and why it's allowed.



I just explained it to you and you still got it wrong . 

What else do we know from the flood that God did as punishment?  That he promised that we would not all die by water again.  He left a rainbow as reminder.  The secular scientists now think we will die via gigantic asteroid or meteor like the dinosaurs.  CNN or the NYT will always run stories when an asteroid or giant meteor comes close.  The atheists all are starting to believe this end of world scenario.  Doesn't the end of world by asteroid scenario involve most of dying by flood waters and tsunamis caused by the impact?.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam fucked Eve and had three boys.
> 
> Outside of circle-jerking, the only way they could have kids was by fucking Eve.
> 
> Adam and Eve may have had 2 daughters after. So the boys fucked them too.
> 
> So now we have a whole generation of kids that are all very closely related. And they're all fucking each other! That's crazy!
> 
> Same thing would have happened with Noah. Dang, god knows who he fucked... Could have been his daughters and boys...
> 
> But I guess this is part of religion, and why clergy behave badly, and why it's allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained it to you and you still got it wrong .
> 
> What else do we know from the flood that God did as punishment?  That he promised that we would not all die by water again.  He left a rainbow as reminder.  The secular scientists now think we will die via gigantic asteroid or meteor like the dinosaurs.  CNN or the NYT will always run stories when an asteroid or giant meteor comes close.  The atheists all are starting to believe this end of world scenario.  Doesn't the end of world by asteroid scenario involve most of dying by flood waters and tsunamis caused by the impact?.
Click to expand...

**Cuckoo**
.
.
.
.
.
**Cuckoo**


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam fucked Eve and had three boys.
> 
> Outside of circle-jerking, the only way they could have kids was by fucking Eve.
> 
> Adam and Eve may have had 2 daughters after. So the boys fucked them too.
> 
> So now we have a whole generation of kids that are all very closely related. And they're all fucking each other! That's crazy!
> 
> Same thing would have happened with Noah. Dang, god knows who he fucked... Could have been his daughters and boys...
> 
> But I guess this is part of religion, and why clergy behave badly, and why it's allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained it to you and you still got it wrong .
> 
> What else do we know from the flood that God did as punishment?  That he promised that we would not all die by water again.  He left a rainbow as reminder.  The secular scientists now think we will die via gigantic asteroid or meteor like the dinosaurs.  CNN or the NYT will always run stories when an asteroid or giant meteor comes close.  The atheists all are starting to believe this end of world scenario.  Doesn't the end of world by asteroid scenario involve most of dying by flood waters and tsunamis caused by the impact?.
Click to expand...

We know nothing from a flood that never happened.  The Bible is a work of fiction.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> What were the genes of Noah's generation diluted by? Every person on the planet could trace his ancestry directly back to Adam and Eve. They all had the same genes.



>>Every person on the planet could trace his ancestry directly back to Adam and Eve. They all had the same genes.<<

Why don't you explain your claims?


----------



## james bond

FA_Q2 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Copernicus was correct in his time, *we've found out the Milky Way resides in the center. *
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Every time he says something colossally ignorant, just wait.  Something even more ignorant is coming along.  Can't wait to see how he beats this one though, lol.
Click to expand...


Are you another one ?  Real science goes over your head.

Galactocentricity.

*"Galactocentricity* is a cosmic center model which places our galaxy (the _Milky Way_) near the center of the universe.

Dr. Russell Humphreys defines it thus:

[W]e live in a galactocentric cosmos—a universe that has a unique geometric centre very near our own home galaxy, the Milky Way. ... Our galaxy is essentially at the centre of the cosmos, but not at rest with respect to it. This differs from geocentrism, which would have the Earth be at the exact centre and motionless with respect to it.[1]"

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show - creation.com


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam fucked Eve and had three boys.
> 
> Outside of circle-jerking, the only way they could have kids was by fucking Eve.
> 
> Adam and Eve may have had 2 daughters after. So the boys fucked them too.
> 
> So now we have a whole generation of kids that are all very closely related. And they're all fucking each other! That's crazy!
> 
> Same thing would have happened with Noah. Dang, god knows who he fucked... Could have been his daughters and boys...
> 
> But I guess this is part of religion, and why clergy behave badly, and why it's allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained it to you and you still got it wrong .
> 
> What else do we know from the flood that God did as punishment?  That he promised that we would not all die by water again.  He left a rainbow as reminder.  The secular scientists now think we will die via gigantic asteroid or meteor like the dinosaurs.  CNN or the NYT will always run stories when an asteroid or giant meteor comes close.  The atheists all are starting to believe this end of world scenario.  Doesn't the end of world by asteroid scenario involve most of dying by flood waters and tsunamis caused by the impact?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **Cuckoo**
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> **Cuckoo**
Click to expand...


This is how they convince you the Earth and universe are billions of years old.  Repeat it as news enough times and voila.  Same with the end of the world.

A giant asteroid named after a god of death will whiz by Earth in 10 years  - CNN

The Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Acidified the Ocean in a Flash


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam fucked Eve and had three boys.
> 
> Outside of circle-jerking, the only way they could have kids was by fucking Eve.
> 
> Adam and Eve may have had 2 daughters after. So the boys fucked them too.
> 
> So now we have a whole generation of kids that are all very closely related. And they're all fucking each other! That's crazy!
> 
> Same thing would have happened with Noah. Dang, god knows who he fucked... Could have been his daughters and boys...
> 
> But I guess this is part of religion, and why clergy behave badly, and why it's allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained it to you and you still got it wrong .
> 
> What else do we know from the flood that God did as punishment?  That he promised that we would not all die by water again.  He left a rainbow as reminder.  The secular scientists now think we will die via gigantic asteroid or meteor like the dinosaurs.  CNN or the NYT will always run stories when an asteroid or giant meteor comes close.  The atheists all are starting to believe this end of world scenario.  Doesn't the end of world by asteroid scenario involve most of dying by flood waters and tsunamis caused by the impact?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **Cuckoo**
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> **Cuckoo**
Click to expand...

Considering that light refraction could not have existed before Noah (no rainbows) I wonder how the eye worked back then?


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam fucked Eve and had three boys.
> 
> Outside of circle-jerking, the only way they could have kids was by fucking Eve.
> 
> Adam and Eve may have had 2 daughters after. So the boys fucked them too.
> 
> So now we have a whole generation of kids that are all very closely related. And they're all fucking each other! That's crazy!
> 
> Same thing would have happened with Noah. Dang, god knows who he fucked... Could have been his daughters and boys...
> 
> But I guess this is part of religion, and why clergy behave badly, and why it's allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained it to you and you still got it wrong .
> 
> What else do we know from the flood that God did as punishment?  That he promised that we would not all die by water again.  He left a rainbow as reminder.  The secular scientists now think we will die via gigantic asteroid or meteor like the dinosaurs.  CNN or the NYT will always run stories when an asteroid or giant meteor comes close.  The atheists all are starting to believe this end of world scenario.  Doesn't the end of world by asteroid scenario involve most of dying by flood waters and tsunamis caused by the impact?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **Cuckoo**
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> **Cuckoo**
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how they convince you the Earth and universe are billions of years old.  Repeat it as news enough times and voila.  Same with the end of the world.
> 
> A giant asteroid named after a god of death will whiz by Earth in 10 years  - CNN
> 
> The Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Acidified the Ocean in a Flash
Click to expand...

How do you feel about incest, and sex with children?


----------



## RWS

Yeah I know I accidentally replied to my own post... Lol...

But the question is for b&d...

How do you feel about incest, and sex with children?


----------



## RWS

That's how it started, right?


----------



## SaxxyBlues

Two questions come to mind.

-Was there a Pangea?
-And how was life formed in the sea again?  A one cell organism formed in the sea.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> That's how it started, right?



There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.


----------



## james bond

FA_Q2 said:


> Considering that light refraction could not have existed before Noah (no rainbows) I wonder how the eye worked back then?



That's correct.  The atmosphere was different then and would not produce a rainbow..


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it started, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.
Click to expand...

That's funny, but you're evading the question about how you roll sexually.


----------



## RWS

Do you like boys, girls, or same sex? And why? 

Based on your religion of course...


----------



## RWS

And why do priests and other clergy do the shit they do? 

How does God allow that under his command?


----------



## RWS

Unless he doesn't exist. Or doesn't care.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it started, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.
Click to expand...

Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!


----------



## SaxxyBlues

It's Satan's world at the present, we counter him with prayer.  You said any?


----------



## RWS

SaxxyBlues said:


> It's Satan's world at the present, we counter him with prayer.  You said any?


Are you friggin serious? OMG, you keep praying. I hope you're right. You seem like a good person. Satan doesn't exist, nor does God.


----------



## SaxxyBlues

tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again.


----------



## RWS

I can help in the middle...


----------



## RWS

SaxxyBlues said:


> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again.


It would be "a one celled organism" btw. 

Why  do you feel you have to challenge me?


----------



## SaxxyBlues

I think a higher being, (totally possible in the universe) deposited DNA on earth.  Jesus was a person on earth.  Religious or not he was.  The scriptures occured.


----------



## RWS

are you on the B&d payroll?


----------



## SaxxyBlues

Na it's ego boosting to think you are from a higher power instead of a monkey.


----------



## RWS

I love Jesus as well. But he is not supernatural. I love the ideal.


----------



## RWS

SaxxyBlues said:


> I think a higher being, (totally possible in the universe) deposited DNA on earth.  Jesus was a person on earth.  Religious or not he was.  The scriptures occured.


I don't mean to fight with you. I'm totally on the side of panspermia. I believe Jesus was a human on earth, and he had great philosophies to follow. I just don't believe the religion that was created 400 years later.


----------



## SaxxyBlues

*an unforgettable experience *- unforgettable has a vowel sound so we use *an*.
*a university* - university has a *y* sound so we use *a*.

you are right a not an


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that light refraction could not have existed before Noah (no rainbows) I wonder how the eye worked back then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct.  The atmosphere was different then and would not produce a rainbow..
Click to expand...


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it started, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!
Click to expand...


Why are you talking about religion in a science forum?  I talked about the science behind it and how science backs up the Bible.  Where is the evolution?  I showed using you as an example of de-evolution.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that light refraction could not have existed before Noah (no rainbows) I wonder how the eye worked back then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct.  The atmosphere was different then and would not produce a rainbow..
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You still haven't answered my question and explained your claim.  You don't know anything about science , so why are you here?

>>Every person on the planet could trace his ancestry directly back to Adam and Eve. They all had the same genes.<<

Why don't you explain your claims?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it started, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about religion in a science forum?  I talked about the science behind it and how science backs up the Bible.  Where is the evolution?  I showed using you as an example of de-evolution.
Click to expand...

He's talking about religion in this forum because you're talking about it in this forum, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that light refraction could not have existed before Noah (no rainbows) I wonder how the eye worked back then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct.  The atmosphere was different then and would not produce a rainbow..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question and explained your claim.  You don't know anything about science , so why are you here?
> 
> >>Every person on the planet could trace his ancestry directly back to Adam and Eve. They all had the same genes.<<
> 
> Why don't you explain your claims?
Click to expand...

Are you saying there were people who didn't trace their ancestry back to Adam and Eve?

Are you really so stupid that you don't understand the problem here?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SaxxyBlues said:


> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again


Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SaxxyBlues said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it started, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about religion in a science forum?  I talked about the science behind it and how science backs up the Bible.  Where is the evolution?  I showed using you as an example of de-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's talking about religion in this forum because you're talking about it in this forum, dumbass.
Click to expand...


.  Everyone now knows you are the dumbass here who cannot explain his own claims and statements.  You do not present any evidence, such as the mountain of facts that is evolution or ToE.  Tut tut, not microevolution, because everyone knows that is part of creation science and Alfred Russel Wallace came up with it first.  I've explained creation science or real science here and RWS had to put his head in a hole in the ground.  It's really his arsehole, but we want to keep this an under R-rated forum.

It is RWS who discusses religion while I discussed the Bible theory and how science backs up the Bible.  I cannot help it if you cannot get it past your unscientific brain with only a HS education.  I would think Fort Fun Indiana is the spokesmodel for both of you.  You are barely above Taz  who has been banned   .


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SaxxyBlues said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...
Click to expand...


.  Like the part where the whale walked up the Himalayas to die is a fairy tale.

World's oldest whale is found in the Himalayas


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SaxxyBlues said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it started, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about religion in a science forum?  I talked about the science behind it and how science backs up the Bible.  Where is the evolution?  I showed using you as an example of de-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's talking about religion in this forum because you're talking about it in this forum, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Everyone now knows you are the dumbass here who cannot explain his own claims and statements.  You do not present any evidence, such as the mountain of facts that is evolution or ToE.  Tut tut, not microevolution, because everyone knows that is part of creation science and Alfred Russel Wallace came up with it first.  I've explained creation science or real science here and RWS had to put his head in a hole in the ground.  It's really his arsehole, but we want to keep this an under R-rated forum.
> 
> It is RWS who discusses religion while I discussed the Bible theory and how science backs up the Bible.  I cannot help it if you cannot get it past your unscientific brain with only a HS education.  I would think Fort Fun Indiana is the spokesmodel for both of you.  You are barely above Taz  who has been banned   .
Click to expand...

So when you are discussing "Bible theory," you aren't discussing religion?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SaxxyBlues said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Like the part where the whale walked up the Himalayas to die is a fairy tale.
> 
> World's oldest whale is found in the Himalayas
Click to expand...

Other than your brain-damaged coreligionists, who claims the whale walked up the Himalayas?


----------



## FA_Q2

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that light refraction could not have existed before Noah (no rainbows) I wonder how the eye worked back then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct.  The atmosphere was different then and would not produce a rainbow..
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Still does not beat the Milky Way is the center of the universe claim, though it is close.


----------



## james bond

FA_Q2 said:


> Still does not beat the Milky Way is the center of the universe claim, though it is close.



I always believed in heliocentricity.  Now, we know its also galatocentricity.  Its the Catholics that came up with the geocentricity and if you didn't go along, you could be put to death or in jail.  Geocentricity isn't in the Bible.  

If I lived in the Middle Ages and was under Pope Gregory, then I'd just go along.  It goes to show both Copernicus and Galileo decided that truth will rule their science.  What say you?  Are you Catholic, Christian, Judaic, or Islamic?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SaxxyBlues said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about religion in a science forum?  I talked about the science behind it and how science backs up the Bible.  Where is the evolution?  I showed using you as an example of de-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's talking about religion in this forum because you're talking about it in this forum, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Everyone now knows you are the dumbass here who cannot explain his own claims and statements.  You do not present any evidence, such as the mountain of facts that is evolution or ToE.  Tut tut, not microevolution, because everyone knows that is part of creation science and Alfred Russel Wallace came up with it first.  I've explained creation science or real science here and RWS had to put his head in a hole in the ground.  It's really his arsehole, but we want to keep this an under R-rated forum.
> 
> It is RWS who discusses religion while I discussed the Bible theory and how science backs up the Bible.  I cannot help it if you cannot get it past your unscientific brain with only a HS education.  I would think Fort Fun Indiana is the spokesmodel for both of you.  You are barely above Taz  who has been banned   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when you are discussing "Bible theory," you aren't discussing religion?
Click to expand...


Why do I get atheists who like to reply to me?  Is it because I actually use science to discredit evolution?  Is it because I talk the Bible theory regarding science (mostly Genesis)?  Is it because I have compared evolution and Christianity?

I think you and the atheists here should get better informed on your science.  Then you'd be answering my questions and forcing me to do research and think.  I wouldn't just regurgitate assertions and opinions to you like you do with me.  That's why I'm extremely bored.  Most of the evos here do not seem to know and understand evolution itself.  You complained about most girls not knowing math in another forum.  What math did you take?  I went up to calculus at Cal.

Anyway, this forum has been discussed to death now hasn't it?  And still no evidence for aliens.  Dr. Carl Sagan believed in aliens and that we would find evidence, but he was never contacted and died with no aliens.  You guys will die the same way; not even one microbe.  Aliens are not really a big deal (any alien, even a microbe) although it would cause Christians to discuss what it means to the Bible.  It probably wouldn't change Christians' minds about Christianity.  I can't speak for Catholics, Judaists, or Islamics though.

What about changing an atheists mind?  I doubt it.  They want evidence and do not accept it when it is given to them.  The only way they'll believe is when "every eye will see" or maybe through much pain and suffering.  I get it.  If you just do not believe something, then that's how you end up.  That said, I would need better science such as the scientific method to believe in even a small part of evolution.  The only truth is microevolution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SaxxyBlues said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about religion in a science forum?  I talked about the science behind it and how science backs up the Bible.  Where is the evolution?  I showed using you as an example of de-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's talking about religion in this forum because you're talking about it in this forum, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Everyone now knows you are the dumbass here who cannot explain his own claims and statements.  You do not present any evidence, such as the mountain of facts that is evolution or ToE.  Tut tut, not microevolution, because everyone knows that is part of creation science and Alfred Russel Wallace came up with it first.  I've explained creation science or real science here and RWS had to put his head in a hole in the ground.  It's really his arsehole, but we want to keep this an under R-rated forum.
> 
> It is RWS who discusses religion while I discussed the Bible theory and how science backs up the Bible.  I cannot help it if you cannot get it past your unscientific brain with only a HS education.  I would think Fort Fun Indiana is the spokesmodel for both of you.  You are barely above Taz  who has been banned   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when you are discussing "Bible theory," you aren't discussing religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I get atheists who like to reply to me?  Is it because I actually use science to discredit evolution?  Is it because I talk the Bible theory regarding science (mostly Genesis)?  Is it because I have compared evolution and Christianity?
> 
> I think you and the atheists here should get better informed on your science.  Then you'd be answering my questions and forcing me to do research and think.  I wouldn't just regurgitate assertions and opinions to you like you do with me.  That's why I'm extremely bored.  Most of the evos here do not seem to know and understand evolution itself.  You complained about most girls not knowing math in another forum.  What math did you take?  I went up to calculus at Cal.
> 
> Anyway, this forum has been discussed to death now hasn't it?  And still no evidence for aliens.  Dr. Carl Sagan believed in aliens and that we would find evidence, but he was never contacted and died with no aliens.  You guys will die the same way; not even one microbe.  Aliens are not really a big deal (any alien, even a microbe) although it would cause Christians to discuss what it means to the Bible.  It probably wouldn't change Christians' minds about Christianity.  I can't speak for Catholics, Judaists, or Islamics though.
> 
> What about changing an atheists mind?  I doubt it.  They want evidence and do not accept it when it is given to them.  The only way they'll believe is when "every eye will see" or maybe through much pain and suffering.  I get it.  If you just do not believe something, then that's how you end up.  That said, I would need better science such as the scientific method to believe in even a small part of evolution.  The only truth is microevolution.
Click to expand...


* Is it because I actually use science to discredit evolution?*

Link?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SaxxyBlues said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about religion in a science forum?  I talked about the science behind it and how science backs up the Bible.  Where is the evolution?  I showed using you as an example of de-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's talking about religion in this forum because you're talking about it in this forum, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Everyone now knows you are the dumbass here who cannot explain his own claims and statements.  You do not present any evidence, such as the mountain of facts that is evolution or ToE.  Tut tut, not microevolution, because everyone knows that is part of creation science and Alfred Russel Wallace came up with it first.  I've explained creation science or real science here and RWS had to put his head in a hole in the ground.  It's really his arsehole, but we want to keep this an under R-rated forum.
> 
> It is RWS who discusses religion while I discussed the Bible theory and how science backs up the Bible.  I cannot help it if you cannot get it past your unscientific brain with only a HS education.  I would think Fort Fun Indiana is the spokesmodel for both of you.  You are barely above Taz  who has been banned   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when you are discussing "Bible theory," you aren't discussing religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I get atheists who like to reply to me?  Is it because I actually use science to discredit evolution?  Is it because I talk the Bible theory regarding science (mostly Genesis)?  Is it because I have compared evolution and Christianity?
> 
> I think you and the atheists here should get better informed on your science.  Then you'd be answering my questions and forcing me to do research and think.  I wouldn't just regurgitate assertions and opinions to you like you do with me.  That's why I'm extremely bored.  Most of the evos here do not seem to know and understand evolution itself.  You complained about most girls not knowing math in another forum.  What math did you take?  I went up to calculus at Cal.
> 
> Anyway, this forum has been discussed to death now hasn't it?  And still no evidence for aliens.  Dr. Carl Sagan believed in aliens and that we would find evidence, but he was never contacted and died with no aliens.  You guys will die the same way; not even one microbe.  Aliens are not really a big deal (any alien, even a microbe) although it would cause Christians to discuss what it means to the Bible.  It probably wouldn't change Christians' minds about Christianity.  I can't speak for Catholics, Judaists, or Islamics though.
> 
> What about changing an atheists mind?  I doubt it.  They want evidence and do not accept it when it is given to them.  The only way they'll believe is when "every eye will see" or maybe through much pain and suffering.  I get it.  If you just do not believe something, then that's how you end up.  That said, I would need better science such as the scientific method to believe in even a small part of evolution.  The only truth is microevolution.
Click to expand...

All that blather and you still failed to answer the question.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SaxxyBlues said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell me how we came into being from an one cell organism in the sea again
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the explanation is the theory of evolution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it started, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There couldn't be evolution.  We can tell your brain is smaller than a monkey and today we see it never developed, but regressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your religion is reliant on incest and molestation. Very nice! High five!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you talking about religion in a science forum?  I talked about the science behind it and how science backs up the Bible.  Where is the evolution?  I showed using you as an example of de-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's talking about religion in this forum because you're talking about it in this forum, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Everyone now knows you are the dumbass here who cannot explain his own claims and statements.  You do not present any evidence, such as the mountain of facts that is evolution or ToE.  Tut tut, not microevolution, because everyone knows that is part of creation science and Alfred Russel Wallace came up with it first.  I've explained creation science or real science here and RWS had to put his head in a hole in the ground.  It's really his arsehole, but we want to keep this an under R-rated forum.
> 
> It is RWS who discusses religion while I discussed the Bible theory and how science backs up the Bible.  I cannot help it if you cannot get it past your unscientific brain with only a HS education.  I would think Fort Fun Indiana is the spokesmodel for both of you.  You are barely above Taz  who has been banned   .
Click to expand...

Somebody is getting testy, bc they won't admit they are wrong...

 Been proven wrong at every angle, and still refuses defeat.


----------



## RWS

That's the definition of a religious fanatic...

His activities should be watched.


----------



## RWS

That's the shit!


----------



## james bond

I've must've struck a nerve.

Not getting real science?  The answer is simple.  Evolution is a all a lie*.  How can so many believe in something where everything is a lie? 

Return God's love!


* Except natural selection!


----------



## james bond

Let me lay down some more of my creation science.  I watched this Twilight Zone from the 2020 TZ marathon.  

!!! SPOILERS !!!

Four men rob the train headed for Fort Knox and steal a king's ransom of gold bars.  Pure gold!  They drive out to the nearby desert to hide the truck and loot.  Their plan is interesting.  There are four glass chambers where they can sleep for the next 100 years.  It's called Rip Van Winkle.  When they wake up Providence and greed catch up to them.  Here's the ending:


Of course, this can not happen.  Even Sir Isaac Newton thought humans could do it, but no.  Why?  Gold is a pure atomic element.  Humans can only work at the molecular level.  They cannot create at the atomic level.  Only molecular.  This is a limitation God placed on human science.  Pure evidence my friends.

Where's the Bible?  We had the Three Wise Men bring Baby Jesus gold, franchincense, and myrrh.  Gold is pure.  It represents God.  No human creation.

"The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3

What Does the Bible Say About Gold?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Is it because I actually use science to discredit evolution?*
> 
> Link?



See my post #1447.  What are you going to say?  We go quantum mechanics.  We'll get there ?

I saw a show to cover that fantasy and sci-fi in 2019 haha.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it because I actually use science to discredit evolution?*
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #1447.  What are you going to say?  We go quantum mechanics.  We'll get there ?
> 
> I saw a show to cover that fantasy and sci-fi in 2019 haha.
Click to expand...


*See my post #1447.  *

You didn't use science to discredit evolution in post #1447.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Let me lay down some more of my creation science.  I watched this Twilight Zone from the 2020 TZ marathon.
> 
> !!! SPOILERS !!!
> 
> Four men rob the train headed for Fort Knox and steal a king's ransom of gold bars.  Pure gold!  They drive out to the nearby desert to hide the truck and loot.  Their plan is interesting.  There are four glass chambers where they can sleep for the next 100 years.  It's called Rip Van Winkle.  When they wake up Providence and greed catch up to them.  Here's the ending:
> 
> 
> Of course, this can not happen.  Even Sir Isaac Newton thought humans could do it, but no.  Why?  Gold is a pure atomic element.  Humans can only work at the molecular level.  They cannot create at the atomic level.  Only molecular.  This is a limitation God placed on human science.  Pure evidence my friends.
> 
> Where's the Bible?  We had the Three Wise Men bring Baby Jesus gold, franchincense, and myrrh.  Gold is pure.  It represents God.  No human creation.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Gold?



*Humans can only work at the molecular level. They cannot create at the atomic level.*





Neptunium


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me lay down some more of my creation science.  I watched this Twilight Zone from the 2020 TZ marathon.
> 
> !!! SPOILERS !!!
> 
> Four men rob the train headed for Fort Knox and steal a king's ransom of gold bars.  Pure gold!  They drive out to the nearby desert to hide the truck and loot.  Their plan is interesting.  There are four glass chambers where they can sleep for the next 100 years.  It's called Rip Van Winkle.  When they wake up Providence and greed catch up to them.  Here's the ending:
> 
> 
> Of course, this can not happen.  Even Sir Isaac Newton thought humans could do it, but no.  Why?  Gold is a pure atomic element.  Humans can only work at the molecular level.  They cannot create at the atomic level.  Only molecular.  This is a limitation God placed on human science.  Pure evidence my friends.
> 
> Where's the Bible?  We had the Three Wise Men bring Baby Jesus gold, franchincense, and myrrh.  Gold is pure.  It represents God.  No human creation.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Gold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans can only work at the molecular level. They cannot create at the atomic level.*
> 
> View attachment 299830
> 
> Neptunium
Click to expand...


Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.

"The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3

How's your heart doing?  Is it still dark?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me lay down some more of my creation science.  I watched this Twilight Zone from the 2020 TZ marathon.
> 
> !!! SPOILERS !!!
> 
> Four men rob the train headed for Fort Knox and steal a king's ransom of gold bars.  Pure gold!  They drive out to the nearby desert to hide the truck and loot.  Their plan is interesting.  There are four glass chambers where they can sleep for the next 100 years.  It's called Rip Van Winkle.  When they wake up Providence and greed catch up to them.  Here's the ending:
> 
> 
> Of course, this can not happen.  Even Sir Isaac Newton thought humans could do it, but no.  Why?  Gold is a pure atomic element.  Humans can only work at the molecular level.  They cannot create at the atomic level.  Only molecular.  This is a limitation God placed on human science.  Pure evidence my friends.
> 
> Where's the Bible?  We had the Three Wise Men bring Baby Jesus gold, franchincense, and myrrh.  Gold is pure.  It represents God.  No human creation.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Gold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans can only work at the molecular level. They cannot create at the atomic level.*
> 
> View attachment 299830
> 
> Neptunium
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> How's your heart doing?  Is it still dark?
Click to expand...


*Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.*

Humans created Neptunium out of not-Neptunium.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me lay down some more of my creation science.  I watched this Twilight Zone from the 2020 TZ marathon.
> 
> !!! SPOILERS !!!
> 
> Four men rob the train headed for Fort Knox and steal a king's ransom of gold bars.  Pure gold!  They drive out to the nearby desert to hide the truck and loot.  Their plan is interesting.  There are four glass chambers where they can sleep for the next 100 years.  It's called Rip Van Winkle.  When they wake up Providence and greed catch up to them.  Here's the ending:
> 
> 
> Of course, this can not happen.  Even Sir Isaac Newton thought humans could do it, but no.  Why?  Gold is a pure atomic element.  Humans can only work at the molecular level.  They cannot create at the atomic level.  Only molecular.  This is a limitation God placed on human science.  Pure evidence my friends.
> 
> Where's the Bible?  We had the Three Wise Men bring Baby Jesus gold, franchincense, and myrrh.  Gold is pure.  It represents God.  No human creation.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Gold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans can only work at the molecular level. They cannot create at the atomic level.*
> 
> View attachment 299830
> 
> Neptunium
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> How's your heart doing?  Is it still dark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.*
> 
> Humans created Neptunium out of not-Neptunium.
Click to expand...


Explain.  They had to start with what?  It happens naturally.  Don't bother me until the game is over.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me lay down some more of my creation science.  I watched this Twilight Zone from the 2020 TZ marathon.
> 
> !!! SPOILERS !!!
> 
> Four men rob the train headed for Fort Knox and steal a king's ransom of gold bars.  Pure gold!  They drive out to the nearby desert to hide the truck and loot.  Their plan is interesting.  There are four glass chambers where they can sleep for the next 100 years.  It's called Rip Van Winkle.  When they wake up Providence and greed catch up to them.  Here's the ending:
> 
> 
> Of course, this can not happen.  Even Sir Isaac Newton thought humans could do it, but no.  Why?  Gold is a pure atomic element.  Humans can only work at the molecular level.  They cannot create at the atomic level.  Only molecular.  This is a limitation God placed on human science.  Pure evidence my friends.
> 
> Where's the Bible?  We had the Three Wise Men bring Baby Jesus gold, franchincense, and myrrh.  Gold is pure.  It represents God.  No human creation.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Gold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans can only work at the molecular level. They cannot create at the atomic level.*
> 
> View attachment 299830
> 
> Neptunium
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> How's your heart doing?  Is it still dark?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.*
> 
> Humans created Neptunium out of not-Neptunium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain.  They had to start with what?  It happens naturally.  Don't bother me until the game is over.
Click to expand...


*Explain. They had to start with what?*

Couldn't understand the link? Or the portion I pasted?

Right there in post #1450.

I'll try again.

_McMillan and Abelson bombarded uranium-238 with neutrons and they were able to show chemically that they had produced neptunium-239, which has a half-life of just 2.3 days._

*It happens naturally.*

And? You said, "humans cannot create at the atomic level"

I just showed they did.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I just showed they did.



.  You didn't show spit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  You didn't show spit.
Click to expand...



McMillan and Abelson created Neptunium....at the atomic level.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  You didn't show spit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> McMillan and Abelson created Neptunium....at the atomic level.
Click to expand...

Yep!

And here are scientists, not only constructing atoms from particles alone, but constructing anti-atoms:

Antihydrogen at CERN: 20 years and going strong


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  You didn't show spit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> McMillan and Abelson created Neptunium....at the atomic level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep!
> 
> And here are scientists, not only constructing atoms from particles alone, but constructing anti-atoms:
> 
> Antihydrogen at CERN: 20 years and going strong
Click to expand...


Antihydrogen occurs naturally, i.e. from God.  Just how much antimatter did they make and how much work did it take for CERN?  How much antimatter in the history of humans?

Maybe if I had the anti Fort Fun Indiana, then these science forums would not be about magic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just showed they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  You didn't show spit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> McMillan and Abelson created Neptunium....at the atomic level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep!
> 
> And here are scientists, not only constructing atoms from particles alone, but constructing anti-atoms:
> 
> Antihydrogen at CERN: 20 years and going strong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Antihydrogen occurs naturally, i.e. from God.  Just how much antimatter did they make and how much work did it take for CERN?  How much antimatter in the history of humans?
> 
> Maybe if I had the anti Fort Fun Indiana, then these science forums would not be about magic.
Click to expand...


How much work does it take for you to lie about man creating at the atomic level?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Antihydrogen occurs naturally,


And is also created at CERN from anti particles, per the article I linked that you didn't read and wouldn't understand anyway. I suppose we won't get any coherent response from you on this until someone adds a blog to creation.com on it that you can plagiarize.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antihydrogen occurs naturally,
> 
> 
> 
> And is also created at CERN from anti particles, per the article I linked that you didn't read and wouldn't understand anyway. I suppose we won't get any coherent response from you on this until someone adds a blog to creation.com on it that you can plagiarize.
Click to expand...


Stop.  This is just more magic that you want believe so bad in order to back evolution.  There are no facts here just like there are no mountain of facts for evolution.  Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.  All they are doing is replicating what exists in nature that God created.  Notice all of it has been volatile material and expensive to make?  God allowed us to make the atomic bomb in order to have peace.  This is God's nature as explained in the Bible.  The good kings have all had the latest and big weapons of their day.  We have had MAD in order to prevent major wars.  Before that we had regular bombings and that killed many millions in WW I and WW II.  However, humans have the capability to make local dirty bombs now, so that is a problem.  It could lead to another world conflict.

"In September 1995 physicists at CERN synthesised the first antihydrogen atoms, paving the way for today’s growing antimatter research"

Synthesize is not the same as create

I notice you didn't answer any of my questions because humans can't create much antimatter and it is insanely expensive.  Otherwise, it would end up destroying stuff we want.  You also didn't expound on it because they were gone before a blink of an eye.  You also didn't expound because I would rip what you said to shreds.  

The same for the radioactive material your atheist friend suggests.  No creation.  Just adding to fissionable elements in order to produce a different fissionable element that is also produced in nature.  He's too ignorant to understand.

What it demonstrates is God's power.  He can destroy the world by global fire.  Instead of antimatter, I think he'll use gamma rays.

I love to use creation.com now.  Thank you; I have you to leading me to using it more.  Here's what it says about the subject we are discussing.  To the contrary, it is you who does not read and would not understand anyway.

"God’s organization of the universe can be seen in the smallest unit of substance, the atom. They are the fundamental building blocks of all materials. Atoms are not chaotic in their assembly but have an orderly arrangement in the way that electrons are added to orbitals, and protons and neutrons in the nucleus. This accounts for their periodic and predictable attributes which a God of order has created."

Atoms and Gods Order - creation.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antihydrogen occurs naturally,
> 
> 
> 
> And is also created at CERN from anti particles, per the article I linked that you didn't read and wouldn't understand anyway. I suppose we won't get any coherent response from you on this until someone adds a blog to creation.com on it that you can plagiarize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop.  This is just more magic that you want believe so bad in order to back evolution.  There are no facts here just like there are no mountain of facts for evolution.  Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.  All they are doing is replicating what exists in nature that God created.  Notice all of it has been volatile material and expensive to make?  God allowed us to make the atomic bomb in order to have peace.  This is God's nature as explained in the Bible.  The good kings have all had the latest and big weapons of their day.  We have had MAD in order to prevent major wars.  Before that we had regular bombings and that killed many millions in WW I and WW II.  However, humans have the capability to make local dirty bombs now, so that is a problem.  It could lead to another world conflict.
> 
> "In September 1995 physicists at CERN synthesised the first antihydrogen atoms, paving the way for today’s growing antimatter research"
> 
> Synthesize is not the same as create
> 
> I notice you didn't answer any of my questions because humans can't create much antimatter and it is insanely expensive.  Otherwise, it would end up destroying stuff we want.  You also didn't expound on it because they were gone before a blink of an eye.  You also didn't expound because I would rip what you said to shreds.
> 
> The same for the radioactive material your atheist friend suggests.  No creation.  Just adding to fissionable elements in order to produce a different fissionable element that is also produced in nature.  He's too ignorant to understand.
> 
> What it demonstrates is God's power.  He can destroy the world by global fire.  Instead of antimatter, I think he'll use gamma rays.
> 
> I love to use creation.com now.  Thank you; I have you to leading me to using it more.  Here's what it says about the subject we are discussing.  To the contrary, it is you who does not read and would not understand anyway.
> 
> "God’s organization of the universe can be seen in the smallest unit of substance, the atom. They are the fundamental building blocks of all materials. Atoms are not chaotic in their assembly but have an orderly arrangement in the way that electrons are added to orbitals, and protons and neutrons in the nucleus. This accounts for their periodic and predictable attributes which a God of order has created."
> 
> Atoms and Gods Order - creation.com
Click to expand...


*Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level.  *

You lied.

*All they are doing is replicating what exists in nature that God created. *

Pretty cool.

*Notice all of it has been volatile material and expensive to make?  *

Who told you creating at the atomic level was cheap?

*Synthesize is not the same as create*

Wow! You're a good tap dancer. 

*No creation.  Just adding to fissionable elements in order to produce a different fissionable element that is also produced in nature.* 

Yes creation. Man created a new fissionable atom, at the atomic level, by adding to an old fissionable atom.

*that is also produced in nature. *

We never saw any on Earth, or anywhere else, until we created it.

* Atoms are not chaotic in their assembly but have an orderly arrangement in the way that electrons are added to orbitals, and protons and neutrons in the nucleus. This accounts for their periodic and predictable attributes *

Did they get that info from the Bible?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level. *
> 
> You lied.
> 
> *All they are doing is replicating what exists in nature that God created. *
> 
> Pretty cool.
> 
> *Notice all of it has been volatile material and expensive to make? *
> 
> Who told you creating at the atomic level was cheap?
> 
> *Synthesize is not the same as create*
> 
> Wow! You're a good tap dancer.
> 
> *No creation. Just adding to fissionable elements in order to produce a different fissionable element that is also produced in nature.*
> 
> Yes creation. Man created a new fissionable atom, at the atomic level, by adding to an old fissionable atom.
> 
> *that is also produced in nature. *
> 
> We never saw any on Earth, or anywhere else, until we created it.
> 
> * Atoms are not chaotic in their assembly but have an orderly arrangement in the way that electrons are added to orbitals, and protons and neutrons in the nucleus. This accounts for their periodic and predictable attributes *
> 
> Did they get that info from the Bible?



Haha.  Still don't answer my questions and even more ignorant after being told about the science.  You are an ignoramus.

Why don't you just admit that you're for nuclear weapons and an antimatter bomb if it can be created?  God wants it for the good side.  The bad side getting it is a risk.  However, the dirty bomb is something that needs to be monitored.  If it is tied to a country, then people will want nukes to be used in retaliation.  No MAD in other words.


----------



## RWS

Let's please hope that a religious fanatic, does not get access to an anti-matter bomb! It's bad enough that some have access to nuclear weapons. All it takes is one religious fanatic, to fuck everyone up at a rate that is unprecedented. 

Religious fanatics don't care about humanity or the well being of the earth. They just want to be right, with sine missione.


----------



## RWS

We have to stop religious fanatics before they kill us all!


----------



## RWS

So the hard question is, how do we get them out of here? Out of the picture?

Applies to all religions with "kill em all" attitudes.. How can that be done?

I want the biggest minds to give some ideas.


Does not include you Bond ...


----------



## RWS

I know of only one way and it's crazy hopes... alien intervention. 

So I want to hear others' ideas.


----------



## RWS

We know that they are wrong, but how do we stop them from destroying the world based on fanatical beliefs?


----------



## RWS

Obviously showing history and the atrocities they committed, just makes them laugh. And pointing out the horrors makes them laugh harder.

Bc they don't give a shit. As long as they win. And it applies to all trilogy religions. You have no care for humanity. You are among the worst people ever to exist.

It's unfortunate you have power now, bc you should all be put to shame, and wiped off the earth.


----------



## RWS




----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Does not include you Bond ...



Why don't you rant at Toddsterpatriot as he desperately wants the atheist scientists to _create_ these nasty weapons of mass destruction?  God gives his blessings.  Just think about the antimatter bomb and its destructive power.  Nobody will risk having a world war.


----------



## RWS

You don't belong on the real Earth dude. You are a wannabe killer of humanity and society. Just to suit your religion...

I'm a good person. So are all the people you are arguing with. But you will easily put us all out to further your religion. You don't give a shit. As long as it helps your cause. 

Kill everyone that doesn't agree. Right? That's how it works... How it has always worked, and how it will ever be until it's stopped.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Like I said humans cannot create at the atomic level. *
> 
> You lied.
> 
> *All they are doing is replicating what exists in nature that God created. *
> 
> Pretty cool.
> 
> *Notice all of it has been volatile material and expensive to make? *
> 
> Who told you creating at the atomic level was cheap?
> 
> *Synthesize is not the same as create*
> 
> Wow! You're a good tap dancer.
> 
> *No creation. Just adding to fissionable elements in order to produce a different fissionable element that is also produced in nature.*
> 
> Yes creation. Man created a new fissionable atom, at the atomic level, by adding to an old fissionable atom.
> 
> *that is also produced in nature. *
> 
> We never saw any on Earth, or anywhere else, until we created it.
> 
> * Atoms are not chaotic in their assembly but have an orderly arrangement in the way that electrons are added to orbitals, and protons and neutrons in the nucleus. This accounts for their periodic and predictable attributes *
> 
> Did they get that info from the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Still don't answer my questions and even more ignorant after being told about the science.  You are an ignoramus.
> 
> Why don't you just admit that you're for nuclear weapons and an antimatter bomb if it can be created?  God wants it for the good side.  The bad side getting it is a risk.  However, the dirty bomb is something that needs to be monitored.  If it is tied to a country, then people will want nukes to be used in retaliation.  No MAD in other words.
Click to expand...

*Still don't answer my questions and even more ignorant after being told about the science.  *

Your questions? LOL!
Still waiting for your proof that the Bible explains orbits and that science can't.

Inverse square law already proved the second half of your claim was a lie.

*Why don't you just admit that you're for nuclear weapons and an antimatter bomb if it can be created?*

Nice non-sequitur. Now back to your lie about creating at the atomic level.

Liar.


----------



## RWS

I'm calling for it to stop!!!!


----------



## RWS

Let's all try to be friends right now, and figure out a way to work together. 

Let's find some common goals, and work together no matter what our beliefs are. 

Let's show everyone how it's done and how the world can survive. 

First thing is to find a common goal that we can all work together for. I think saving the planet is a good idea but I'm open to others.


----------



## FA_Q2

james bond said:


> God allowed us to make the atomic bomb in order to have peace.


Aaaaaaaaand there it is.  He has managed to one up the Milky Way as the center of the universe.  Now to see how he out does this one


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> You don't belong on the real Earth dude. You are a wannabe killer of humanity and society. Just to suit your religion...
> 
> I'm a good person. So are all the people you are arguing with. But you will easily put us all out to further your religion. You don't give a shit. As long as it helps your cause.
> 
> Kill everyone that doesn't agree. Right? That's how it works... How it has always worked, and how it will ever be until it's stopped.



ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!  There is something seriously wrong with you and reading comprehension.  What you are proposing is what will cause great deaths.

Why don't you blame Toddsterpatriot?  He's the one who desperately wants these weapons just to win an internet argument.  Are you proposing to get rid of him?  For shame, for shame, for shame.  He's just a nutballer, but that doesn't mean coup de grace.

It's not I.  I _want _peace just like God wants peace and to have the greatest weapons is what God preached.  This is prevention at its greatest.  It is history and you will find the evidence.  We have not had any world wars since WW II because of mutually assured destruction (MAD).  It will continue if we can develop the greatest weapon technology.  We also know that the nuclear bomb is not enough.  We'll have to put boots on the ground afterward.  This is part of history and it's in the Bible.  For example, the war with Japan ended because of dropping the two nukes AND because the Russian army was at their doorstep ready to take their country.  Prior to nukes, the conventional bombing killed the most people in the world.  We have state atheism, as well.

Dirty bombs will be like conventional bombs and kill millions, but will cause discord and calls to use the horrific weapons of mass destruction.  We do not want that.  This is the kind of mentality you follow.  There is something seriously wrong with you, your atheism, your liberalism, and reading comprehension.


----------



## james bond

FA_Q2 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> God allowed us to make the atomic bomb in order to have peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Aaaaaaaaand there it is.  He has managed to one up the Milky Way as the center of the universe.  Now to see how he out does this one
Click to expand...


You are a wimp and appeaser.  A joke.  You are Neville Chamberlain.  Get off the sidelines and fight.  I am Winston Churchill, foo.

"However, Winston Churchill, who would lead the free world to finally defeat Hitler, bitterly denounced this agreement in the house of Commons. He had previously argued over the previous decade that the free world should have stood firm against Hitler while he was still weak (cf. Jesus’ point that the threat of superior force can induce peacemaking early on, Luke 14:31–32). After the Munich agreement, Churchill correctly predicted that Chamberlain’s appeasement of a ruthless despot would have terrible consequences, and invoked some biblical imagery:

‘We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat … you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude … we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road … we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.’
As Churchill realized, this appeasement merely emboldened Hitler, who now thought of Chamberlain as a weak old man and had nothing but utter contempt for him. Also, the agreement gave Hitler the massive Škoda Works that strengthened him immensely, and made him even harder to stop—opponents would now face waves of Czech-made tanks. And as we now know, it wasn’t too long before Hitler engulfed the rest of Czechoslovakia."

...

'*What is the lesson for the Church?*
But many in the Church have not learned from Munich about the folly of appeasement.
As the saying goes, ‘Those who cannot learn from history are condemned to have George Santayana quoted at them.’The Life of Reason, Constable &amp; Co. Ltd., London, p. 82, 1954.">1 But many in the Church have not learned from Munich about the folly of appeasement.

Modern theistic evolutionists and long-agers have basically appeased atheists by conceding matters of real-world history and science to them. And like Chamberlain, they fondly believe that the atheists might be won over, or at least won’t go any further. But in reality, the compromising churchians have immensely strengthened the atheists’ hands by turning such powerful armament over to them:


While modern science owes its existence to Christianity whereas it was stillborn in other cultures,For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts and the end of slavery, Princeton University Press, 2003; see also review by Williams A., The biblical origins of science, _Journal of Creation_ *18*(2):49–52, 2004; &lt;creation.com/stark&gt;.">2 atheists now often use science (or rather, materialistic philosophy _masquerading_ as science) as a powerful weapon against the church.
The Apostle Paul states that the evidence from creation is so powerful that people are ‘without excuse’ for disbelieving in God (Romans 1:18–32). But if evolution were true, then according to the leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the living world shows no evidence for creation: ‘there’s nothing else going on out there—just organisms struggling to pass their genes on to the next generation. That’s it.’ Darwin’s real message: have you missed it? _Creation_ *14*(4):16–19, 1992; &lt;creation.com/realmessage&gt;.">3 So if evolution were true, there is no evidence for a God from what has been made, but evidence only for ruthless struggle for existence. So why would unbelievers be ‘without excuse’ if evolution were true?
The Apostle Peter says that ‘scoffers’ would be ‘willingly ignorant’ of the fact that the whole earth was deluged and destroyed (2 Peter 3:3–7). But if millions of years were true, then there could have been no Noachian Flood, or at least not one that left any traces (e.g. sedimentary rock layers and fossils). So how could the scoffers be held culpable for ‘deliberately ignoring’ the fact of the Flood if there were no geological evidence?
In the early19th century, many in the church capitulated to the long-age dogma of Hutton and Lyell, ignoring the scientific problems and spiritual warnings of the Scriptural Geologists._The Great Turning Point_, based on his Ph.D. thesis at Coventry University, &lt;creation.com/turning_point&gt;;  Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? _The Master’s Seminary Journal_ (TMSJ) *15*(1):71–92, Spring 2004, &lt;creation.com/naturalism-church&gt;.">4 And after they had accepted geological evolution, they were powerless to resist Darwin’s biological evolution._Refuting Compromise_, Creation Ministries International, Australia, ch. 8, 2004.">5 First, they had already jettisoned Genesis as a source of authority. Second, Darwin could link slow and gradual _geological_ processes with slow and gradual _biological_ processes. Third, without the history of Creation, Fall, Flood and dispersion, they had no real history at all. Darwin could easily refute the counterfeit creation ideas of the compromised church. These included God creating disease germs and carnivores _as such_ (ignoring the Fall and Flood),et al., _The Creation Answers Book_, Creation Ministries International, Australia, ch. 6, 2007.">6 extinctions (Flood),and creatures in their _present_ location (ignoring the Flood and dispersion).
And like Hitler, why should atheists make any concessions when the enemy is displaying such craven weakness? In reality, all the concessions are on the churchian side. The atheists concede nothing of value in return. Why shouldn’t they hold out for still more appeasement, while they use the Christians’ weapons against them?

A recent example of the continued appeasement is Howard van Till of Calvin College, who argued for decades that evolution was no threat to Christianity, and his college supported him. But after retirement, he showed his true colours (which blind Freddy’s deaf guide dog could have discerned) by abandoning any pretence of believing in any supernatural God. One report says, ‘Over the next two decades, he became the heretic his critics had suspected.’Chicago Tribune, 20 January 2008; &lt;www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi-080120evolution-story,1,1644498.story&gt;.">7 Thus Van Till is just the latest in the long line of apostates, whose slippery slide began with appeasement on Genesis, e.g. Billy Graham’s fellow evangelist Charles Templeton (1915–2001).Death of an apostate, _Creation_ *25*(1):6, 2002; &lt;creation.com/apostate&gt;."'

Chamberlain and the Church - creation.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't belong on the real Earth dude. You are a wannabe killer of humanity and society. Just to suit your religion...
> 
> I'm a good person. So are all the people you are arguing with. But you will easily put us all out to further your religion. You don't give a shit. As long as it helps your cause.
> 
> Kill everyone that doesn't agree. Right? That's how it works... How it has always worked, and how it will ever be until it's stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!  There is something seriously wrong with you and reading comprehension.  What you are proposing is what will cause great deaths.
> 
> Why don't you blame Toddsterpatriot?  He's the one who desperately wants these weapons just to win an internet argument.  Are you proposing to get rid of him?  For shame, for shame, for shame.  He's just a nutballer, but that doesn't mean coup de grace.
> 
> It's not I.  I _want _peace just like God wants peace and to have the greatest weapons is what God preached.  This is prevention at its greatest.  It is history and you will find the evidence.  We have not had any world wars since WW II because of mutually assured destruction (MAD).  It will continue if we can develop the greatest weapon technology.  We also know that the nuclear bomb is not enough.  We'll have to put boots on the ground afterward.  This is part of history and it's in the Bible.  For example, the war with Japan ended because of dropping the two nukes AND because the Russian army was at their doorstep ready to take their country.  Prior to nukes, the conventional bombing killed the most people in the world.  We have state atheism, as well.
> 
> Dirty bombs will be like conventional bombs and kill millions, but will cause discord and calls to use the horrific weapons of mass destruction.  We do not want that.  This is the kind of mentality you follow.  There is something seriously wrong with you, your atheism, your liberalism, and reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


*Why don't you blame Toddsterpatriot? He's the one who desperately wants these weapons just to win an internet argument.*

Your constant lies make Jesus cry.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't belong on the real Earth dude. You are a wannabe killer of humanity and society. Just to suit your religion...
> 
> I'm a good person. So are all the people you are arguing with. But you will easily put us all out to further your religion. You don't give a shit. As long as it helps your cause.
> 
> Kill everyone that doesn't agree. Right? That's how it works... How it has always worked, and how it will ever be until it's stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!  There is something seriously wrong with you and reading comprehension.  What you are proposing is what will cause great deaths.
> 
> Why don't you blame Toddsterpatriot?  He's the one who desperately wants these weapons just to win an internet argument.  Are you proposing to get rid of him?  For shame, for shame, for shame.  He's just a nutballer, but that doesn't mean coup de grace.
> 
> It's not I.  I _want _peace just like God wants peace and to have the greatest weapons is what God preached.  This is prevention at its greatest.  It is history and you will find the evidence.  We have not had any world wars since WW II because of mutually assured destruction (MAD).  It will continue if we can develop the greatest weapon technology.  We also know that the nuclear bomb is not enough.  We'll have to put boots on the ground afterward.  This is part of history and it's in the Bible.  For example, the war with Japan ended because of dropping the two nukes AND because the Russian army was at their doorstep ready to take their country.  Prior to nukes, the conventional bombing killed the most people in the world.  We have state atheism, as well.
> 
> Dirty bombs will be like conventional bombs and kill millions, but will cause discord and calls to use the horrific weapons of mass destruction.  We do not want that.  This is the kind of mentality you follow.  There is something seriously wrong with you, your atheism, your liberalism, and reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why don't you blame Toddsterpatriot? He's the one who desperately wants these weapons just to win an internet argument.*
> 
> Your constant lies make Jesus cry.
Click to expand...

Without his "cheat codes" -- i.e., blogs from creation.com to plagiarize -- he really goes into a tailspin.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Without his "cheat codes" -- i.e., blogs from creation.com to plagiarize -- he really goes into a tailspin.



I gave due credit to creation.com and even linked it.  Of course, you don't get any credit anymore because of your wacky beliefs in magic.

Besides, don't we need a huge bomb to blow up that giant asteroid that is going to cause the largest tsunami ever and the end of the world?  This is contradictory to what God said and never cause global flooding again.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Let me lay down some more of my creation science.  I watched this Twilight Zone from the 2020 TZ marathon.
> 
> !!! SPOILERS !!!
> 
> Four men rob the train headed for Fort Knox and steal a king's ransom of gold bars.  Pure gold!  They drive out to the nearby desert to hide the truck and loot.  Their plan is interesting.  There are four glass chambers where they can sleep for the next 100 years.  It's called Rip Van Winkle.  When they wake up Providence and greed catch up to them.  Here's the ending:
> 
> 
> Of course, this can not happen.  Even Sir Isaac Newton thought humans could do it, but no.  Why?  Gold is a pure atomic element.  Humans can only work at the molecular level.  They cannot create at the atomic level.  Only molecular.  This is a limitation God placed on human science.  Pure evidence my friends.
> 
> Where's the Bible?  We had the Three Wise Men bring Baby Jesus gold, franchincense, and myrrh.  Gold is pure.  It represents God.  No human creation.
> 
> "The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, and the Lord tests hearts." Proverbs 17:3
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Gold?


Actually, physicists have mad gold from other elements.  

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Actually, physicists have mad gold from other elements.
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



Why don't we shove this radioactive _gold_ they made up your dumb ass ?


----------



## RWS

Bond, you don't seem to understand that your overall Christian religion, and 2 other religions that believe in the same God, kill, torture, and rape each other and innocent bystanders, because they won't follow the same religion. For thousands of years!

For thousands of years, these three overall religions have been at war with each other, and committed atrocities that I hate to imagine, over the same God!

And none of you get the point. Each of you still believe that your religion is right and that God is on YOUR side!

Obviously, if the shared God exists, He would come down and put an end to this senseless nonsense and make the world right. But He doesn't. Could be a She, so we'll refer to it as "Ze" going forward. But that's a different topic.

So that leaves only a few choices. Either Ze doesn't know, or Ze doesn't care, or Ze likes it! Or... Ze doesn't exist.

All bad choices for a Supreme Being btw. And considering all the other religions that exist that have a different god, my logic says that Ze doesn't exist.

Now, that does not make me evil. It's actually the opposite, I'm repulsed by the evil that Ze religions generate, and that's why I cannot believe in Ze. There are other religions that attract me more. And none at all is better than a Ze religion.

Ze religions are ultimately doomed because they must conquer. Even the most nice old lady in church will ultimately fight in her own way against other religions. My aunt was like that. She would never hurt anything, but if she had to choose in a bad situation, she would have chosen on the side of her own religion.

I know this won't correct your vision, but I hope it gives you some understanding of non-believers, instead of calling them names.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Bond, you don't seem to understand that your overall Christian religion, and 2 other religions that believe in the same God, kill, torture, and rape each other and innocent bystanders, because they won't follow the same religion. For thousands of years!
> 
> For thousands of years, these three overall religions have been at war with each other, and committed atrocities that I hate to imagine, over the same God!
> 
> And none of you get the point. Each of you still believe that your religion is right and that God is on YOUR side!
> 
> Obviously, if the shared God exists, He would come down and put an end to this senseless nonsense and make the world right. But He doesn't. Could be a She, so we'll refer to it as "Ze" going forward. But that's a different topic.
> 
> So that leaves only a few choices. Either Ze doesn't know, or Ze doesn't care, or Ze likes it! Or... Ze doesn't exist.
> 
> All bad choices for a Supreme Being btw. And considering all the other religions that exist that have a different god, my logic says that Ze doesn't exist.
> 
> Now, that does not make me evil. It's actually the opposite, I'm repulsed by the evil that Ze religions generate, and that's why I cannot believe in Ze. There are other religions that attract me more. And none at all is better than a Ze religion.
> 
> Ze religions are ultimately doomed because they must conquer. Even the most nice old lady in church will ultimately fight in her own way against other religions. My aunt was like that. She would never hurt anything, but if she had to choose in a bad situation, she would have chosen on the side of her own religion.
> 
> I know this won't correct your vision, but I hope it gives you some understanding of non-believers, instead of calling them names.



Once again you're in the S&T forum and have lost all knowledge of science and your mind over this.  This is not religion and ethics forum.  What is the matter with you?  First, I made the case that historically nuclear weapons has prevented WW III.  Moreover, it's your side on this forum who wants to build these things.  It's still at the molecular level, but they will not be convinced that God has limited humans to creating at the molecular level.  Thus, they end up fiddling around with radioactive elements in order to create at the atomic level, but they cannot.  All they are doing is synthesizing elements created by God.

Furthermore, I said the danger with these radioactive materials is someone creating a dirty bomb or smaller nuke that can cause devastation at the local level.  This would bring about retaliation in the form of nukes and other WMD.  There are also chemical and biological weapons and a thread has been created for it.  There are nations that do not follow the rules of war, so this could cause further outcry for use of nuclear weapons.  This is when cooler heads must prevail.  The religious want world peace.  Everyone wants world peace, but we have to create these nuclear weapons in order to maintain the peace.  If not us, then it will be the bad guys like Iran who will do it.  Anyway, what you are referring to is politics and sometimes these S&T lines get crossed into that forum and not just religion.  You're just looking for an easy scapegoat for your fears.


----------



## RWS

Your whole argument in this thread is about religious shit.

I'm just pushing your nose into it! 

Luv u Bond!


----------



## RWS

But you're a bad dog!


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, physicists have mad gold from other elements.
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we shove this radioactive _gold_ they made up your dumb ass ?
Click to expand...

That's certainly a compelling argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, physicists have mad gold from other elements.
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we shove this radioactive _gold_ they made up your dumb ass ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's certainly a compelling argument.
Click to expand...


I think the grumpy liar is getting mad.


----------



## RWS

Others are covering the science very well. I have no need to add. My angle is history, morals/ethics, and logic.

You said:


james bond said:


> Furthermore, I said the danger with these radioactive materials is someone creating a dirty bomb or smaller nuke that can cause devastation at the local level


But only a religious fanatic would do that. Which you are...

An atheist wouldn't do that for religious beliefs.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> Others are covering the science very well. I have no need to add. My angle is history, morals/ethics, and logic.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I said the danger with these radioactive materials is someone creating a dirty bomb or smaller nuke that can cause devastation at the local level
> 
> 
> 
> But only a religious fanatic would do that. Which you are...
> 
> An atheist wouldn't do that for religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


By what criteria are you going by?  I am not a religious fanatic; you do not know me.  Moreover, you know very little about science.  You didn't address science at all in the S&T forum.  Did you take HS science?  IOW did you graduate HS?

Not only that, you are ignorant about the Bible and what I would consider religion.  You are practically an ignoramus.about science and religion.  I am a Christian who goes by the Bible and the best way is to read it literally.  The only non-literal part is the prophecies.

I would think you just follow internet atheist science and get your religion from other internet atheists.  It would be at the stereotype level and this is where you are at.  You are incredibly biased.

Anyway, there isn't much point discussing religion in the science forum.  I moved what I brought up to the religious forum.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, physicists have mad gold from other elements.
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we shove this radioactive _gold_ they made up your dumb ass ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's certainly a compelling argument.
Click to expand...


It's a winning argument in terms of synthesizing gold and not creating a new element or at the atomic level.

Instead of you just spouting your assertions, what do you have in regards to radioactive gold?  What can it be used for if we aren't going to shove it up your you know where?


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others are covering the science very well. I have no need to add. My angle is history, morals/ethics, and logic.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I said the danger with these radioactive materials is someone creating a dirty bomb or smaller nuke that can cause devastation at the local level
> 
> 
> 
> But only a religious fanatic would do that. Which you are...
> 
> An atheist wouldn't do that for religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what criteria are you going by?  I am not a religious fanatic; you do not know me.  Moreover, you know very little about science.  You didn't address science at all in the S&T forum.  Did you take HS science?  IOW did you graduate HS?
> 
> Not only that, you are ignorant about the Bible and what I would consider religion.  You are practically an ignoramus.about science and religion.  I am a Christian who goes by the Bible and the best way is to read it literally.  The only non-literal part is the prophecies.
> 
> I would think you just follow internet atheist science and get your religion from other internet atheists.  It would be at the stereotype level and this is where you are at.  You are incredibly biased.
> 
> Anyway, there isn't much point discussing religion in the science forum.  I moved what I brought up to the religious forum.
Click to expand...

I follow real science, and if anybody said otherwise, I would call them out. 
But they are true. So I'll concentrate on the other angles, which you cannot answer
.
You refer back to bullshit.


----------



## RWS

And that's my zone.


----------



## RWS

You can tell me your bullshit, and I'll tell you the truth.


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others are covering the science very well. I have no need to add. My angle is history, morals/ethics, and logic.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I said the danger with these radioactive materials is someone creating a dirty bomb or smaller nuke that can cause devastation at the local level
> 
> 
> 
> But only a religious fanatic would do that. Which you are...
> 
> An atheist wouldn't do that for religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what criteria are you going by?  I am not a religious fanatic; you do not know me.  Moreover, you know very little about science.  You didn't address science at all in the S&T forum.  Did you take HS science?  IOW did you graduate HS?
> 
> Not only that, you are ignorant about the Bible and what I would consider religion.  You are practically an ignoramus.about science and religion.  I am a Christian who goes by the Bible and the best way is to read it literally.  The only non-literal part is the prophecies.
> 
> I would think you just follow internet atheist science and get your religion from other internet atheists.  It would be at the stereotype level and this is where you are at.  You are incredibly biased.
> 
> Anyway, there isn't much point discussing religion in the science forum.  I moved what I brought up to the religious forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I follow real science, and if anybody said otherwise, I would call them out.
> But they are true. So I'll concentrate on the other angles, which you cannot answer
> .
> You refer back to bullshit.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my questions, so we all know who is bullshitting.

You have no criteria to gauge my Christianity.

You did not take HS science.  You did not graduate HS.  You are basically a putz , so we can just mostly ignore you in the S&T forum.


----------



## RWS

lol ok. 

what a dick...


----------



## RWS

Sometimes you try to be nice, but it doesn't work out. 

Assholes will be assholes...


----------



## FA_Q2




----------



## james bond

FA_Q2 said:


>



He's talking about you RWS .  I'm a dick.


----------



## RWS

You're the dick, the ass, and the pussy combined in one horrible person. 

You have no morals or ethics.


----------



## RWS




----------



## RWS




----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> You're the dick, the ass, and the pussy combined in one horrible person.
> 
> You have no morals or ethics.



You're still talking about religion and ethics in the S&T forum.  This has been easily demonstrated with my little poke because you're emo.

If you know science, then answer my question such as how does epigenetics cause trouble for Darwin's ToE?  Explain it in your own words so we can all understand.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong.


----------



## RWS

It's cool with evolution. Has nothing to do with your Santa Claus religion.


----------



## RWS

I think it's just a word you learned from your website. Asshole...


----------



## RWS

Do they teach you, or do you teach them?


----------



## RWS

Who is in charge of the bullshit on your website?


----------



## RWS

I think you're a pawn, and have no power or say, on your site. You're just a blind soldier...


----------



## RWS

A lemming. Who's ass we will kick immediately....


----------



## RWS

I feel bad for you. But I also think you deserve it.


----------



## RWS

Tick tock.... Your buddies are ignoring you Bond. 

Embarrassed?


----------



## james bond

RWS said:


> It's cool with evolution. Has nothing to do with your Santa Claus religion.



How is evolution cool?  First, one has to understand evolution and then compare it to creation science.  You are incapable of doing step 1.  You still can't answer any science questions I ask.  It means you are a putz and a moron, ~ 40 IQ.  It gives me almost 100 points higher than you.  Anyway, my hero Blaise Pascal basically laid out the following.  However, I doubt you can pass because you've already chose instead of being chosen.





See what I mean by being a putz and moron ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cool with evolution. Has nothing to do with your Santa Claus religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is evolution cool?  First, one has to understand evolution and then compare it to creation science.  You are incapable of doing step 1.  You still can't answer any science questions I ask.  It means you are a putz and a moron, ~ 40 IQ.  It gives me almost 100 points higher than you.  Anyway, my hero Blaise Pascal basically laid out the following.  However, I doubt you can pass because you've already chose instead of being chosen.
> 
> View attachment 301102
> 
> See what I mean by being a putz and moron ?
Click to expand...


*First, one has to understand evolution and then compare it to creation science.*

I'm still waiting for you to post Biblical planetary orbits science.


----------



## percysunshine

There are a googolplex number of planets in the universe, and humans are still trying to figure out one of them.

Not much of a data set to do any extrapolation.


----------



## james bond

Still no signs of aliens, but we have this.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

percysunshine said:


> There are a googolplex number of planets in the universe, and humans are still trying to figure out one of them.
> 
> Not much of a data set to do any extrapolation.


For some mysterious reason, trying to reason with the religious nutsack isn't working. Who could have seen this coming?!?!


----------



## james bond

I'm going to be taking an extended leave from USMB, the S&T, and R&E forums .  There just isn't enough challenging atheist views here.  When we can't discuss stuff at a higher level because one side cannot answer my questions, then I know I am talking with people with an agenda and are probably ignorant about science.  They just go through the motions.

Anyway, good luck and ta ta for now.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I'm going to be taking an extended leave from USMB, the S&T, and R&E forums .  There just isn't enough challenging atheist views here.  When we can't discuss stuff at a higher level because one side cannot answer my questions, then I know I am talking with people with an agenda and are probably ignorant about science.  They just go through the motions.
> 
> Anyway, good luck and ta ta for now.



Bye. 

It’s pretty typical behavior for religious extremists to skedaddle as you do from various threads when your conspiracy theories, outlandish claims to supernaturalism and unsupported assertions are dismissed as nonsensensical.


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cool with evolution. Has nothing to do with your Santa Claus religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is evolution cool?  First, one has to understand evolution and then compare it to creation science.  You are incapable of doing step 1.  You still can't answer any science questions I ask.  It means you are a putz and a moron, ~ 40 IQ.  It gives me almost 100 points higher than you.  Anyway, my hero Blaise Pascal basically laid out the following.  However, I doubt you can pass because you've already chose instead of being chosen.
> 
> View attachment 301102
> 
> See what I mean by being a putz and moron ?
Click to expand...

No I don't. And don't ever compare iq's with me. You will be very upset.

Your nice little picture shows 50/50.

However, is there such a place where people live on clouds, or a place where people live on land that's on continuous fire? Logic says those two places don't exist.

So it just leaves the other two choices, which are both "nothing" on both sides...


----------



## RWS

james bond said:


> I'm going to be taking an extended leave from USMB, the S&T, and R&E forums .  There just isn't enough challenging atheist views here.  When we can't discuss stuff at a higher level because one side cannot answer my questions, then I know I am talking with people with an agenda and are probably ignorant about science.  They just go through the motions.
> 
> Anyway, good luck and ta ta for now.


I hope you recover well and quickly.


----------



## RWS

Gl Bond. As much as we argue, I do care about you.


----------



## RWS

Ding, you have to follow up with him and make sure he's ok.


----------



## FA_Q2

Bummer, I was looking forward to him one upping his comment that God gave us nukes for peace.


----------



## RWS

Nah, there's something wrong. I've reached out to him.

I hope he's ok.


----------



## RWS

He's good. Will miss him.


----------



## RWS

Threads over, I guess.

We all agree!


----------



## luchitociencia

*Toddsterpatriot,*

I was out for a while, but I didn't forget you made me some questions.
*



			Their thinking is based on debunked theories.
		
Click to expand...

*


> Well, if you never think, how can you ever debunk a theory?



The theory of the Sun orbiting around earth has been debunked.



> *Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?*
> 
> 
> You think they're looking at those moons hoping to see a tree or a whale?



No.


> *That is the point, they claim the saw them.*
> 
> 
> Post their claim, so we can discuss.



Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things. Read it for yourself.



> *A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it.*
> 
> 
> Collisions "cause" light? Particles in our atmosphere collide, does that cause light?



Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh



> *The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, *
> 
> 
> Stars don't "lose the collision of particles", but they can shrink if the outgoing energy isn't enough to counteract the gravity pulling the star toward its core.



You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes. Those imaginary bodies are assumed to have the particles frozen, without motion.



> *Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.*
> 
> *All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.*
> 
> You don't think black holes have been observed?



Of course they don't exist. The whole thing is just fraud.



> *If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.*
> 
> 
> Like a white dwarf or a neutron star.



No, because dwarf stars have particles in motion.



> *This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity.*
> 
> 
> Why is relativity a dead theory?



Physically time doesn't exist.



> *The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes. *
> 
> 
> 
> Eddington committed fraud? Show me.



Book "Einstein's Luck" (which name is a parody for the words of loony Hawking saying that relativity validation was "sheer luck")

In this book you will read step by step the whole whereabouts of the expeditions, the problems taking plaques from the eclipse, the results favoring the prediction of Newton, the actions of Eddington to diminish the plaques favoring Newton and even making make ups to the plates to validate at all cost the prediction of Einstein.

Further than this explanation, how other expeditions found both predictions (newton and Einstein) as invalid... but... but as the author is also a relativist, he says that even when the validation because the eclipse results was not justified at all, that other kind of experiments seem to validate the theory after all.

You will notice that this science historian, Waller, wrote the book to show the huge mistakes in science history.

Now well, besides that the eclipse plaques invalidated the theory of relativity, I can easily point you one by one any other claim made to validate that good for nothing theory.

So make your list, and I will show you that such a list in a piece of paper is not even worthy as toilet paper.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

luchitociencia said:


> *Toddsterpatriot,*
> 
> I was out for a while, but I didn't forget you made me some questions.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Their thinking is based on debunked theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you never think, how can you ever debunk a theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of the Sun orbiting around earth has been debunked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?*
> 
> 
> You think they're looking at those moons hoping to see a tree or a whale?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is the point, they claim the saw them.*
> 
> 
> Post their claim, so we can discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things. Read it for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it.*
> 
> 
> Collisions "cause" light? Particles in our atmosphere collide, does that cause light?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, *
> 
> 
> Stars don't "lose the collision of particles", but they can shrink if the outgoing energy isn't enough to counteract the gravity pulling the star toward its core.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes. Those imaginary bodies are assumed to have the particles frozen, without motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.*
> 
> *All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.*
> 
> You don't think black holes have been observed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they don't exist. The whole thing is just fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.*
> 
> 
> Like a white dwarf or a neutron star.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because dwarf stars have particles in motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity.*
> 
> 
> Why is relativity a dead theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physically time doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes. *
> 
> 
> 
> Eddington committed fraud? Show me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Book "Einstein's Luck" (which name is a parody for the words of loony Hawking saying that relativity validation was "sheer luck")
> 
> In this book you will read step by step the whole whereabouts of the expeditions, the problems taking plaques from the eclipse, the results favoring the prediction of Newton, the actions of Eddington to diminish the plaques favoring Newton and even making make ups to the plates to validate at all cost the prediction of Einstein.
> 
> Further than this explanation, how other expeditions found both predictions (newton and Einstein) as invalid... but... but as the author is also a relativist, he says that even when the validation because the eclipse results was not justified at all, that other kind of experiments seem to validate the theory after all.
> 
> You will notice that this science historian, Waller, wrote the book to show the huge mistakes in science history.
> 
> Now well, besides that the eclipse plaques invalidated the theory of relativity, I can easily point you one by one any other claim made to validate that good for nothing theory.
> 
> So make your list, and I will show you that such a list in a piece of paper is not even worthy as toilet paper.
Click to expand...


*Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things.*

They lied about detecting those molecules?

*Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh*

I agree. What does that have to do with your "collision causes light" claim?
​*You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes.*​
You don't know much about the science of black holes.​


----------



## the other mike

james bond said:


> I'm going to be taking an extended leave from USMB, the S&T, and R&E forums .  There just isn't enough challenging atheist views here.  When we can't discuss stuff at a higher level because one side cannot answer my questions, then I know I am talking with people with an agenda and are probably ignorant about science.  They just go through the motions.
> 
> Anyway, good luck and ta ta for now.


So you want to "discuss stuff at a higher level" from where you are
intellectually ? I would suggest you finish middle school then come back and we'll go from there.


----------



## luchitociencia

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things.*
> 
> They lied about detecting those molecules?



But are also found in organic matter without life. Duuuhhhh




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh*
> 
> I agree. What does that have to do with your "collision causes light" claim?



Then, not all particles collisions cause light. Comprende?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes.*
> 
> You don't know much about the science of black holes.​



Ha, I dance the Macarena over that fantasy of black holes.

The science I study, the new scientific discoveries I have made, and the whole discussions I am into, the whole are based solely in real physical evidence.

On your side you are defending superfluous imaginations invented by several dudes who never understood reality.


----------



## james bond

Angelo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to be taking an extended leave from USMB, the S&T, and R&E forums .  There just isn't enough challenging atheist views here.  When we can't discuss stuff at a higher level because one side cannot answer my questions, then I know I am talking with people with an agenda and are probably ignorant about science.  They just go through the motions.
> 
> Anyway, good luck and ta ta for now.
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to "discuss stuff at a higher level" from where you are
> intellectually ? I would suggest you finish middle school then come back and we'll go from there.
Click to expand...


I bet any amount you want that I have higher degrees than you.

Anyway, you don't have much in your posts and up in your brain.


----------



## the other mike

james bond said:


> I bet any amount you want that I have higher degrees than you.
> 
> Anyway, you don't have much in your posts and up in your brain.


The Mormon school for douchebag suits doesn't count.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

luchitociencia said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things.*
> 
> They lied about detecting those molecules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But are also found in organic matter without life. Duuuhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh*
> 
> I agree. What does that have to do with your "collision causes light" claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, not all particles collisions cause light. Comprende?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes.*
> 
> You don't know much about the science of black holes.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, I dance the Macarena over that fantasy of black holes.
> 
> The science I study, the new scientific discoveries I have made, and the whole discussions I am into, the whole are based solely in real physical evidence.
> 
> On your side you are defending superfluous imaginations invented by several dudes who never understood reality.
Click to expand...


*But are also found in organic matter without life. Duuuhhhh*

Who said they weren't? Link?

*Then, not all particles collisions cause light.*

You said particle collisions in the Sun cause light.
Were you high? Or just confused.

*The science I study, the new scientific discoveries I have made*

You made some discoveries? Excellent! Can you link to any articles you've had published?
Or maybe a cell phone pic of the bar napkin you scribbled your discovery on? Thanks!!!

*On your side you are defending superfluous imaginations invented by several dudes who never understood reality.*

I know!! Einstein and Eddington on one side and you on the other, explaining reality.


----------



## watchingfromafar

View attachment 307811 At this point in time no one can prove or disprove whether there is life on another planet. You can debate this until the moon finally crashes in our planet; but by then, who will really care?

What I do find fascinating is the diversity of life on our planet.

We have “animals”
We have “plants”
We have “birds”
We have “fish”
We have “arthropods”
We have “coelenterates”
And we have “insects”




The above will outlive us all

wait, there are also viruses & bacteria too

My bet is the DNA from all these life forms have more in common than not.

And none of them evolved from the cooling molten crust of this planet.
in my view of things - -


----------



## james bond

Angelo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet any amount you want that I have higher degrees than you.
> 
> Anyway, you don't have much in your posts and up in your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mormon school for douchebag suits doesn't count.
Click to expand...







You and your posts fit the franchise.


----------



## james bond

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 307811 At this point in time no one can prove or disprove whether there is life on another planet. You can debate this until the moon finally crashes in our planet; but by then, who will really care?
> 
> What I do find fascinating is the diversity of life on our planet.
> 
> We have “animals”
> We have “plants”
> We have “birds”
> We have “fish”
> We have “arthropods”
> We have “coelenterates”
> And we have “insects”
> View attachment 307812
> The above will outlive us all
> 
> wait, there are also viruses & bacteria too
> 
> My bet is the DNA from all these life forms have more in common than not.
> 
> And none of them evolved from the cooling molten crust of this planet.
> in my view of things - -



You are terribly ignorant.  We have Ferdi's paradox, Drake equation, the great filter, and more to show there is no life elsewhere.  Moreover, atheist scientist died without knowing.  If there was life elsewhere, we would've found it or have been contacted by intelligent life by now.

Moreover, it's not the DNA that is supposed to be common that makes the difference, but the molecules.  DNA is fairly common.

Thus, you can be written off as ignorant.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

watchingfromafar said:


> We have “animals”
> We have “plants”
> We have “birds”
> We have “fish”
> We have “arthropods”
> We have “coelenterates”


We do now. We did not always.  The theory of evolution explains why that is.


----------



## watchingfromafar

james bond said:


> You are terribly ignorant.


My mother told me that same thing when I was twelve years old -


james bond said:


> We have Ferdi's paradox, Drake equation, the great filter


I am so greatful to have come across you & your post.
Please Oh Wise One--
Define "_Ferdi's paradox, Drake equation, the great filter_". I ask this because there is no one who I believe can truly define those terms; but you; *james bond*
so please be my interpreter; just this once.


james bond said:


> , and more to w there is no life elsewhere.


Ok, if you say so -


james bond said:


> Moreover, atheist scientist died without knowing.


Ok, if you say so -


james bond said:


> If there was life elsewhere, we would've found it


Ok, if you say so -


james bond said:


> or have been contacted by intelligent life by now.


Ok, if you say so -
Who was doing the contacting and could this come from a dream, by chance-?


james bond said:


> Moreover, it's not the DNA that is supposed to be common that makes the difference


Ok, if you say so -


james bond said:


> , but the molecules. DNA is fairly common.


Ok, if you say so -


james bond said:


> Thus, you can be written off as ignorant.


Now you have really hurt my feelings [::}
bye


----------



## watchingfromafar

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We do now. We did not always. The theory of evolution explains why that is.


Which came first, the chicken or the egg or was it the rooster that came first-?
just kidding -


----------



## the other mike

james bond said:


> You are terribly ignorant.  We have Ferdi's paradox, Drake equation, the great filter, and more to show there is *no life elsewhere*.  .


I have no animosity toward you at all. I think you're good person who's been misled along the way.
But I feel sorry for you if your imagination is that limited.

Maybe you need mushroom therapy to expand your mind a bit.


----------



## watchingfromafar

luchitociencia said:


> But are also found in organic matter without life. Duuuhhhh



By definition; organic matter is life so I am a bit confused ?
-.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

watchingfromafar said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do now. We did not always. The theory of evolution explains why that is.
> 
> 
> 
> Which came first, the chicken or the egg or was it the rooster that came first-?
> just kidding -
Click to expand...

The egg! Eggs were around for 100s of millions of years before chickens ever appeared.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> You are terribly ignorant (watchingfromafar).  We have Ferdi's (sic) paradox, Drake equation, the great filter, and more to show there is no life elsewhere.  Moreover, atheist scientist died without knowing.  If there was life elsewhere, we would've found it or have been contacted by intelligent life by now.



Fermi's Paradox is amusing but hardly convincing to ET's devotees, such as Drake himself, who assures all that his big number multiplication will some day be verified, if you just give more money to SETI.

Scripturally, God made this universe for us, not for anybody else.  Its size is quite immaterial.  Nature's God who can create the matter, material, and physical laws for us would be unconcerned about the universe's large volume.  Trivial for Him of course.  The only possibility for ET is naturalism, which is of course contradicted by virtually all of science, most particularly the Anthropic Principle, as originally propounded, and the insuperable statistics of natural protein synthesis.  Anyone pretending that titin, 33,450 amino acid residues in length, constructed itself using the Magic Wand of *Selection* is hopelessly anti-science and dishonest.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

Proof There Is No God


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> Scripturally, God made this universe for us, not for anybody else


Nobody cares what some backwards ass religious tribal shaman thinks about scientific topics. Sorry.


----------



## bripat9643

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are terribly ignorant (watchingfromafar).  We have Ferdi's (sic) paradox, Drake equation, the great filter, and more to show there is no life elsewhere.  Moreover, atheist scientist died without knowing.  If there was life elsewhere, we would've found it or have been contacted by intelligent life by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fermi's Paradox is amusing but hardly convincing to ET's devotees, such as Drake himself, who assures all that his big number multiplication will some day be verified, if you just give more money to SETI.
> 
> Scripturally, God made this universe for us, not for anybody else.  Its size is quite immaterial.  Nature's God who can create the matter, material, and physical laws for us would be unconcerned about the universe's large volume.  Trivial for Him of course.  The only possibility for ET is naturalism, which is of course contradicted by virtually all of science, most particularly the Anthropic Principle, as originally propounded, and the insuperable statistics of natural protein synthesis.  Anyone pretending that titin, 33,450 amino acid residues in length, constructed itself using the Magic Wand of *Selection* is hopelessly anti-science and dishonest.
> 
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> 
> Proof There Is No God
Click to expand...

The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?


----------



## the other mike

bripat9643 said:


> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?



No need to scare the kids. God can have many meanings, euphemisms, images and descriptions
and is perceived ( or not ) probably very differently by each person.

And while we probably share the same animosity toward organized religion, I keep that separate from my personal beliefs and the spiritual 'higher power' side of it, I always found intriguing....even the idea of reincarnation. Growing up Catholic until 9th grade, I could see first-hand how so many people can be controlled by religion.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The egg! Eggs were around for 100s of millions of years before chickens ever appeared.


What If the shape of the egg had been squared instead or round, the survival of the chicks would have been far more successful. What evolved in my view was the invention of the nest that saved the day.

Had the female birds lay square eggs her egg would not roll off the edge so easily, as a result we would be seeing far more birds today.
such is chance
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature. Why would God have a penis? Have you ever wondered that?


*
NO*
-


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature. Why would God have a penis? Have you ever wondered that?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> NO*
> -
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> The egg! Eggs were around for 100s of millions of years before chickens ever appeared.
> 
> 
> 
> What If the shape of the egg had been squared instead or round, the survival of the chicks would have been far more successful. What evolved in my view was the invention of the nest that saved the day.
> 
> Had the female birds lay square eggs her egg would not roll off the edge so easily, as a result we would be seeing far more birds today.
> such is chance
> -
Click to expand...

Square eggs break easier and the are much harder on the animal that lays them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

watchingfromafar said:


> What If the shape of the egg had been squared instead or round, the survival of the chicks would have been far more successful.


Hmm, I think not. The ovoid shape is much stronger.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Angelo said:


> No need to scare the kids.



When I was a kid, that would not have scared me; I was wondering how close I can get it to the shore before I harpoon it ?
then maybe not 
can I cut and paste that image-?
just asking --


----------



## the other mike

watchingfromafar said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to scare the kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a kid, that would not have scared me; I was wondering how close I can get it to the shore before I harpoon it ?
> then maybe not
> can I cut and paste that image-?
> just asking --
Click to expand...

Here you go.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nobody cares what some backwards ass religious tribal shaman thinks about scientific topics. Sorry.


I'm not nobody & I just might care.
So; with no disrespect and/or animosity intended or implied
can we at-least be friends-
just asking
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Angelo said:


> Here you go.



thanks
may you and yours live long and prosper
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm, I think not. The ovoid shape is much stronger.



I just realized it also rolls in a circle
-


----------



## james bond

watchingfromafar said:


> Now you have really hurt my feelings [::}
> bye



Oh, poor baby.  I'm sorry.  Bye, bye.


----------



## james bond

Angelo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are terribly ignorant.  We have Ferdi's paradox, Drake equation, the great filter, and more to show there is *no life elsewhere*.  .
> 
> 
> 
> I have no animosity toward you at all. I think you're good person who's been misled along the way.
> But I feel sorry for you if your imagination is that limited.
> 
> Maybe you need mushroom therapy to expand your mind a bit.
Click to expand...


How can I be the one misled if I once believed in evolution?  I went to a liberal college and grew up in liberal San Francisco.  Later, I was able to compare what the Bible said and what evolution said and I thought the Bible was the real science.  Science backs it up.


I've had experience with drugs, so no need to do it at my age.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?



The Bible is non-fiction and historical.  The Norse god is mythology.  It's written as myths.  Can I help it if you're wrong?


----------



## james bond

ChemEngineer said:


> Fermi's Paradox is amusing but hardly convincing to ET's devotees, such as Drake himself, who assures all that his big number multiplication will some day be verified, if you just give more money to SETI.



Fermi's Paradox is right.  It's back of the envelope calculations, but they should have found us or we found them during Fermi's time.  Instead, the atheist scientists found the fine tuning parameters when trying to explain the Big Bang.  It works against evolution, so they have hidden it and only the creation scientists talk about it.

As for money, it's a total waste.   Stephen Hawking and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner who put up $100 million have been searching for almost five years now.  Hawking is dead.  Sagan is dead.  All of the scientists who believed in finding aliens are dead.  Milner will give up in 2025 as it will be a waste of money as SETI has been doing it for sixty five years now with absolutely no sign of aliens.  Seventy years of looking means no aliens.

What is more interesting is whether we can live on another planet.  This may not be possible as Earth looks to be the most habitable planet and there are no other.


----------



## the other mike

Watch Brian Green blow Joe's mind in less than 15 minutes.

About big bangs....


----------



## james bond

Angelo said:


> Watch Brian Green blow Joe's mind in less than 15 minutes.
> 
> About big bangs....



Human opinion or assertions.  How could he know?  He wasn't there.  Like most evolutionary thinkers, he's already assuming the big bang, so he already has been given the big part.  You got tricked again, Angelo.

Furthermore, there was a beginning to the void of no space and time.


----------



## Flash

james bond said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fermi's Paradox is amusing but hardly convincing to ET's devotees, such as Drake himself, who assures all that his big number multiplication will some day be verified, if you just give more money to SETI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fermi's Paradox is right.  It's back of the envelope calculations, but they should have found us or we found them during Fermi's time.  Instead, the atheist scientists found the fine tuning parameters when trying to explain the Big Bang.  It works against evolution, so they have hidden it and only the creation scientists talk about it.
> 
> As for money, it's a total waste.   Stephen Hawking and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner who put up $100 million have been searching for almost five years now.  Hawking is dead.  Sagan is dead.  All of the scientists who believed in finding aliens are dead.  Milner will give up in 2025 as it will be a waste of money as SETI has been doing it for sixty five years now with absolutely no sign of aliens.  Seventy years of looking means no aliens.
> 
> What is more interesting is whether we can live on another planet.  This may not be possible as Earth looks to be the most habitable planet and there are no other.
Click to expand...


Good post.

If there is a finite universe there will be unique things.

It may be that life on earth is unique to the universe.

As far as humans finding life elsewhere.  If we get to Mars and find evidence of primordial microbial life that will probably be as good as it gets.  

Unless there is some technological breakthrough that we haven't discovered yet we are never leaving this solar system.  The universe is too big, humans are so small and the distances too great.  

Even if we could travel the speed of light we are talking years, decades and centuries to just travel around our immediate galactic neighborhood.  

Humans are technologically advancing now but it won't last forever.  There will probably be some event in the future that will set humans back considerably, possibly even making us go extinct like thousands of other species.

Ten thousands year from now there will be no star trekking across the universe like we have been brainwashed by Science Fiction to believe.  Humans, if there are any, could be hunters and gathers or substance farmers instead of galactic explorers.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is non-fiction and historical.  The Norse god is mythology.  It's written as myths.  Can I help it if you're wrong?
Click to expand...

The Bible is a fairy tale.  It's obvious fiction.  It has a few historical facts in it, but so what?  So does every novel by James Michener.


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I think not. The ovoid shape is much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just realized it also rolls in a circle
> -
Click to expand...

Brilliant observation.  It won't roll away.  That never occurred to me.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is non-fiction and historical.  The Norse god is mythology.  It's written as myths.  Can I help it if you're wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale.  It's obvious fiction.  It has a few historical facts in it, but so what?  So does every novel by James Michener.
Click to expand...


How can it be a fairy tale when we are here and Earth is the perfect place for life; it's unfortunate we have death due to Adam's sin.  Furthermore, you will die due to our flesh and blood system.  This is what we inherited due to the sin.  Only Jesus was able to avoid because he took Adam's place as the perfect human being and be sacrificed.  It wasn't enough for a regular human to be sacrificed, but a perfect one with no sin.

If you do not die of accident, disease, virus, or while young due to ill health and make it to ripe old age, then you'll still die of the flesh and blood -- either cancer, heart attack, or stroke.  This is more evidence that it isn't a fairy tale.

The _fairy tale_ is ToE, evolutionary thinking and history.


----------



## Vastator

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is non-fiction and historical.  The Norse god is mythology.  It's written as myths.  Can I help it if you're wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale.  It's obvious fiction.  It has a few historical facts in it, but so what?  So does every novel by James Michener.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it be a fairy tale when we are here and Earth is the perfect place for life; it's unfortunate we have death due to Adam's sin.  Furthermore, you will die due to our flesh and blood system.  This is what we inherited due to the sin.  Only Jesus was able to avoid because he took Adam's place as the perfect human being and be sacrificed.  It wasn't enough for a regular human to be sacrificed, but a perfect one with no sin.
> 
> If you do not die of accident, disease, virus, or while young due to ill health and make it to ripe old age, then you'll still die of the flesh and blood -- either cancer, heart attack, or stroke.  This is more evidence that it isn't a fairy tale.
> 
> The _fairy tale_ is ToE, evolutionary thinking and history.
Click to expand...

Youre insane


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is non-fiction and historical.  The Norse god is mythology.  It's written as myths.  Can I help it if you're wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale.  It's obvious fiction.  It has a few historical facts in it, but so what?  So does every novel by James Michener.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it be a fairy tale when we are here and Earth is the perfect place for life; it's unfortunate we have death due to Adam's sin.  Furthermore, you will die due to our flesh and blood system.  This is what we inherited due to the sin.  Only Jesus was able to avoid because he took Adam's place as the perfect human being and be sacrificed.  It wasn't enough for a regular human to be sacrificed, but a perfect one with no sin.
> 
> If you do not die of accident, disease, virus, or while young due to ill health and make it to ripe old age, then you'll still die of the flesh and blood -- either cancer, heart attack, or stroke.  This is more evidence that it isn't a fairy tale.
> 
> The _fairy tale_ is ToE, evolutionary thinking and history.
Click to expand...

That's all bullshit - claims with no reasonable basis of support.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is non-fiction and historical.  The Norse god is mythology.  It's written as myths.  Can I help it if you're wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale.  It's obvious fiction.  It has a few historical facts in it, but so what?  So does every novel by James Michener.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it be a fairy tale when we are here and Earth is the perfect place for life; it's unfortunate we have death due to Adam's sin.  Furthermore, you will die due to our flesh and blood system.  This is what we inherited due to the sin.  Only Jesus was able to avoid because he took Adam's place as the perfect human being and be sacrificed.  It wasn't enough for a regular human to be sacrificed, but a perfect one with no sin.
> 
> If you do not die of accident, disease, virus, or while young due to ill health and make it to ripe old age, then you'll still die of the flesh and blood -- either cancer, heart attack, or stroke.  This is more evidence that it isn't a fairy tale.
> 
> The _fairy tale_ is ToE, evolutionary thinking and history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all bullshit - claims with no reasonable basis of support.
Click to expand...


It's all true.  For one, if we all live to old age, then we'll die of cancer, heart attack, or stroke.  All related to the blood.


----------



## james bond

Vastator said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale and God is a mythical creature.  Why would God have a penis?  Have you ever wondered that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is non-fiction and historical.  The Norse god is mythology.  It's written as myths.  Can I help it if you're wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible is a fairy tale.  It's obvious fiction.  It has a few historical facts in it, but so what?  So does every novel by James Michener.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it be a fairy tale when we are here and Earth is the perfect place for life; it's unfortunate we have death due to Adam's sin.  Furthermore, you will die due to our flesh and blood system.  This is what we inherited due to the sin.  Only Jesus was able to avoid because he took Adam's place as the perfect human being and be sacrificed.  It wasn't enough for a regular human to be sacrificed, but a perfect one with no sin.
> 
> If you do not die of accident, disease, virus, or while young due to ill health and make it to ripe old age, then you'll still die of the flesh and blood -- either cancer, heart attack, or stroke.  This is more evidence that it isn't a fairy tale.
> 
> The _fairy tale_ is ToE, evolutionary thinking and history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre insane
Click to expand...


You're the one who's _insane_ if you believe in ToE, evolutionary thinking and history.  The only thing is true is natural selection which creation scientists discovered under Alfred Russell Wallace.  OTOH, Darwin led to social Darwinism, eugenics, genocide, Hitler, and the Holocaust (killing of Jews or who Jesus is to save).  We still have genocide to this day through Planned Parenthood.  They're definitely not in white neighborhoods.  I can prove you're insane if you believe in abiogenesis or Multiverses.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> What is more interesting is whether we can live on another planet.  This may not be possible as _*Earth looks to be the most habitable planet*_ and there are no other.




I say the ONLY habitable planet.  No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.  Why do we need anybody else?  We're entirely self sufficient here and have been for thousands of years.  Humans probably will not have that much longer until the Second Coming, as prophesied in the Holy Bible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is more interesting is whether we can live on another planet.  This may not be possible as _*Earth looks to be the most habitable planet*_ and there are no other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say the ONLY habitable planet.  No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.  Why do we need anybody else?  We're entirely self sufficient here and have been for thousands of years.  Humans probably will not have that much longer until the Second Coming, as prophesied in the Holy Bible.
Click to expand...


*No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*

None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?



Don't you know?  It's real science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
Click to expand...


No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.


----------



## ChemEngineer

We’re only now beginning to appreciate how much our Solar System’s configuration is not only rare but also surprisingly crucial for life and scientific discovery.  It has indeed been a perspicacious teacher.

… a finely tuned and interdependent system…. _*The Privileged Planet*_ by Gonzalez and Richards, page 116


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> We’re only now beginning to appreciate how much our Solar System’s configuration is not only rare but also surprisingly crucial for life and scientific discovery.  It has indeed been a perspicacious teacher.
> 
> … a finely tuned and interdependent system…. _*The Privileged Planet*_ by Gonzalez and Richards, page 116



* our Solar System’s configuration is not only rare *

How rare?
1 in 100?
1 in 1,000?
1 in 1,000,000?
1 in 1,000,000,000?

Show your work.


----------



## ChemEngineer

One fool may ask more questions than seven wise men can answer. - Italian Proverb

Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him. - The Holy Bible

A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
Click to expand...


You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.


It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.

Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Electrons are particles but they are also waves.  How can this be? 
It is counterintuitive.  Reality is like that sometimes.  Those who profess to be extremely intelligent (the Left exhaustively so) are often lacking in common sense and wisdom. Yet they cluck on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> One fool may ask more questions than seven wise men can answer. - Italian Proverb
> 
> Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him. - The Holy Bible
> 
> A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb



And let's not get started on fools who make scientific claims with ZERO evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
Click to expand...


*It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*

Yes, an interesting idea...….

_*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._

_Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._

If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.


----------



## 22lcidw

I don't know if there is life on any other planets but if there is a solar system with two life based planets and roughly the same technology as each other and the ability to get to each planet, then they most likely have had wars.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*
> 
> Yes, an interesting idea...….
> 
> _*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._
> 
> _Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
Click to expand...


The Anthropic Principle is not cosmology, but law.  Real science backs it up by the fine tuning facts. This means the Earth is the only place with life.  The solar winds are just too harsh for life to live on other planets.  We'll have to see if humans can colonize the moon of if it will cut life short.

It's not like the Copernican Principle which is cosmology and not backed up by science.  Anyway, the new double slit experiment with photons showed the multiverse is pseudoscience.  Even it's chief proponent, Stephen Hawking, died not being able to produce the evidence.  Thus, I think the only thing the atheist scientists have left is string theory and ten or eleven dimensions.  Good luck with that BS .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*
> 
> Yes, an interesting idea...….
> 
> _*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._
> 
> _Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Anthropic Principle is not cosmology, but law.  Real science backs it up by the fine tuning facts. This means the Earth is the only place with life.  The solar winds are just too harsh for life to live on other planets.  We'll have to see if humans can colonize the moon of if it will cut life short.
> 
> It's not like the Copernican Principle which is cosmology and not backed up by science.  Anyway, the new double slit experiment with photons showed the multiverse is pseudoscience.  Even it's chief proponent, Stephen Hawking, died not being able to produce the evidence.  Thus, I think the only thing the atheist scientists have left is string theory and ten or eleven dimensions.  Good luck with that BS .
Click to expand...

There is no "real science" that backs up any so-called fine tuning. That's nothng more than an appeal to religious dogma with no support among the relevant science community.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were *slightly* altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._



Speak for yourself. I understand the significance, and so do many others who do not have an atheist water bucket to carry.
"Slightly" is a grotesque understatement.  There are at least 40 such constants and to point out the precision of just ONE of them, gravity is precise within 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power, according to one cosmologist.

1 in 10 to the 50th is impossible.



> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.



What a convincing argument THAT is.  No, really.

Join others like yourself on my Ignore List.  I can't bear any more of your clucking.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*
> 
> Yes, an interesting idea...….
> 
> _*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._
> 
> _Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Anthropic Principle is not cosmology, but law.  Real science backs it up by the fine tuning facts. This means the Earth is the only place with life.  The solar winds are just too harsh for life to live on other planets.  We'll have to see if humans can colonize the moon of if it will cut life short.
> 
> It's not like the Copernican Principle which is cosmology and not backed up by science.  Anyway, the new double slit experiment with photons showed the multiverse is pseudoscience.  Even it's chief proponent, Stephen Hawking, died not being able to produce the evidence.  Thus, I think the only thing the atheist scientists have left is string theory and ten or eleven dimensions.  Good luck with that BS .
Click to expand...


*The Anthropic Principle is not cosmology, but law.*

Cool. Post the part that shows we're the only planet with life.

*Real science backs it up by the fine tuning facts. This means the Earth is the only place with life. *

Just because the Universe "works" for life, isn't proof we're the only planet with life.

*The solar winds are just too harsh for life to live on other planets. *

The solar wind from every other star is too harsh? Link?

*Anyway, the new double slit experiment with photons showed the multiverse is pseudoscience. *

It does? Link?
And so what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ChemEngineer said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were *slightly* altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself. I understand the significance, and so do many others who do not have an atheist water bucket to carry.
> "Slightly" is a grotesque understatement.  There are at least 40 such constants and to point out the precision of just ONE of them, gravity is precise within 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power, according to one cosmologist.
> 
> 1 in 10 to the 50th is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a convincing argument THAT is.  No, really.
> 
> Join others like yourself on my Ignore List.  I can't bear any more of your clucking.
Click to expand...


*There are at least 40 such constants and to point out the precision of just ONE of them, gravity is precise within 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power, *

You have proof that if gravity were a tiny bit stronger or a tiny bit weaker, life would be impossible?
Sweet!!
Post it up before you run away.

*What a convincing argument THAT is. No, really.*

Fuck off ya whiney twat.
You keep making claims that have no backing.
Post some evidence....or run away. Pussy.


----------



## FA_Q2

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We’re only now beginning to appreciate how much our Solar System’s configuration is not only rare but also surprisingly crucial for life and scientific discovery.  It has indeed been a perspicacious teacher.
> 
> … a finely tuned and interdependent system…. _*The Privileged Planet*_ by Gonzalez and Richards, page 116
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * our Solar System’s configuration is not only rare *
> 
> How rare?
> 1 in 100?
> 1 in 1,000?
> 1 in 1,000,000?
> 1 in 1,000,000,000?
> 
> Show your work.
Click to expand...

1 in 8

And somehow so many seem to think they can extrapolate that to trillions that are simply within the observable locality let alone what may lie beyond that.


luchitociencia said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things.*
> 
> They lied about detecting those molecules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But are also found in organic matter without life. Duuuhhhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh*
> 
> I agree. What does that have to do with your "collision causes light" claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, not all particles collisions cause light. Comprende?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes.*
> 
> You don't know much about the science of black holes.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, I dance the Macarena over that fantasy of black holes.
> 
> The science I study, the new scientific discoveries I have made, and the whole discussions I am into, the whole are based solely in real physical evidence.
> 
> On your side you are defending superfluous imaginations invented by several dudes who never understood reality.
Click to expand...

The truly ironic part of this post is that it is typed on a machine that fundamentally REQUIRES the functions of quantum mechanics to work and sent over a system that MUST make calculations in relativity to even work.

You are surrounded by real physical proof of those concepts you want to belittle.


----------



## FA_Q2

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*
> 
> Yes, an interesting idea...….
> 
> _*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._
> 
> _Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
Click to expand...

It is also a massive asinine assertion to make that the universe - at 13 billion years old - is somehow fine tuned for US even though we appeared very recently.

The reality is, of course, that WE are fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around, for the simple fact that if we were not then whatever evolution fine tuned to the universe would be making the exact same statement in our place.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*
> 
> Yes, an interesting idea...….
> 
> _*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._
> 
> _Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is also a massive asinine assertion to make that the universe - at 13 billion years old - is somehow fine tuned for US even though we appeared very recently.
> 
> The reality is, of course, that WE are fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around, for the simple fact that if we were not then whatever evolution fine tuned to the universe would be making the exact same statement in our place.
Click to expand...

Such a simple, obvious concept is very difficult - if not impossible - for these religious folks to grasp. Remember, they START from the assertion that they are god's special creatures and that all of this exists for them.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*
> 
> Yes, an interesting idea...….
> 
> _*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._
> 
> _Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Anthropic Principle is not cosmology, but law.  Real science backs it up by the fine tuning facts. This means the Earth is the only place with life.  The solar winds are just too harsh for life to live on other planets.  We'll have to see if humans can colonize the moon of if it will cut life short.
> 
> It's not like the Copernican Principle which is cosmology and not backed up by science.  Anyway, the new double slit experiment with photons showed the multiverse is pseudoscience.  Even it's chief proponent, Stephen Hawking, died not being able to produce the evidence.  Thus, I think the only thing the atheist scientists have left is string theory and ten or eleven dimensions.  Good luck with that BS .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "real science" that backs up any so-called fine tuning. That's nothng more than an appeal to religious dogma with no support among the relevant science community.
Click to expand...



You must be confused as this is the science forum.  Don't you belong in religion forum?  It's real because the Anthropic Principle is _law_.  Why can't you just accept no aliens?  Furthermore, I provided the other evidence like Fermi's Paradox, Drake Equation, the great filter, SETI, and more.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It does? Link?
> And so what?



I've answered in post #1592.  What do you have for evidence for aliens?

You got squat.

Anyway, what's wrong with no aliens?  Just appreciate life right here and just think we'll be the aliens once we try to live on the moon or Mars.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*
> 
> Yes, an interesting idea...….
> 
> _*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._
> 
> _Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Anthropic Principle is not cosmology, but law.  Real science backs it up by the fine tuning facts. This means the Earth is the only place with life.  The solar winds are just too harsh for life to live on other planets.  We'll have to see if humans can colonize the moon of if it will cut life short.
> 
> It's not like the Copernican Principle which is cosmology and not backed up by science.  Anyway, the new double slit experiment with photons showed the multiverse is pseudoscience.  Even it's chief proponent, Stephen Hawking, died not being able to produce the evidence.  Thus, I think the only thing the atheist scientists have left is string theory and ten or eleven dimensions.  Good luck with that BS .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "real science" that backs up any so-called fine tuning. That's nothng more than an appeal to religious dogma with no support among the relevant science community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confused as this is the science forum.  Don't you belong in religion forum?  It's real because the Anthropic Principle is _law_.  Why can't you just accept no aliens?  Furthermore, I provided the other evidence like Fermi's Paradox, Drake Equation, the great filter, SETI, and more.
Click to expand...


*It's real because the Anthropic Principle is law.  *

It really isn't.

*Fermi's Paradox*

That's not proof there is no life elsewhere.

*Drake Equation*

Neither is this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does? Link?
> And so what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've answered in post #1592.  What do you have for evidence for aliens?
> 
> You got squat.
> 
> Anyway, what's wrong with no aliens?  Just appreciate life right here and just think we'll be the aliens once we try to live on the moon or Mars.
Click to expand...


*What do you have for evidence for aliens?*

I don't have any.

*Anyway, what's wrong with no aliens? *

Nothing. Just waiting for your proof of their non-existence.


----------



## the other mike

james bond said:


> Human opinion or assertions.  *How could he know?*  He wasn't there.  Like most evolutionary thinkers, he's already assuming the big bang, so he already has been given the big part.  You got tricked again, Angelo.
> 
> Furthermore,* there was a beginning to the void of no space and time*.


How do you know ?

First you criticize him and me  for discussing something we can't prove, and then you turn around and claim something you can't prove. You don't see any slight hypocrisy there ?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.*
> 
> Yes, an interesting idea...….
> 
> _*Anthropic principle*, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life._
> 
> _Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist. Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron. The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood. What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe._
> 
> If you think this principle means that the Earth is the only planet, out of trillions, with life, you're even dumber than you first appeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Anthropic Principle is not cosmology, but law.  Real science backs it up by the fine tuning facts. This means the Earth is the only place with life.  The solar winds are just too harsh for life to live on other planets.  We'll have to see if humans can colonize the moon of if it will cut life short.
> 
> It's not like the Copernican Principle which is cosmology and not backed up by science.  Anyway, the new double slit experiment with photons showed the multiverse is pseudoscience.  Even it's chief proponent, Stephen Hawking, died not being able to produce the evidence.  Thus, I think the only thing the atheist scientists have left is string theory and ten or eleven dimensions.  Good luck with that BS .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "real science" that backs up any so-called fine tuning. That's nothng more than an appeal to religious dogma with no support among the relevant science community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confused as this is the science forum.  Don't you belong in religion forum?  It's real because the Anthropic Principle is _law_.  Why can't you just accept no aliens?  Furthermore, I provided the other evidence like Fermi's Paradox, Drake Equation, the great filter, SETI, and more.
Click to expand...


That you’re reduced to cutting and pasting cartoons is pretty typical. You must be confused that something you call “fine tuning” somehow proves your gods. That’s false. Nothing about the Anthropic Principle proves fine tuning.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Obviously we're not alone. To think otherwise is just silly imo.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It's real because the Anthropic Principle is law.  *
> 
> It really isn't.
> 
> *Fermi's Paradox*
> 
> That's not proof there is no life elsewhere.
> 
> *Drake Equation*
> 
> Neither is this.



Again, you are borinary because you have no sources to back your _opinions_ up. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What do you have for evidence for aliens?*
> 
> I don't have any.
> 
> *Anyway, what's wrong with no aliens? *
> 
> Nothing. Just waiting for your proof of their non-existence.



At least you admit there's nothing wrong with _no aliens_ and that creation scientists are right again .


----------



## james bond

Angelo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human opinion or assertions.  *How could he know?*  He wasn't there.  Like most evolutionary thinkers, he's already assuming the big bang, so he already has been given the big part.  You got tricked again, Angelo.
> 
> Furthermore,* there was a beginning to the void of no space and time*.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know ?
> 
> First you criticize him and me  for discussing something we can't prove, and then you turn around and claim something you can't prove. You don't see any slight hypocrisy there ?
Click to expand...


C'mon this is so basic even for you -- CMB.


----------



## james bond

Grampa Murked U said:


> Obviously we're not alone. To think otherwise is just silly imo.



This is just assertion, Grampa Murked U.  You can go back to sleep now.


----------



## the other mike

james bond said:


> C'mon this is so basic even for you -- CMB.


Whatever you say Einstein. 
I think you're a closet Scientologist who 
won't or can't admit it. Your goal online is to spread misinformation and add to the clutter of bullshit people need to wade through to find the truth.

No offense.


----------



## the other mike




----------



## the other mike

There is no possible way there are no other life forms in space.
We as a planet are less than a grain of sand on Jupiter comparing our significance in the _known_ universe.


----------



## the other mike




----------



## Grumblenuts

Angelo said:


>


Speaking of adding "to the clutter of bullshit people need to wade through to find the truth."
Meaning Sean, not Joe. "That's what I'm here to do, y'know.? An electron. Take an electron."
Yes, Sean. Please. Pretend I'm from Missouri.. Truth is what now? No one's ever seen or touched one?  No one ever will? That in reality "electrons" sadly remain placeholders? Mathematical constructs? Abstractions that mainly serve to distract everyone from doing the research needed to, finally, mercifully, put the Bohr (solar system) atom model to rest and, actually, fully engage with, move on to, scientifically explore, what really goes on. In other words, get back to genuinely studying "electrical science."  Y'know? That inconvenient mountain of work deliberately misinterpreted and glossed over a full century ago in favor of this "space time" silliness and these egotistical "quantum physics" fantasies. 

"But the weird thing about quantum mechanics is that there's a whole, separate set of rules for what happens when you look at the thing."

Yes, obviously, predictably,.. not "weird"ly at all actually. Knock knock, McFly. Here's the really "weird" thing. No one's ever seen one. 

How about, before going off half-cocked... for once,.. pay Occam's Razor attention to THAT sort of "rule"? One can't "look at" an ideological abstraction. It ceases being an abstraction the moment one actually can. All that convenient fog blows away.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uh... wat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's real because the Anthropic Principle is law.  *
> 
> It really isn't.
> 
> *Fermi's Paradox*
> 
> That's not proof there is no life elsewhere.
> 
> *Drake Equation*
> 
> Neither is this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are borinary because you have no sources to back your _opinions_ up.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What do you have for evidence for aliens?*
> 
> I don't have any.
> 
> *Anyway, what's wrong with no aliens? *
> 
> Nothing. Just waiting for your proof of their non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you admit there's nothing wrong with _no aliens_ and that creation scientists are right again .
Click to expand...


Your opinion was that the Anthropic Principle is law. And that somehow, that means Earth is 
the only planet with life.  Just silly.

Creation scientists?

Wow, nice oxymoron.


----------



## james bond

Angelo said:


> I think you're a closet Scientologist who
> won't or can't admit it.



What is a Scientologist?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh... wat?


No worries. Simply over your head.


----------



## james bond

So far, creationists 1, atheists 0.  There are no aliens and there will never be any aliens unless we find we can live on the moon or Mars.  It's not important to the opposition of creationists, so why do so many people care as this thread has gone at least 81 pages so far?

Be happy, don't worry.  No aliens.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grumblenuts said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. Simply over your head.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I seriously doubt that, professor. Your post reads like you cut up an article and randomly rearranged it.


----------



## james bond

SETI has tool problems, do you?

SETI and other alien-hunting strategies are dealing with new tools — and new troubles

As a no aliens advocate, I don't.  Over seventy years of fail, so the creationists can wait until 2025 when the money runs out and still zero aliens.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. Simply over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I seriously doubt that, professor. Your post reads like you cut up an article and randomly rearranged it.
Click to expand...

You’re such a crybaby.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. Simply over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I seriously doubt that, professor. Your post reads like you cut up an article and randomly rearranged it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re such a crybaby.
Click to expand...

Neat! Clearly, then, you can make sense of his post for us, professor. 

And, go!


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. Simply over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I seriously doubt that, professor. Your post reads like you cut up an article and randomly rearranged it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re such a crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat! Clearly, then, you can make sense of his post for us, professor.
> 
> And, go!
Click to expand...

Are you in the fetal position?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. Simply over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I seriously doubt that, professor. Your post reads like you cut up an article and randomly rearranged it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re such a crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat! Clearly, then, you can make sense of his post for us, professor.
> 
> And, go!
Click to expand...

Start with admitting no one's ever "seen" or been able to "look at" an electron. Go!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. Simply over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I seriously doubt that, professor. Your post reads like you cut up an article and randomly rearranged it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re such a crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat! Clearly, then, you can make sense of his post for us, professor.
> 
> And, go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you in the fetal position?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I thought. You are out of your depth in the science section, bro.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I must admit the parallel is interesting. No one provably being able to see electrons vs. aliens. Coincidence proves nothing though.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. Simply over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I seriously doubt that, professor. Your post reads like you cut up an article and randomly rearranged it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re such a crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat! Clearly, then, you can make sense of his post for us, professor.
> 
> And, go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you in the fetal position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's what I thought. You are out of your depth in the science section, bro.
Click to expand...

There you go crying again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Welp, it looks like I broke Unkotare .


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Welp, it looks like I broke Unkotare .


Stop crying, sissy.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh... wat?


He has not seen an electron therefore it does not exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> He has not seen an electron therefore it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Ha, okay. We all await his superior model.


----------



## Grumblenuts

FA_Q2 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> He has not seen an electron therefore it does not exist.
Click to expand...

It dreams up straw therefore it posts.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... wat?
> 
> 
> 
> He has not seen an electron therefore it does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha, okay. We all await his superior model.
Click to expand...

Might be even one up from declaring that the milky way is the center of the universe.


----------



## Grumblenuts

_Hello, hello, hello, how low
Hello, hello, hello, how low
Hello, hello, hello, how low
Hello, hello, hello
With the lights out, it's less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us_


----------



## Grumblenuts

shockedcanadian said:


> It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


Probability, being a powerful feature of nature (not a bug),.. testable odds describe reality better than any dichotomy. Science rules.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Life on earth is utterly beyond the pale of possible explanation by any naturalistic means.

Humans alone have ~5,000 proteins, ranging from a few hundred amino acids in length to titin, 33,450 amino acids in length.

NOBODY has ever nor will ever explain how the smallest one of say 300 amino acids long was formed by adding 1 out of a possible 20 amino acids in succession, or in other words 1/20 to the 300th power.  That's impossible and what does it say about repeating the process with ever greater exponents, five thousand times?  It's impossible.  _*We're ONLY here because Nature's God put us here.*_

"IN GO WE TRUST"

Class is over.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Given favorable conditions and millions of years with seemingly nothing better to do.. Probability dictates the following quite naturally developing..


----------



## james bond

Second _interstellar_ comet examined.  No signs of aliens .

"Our solar system's second known interstellar visitor appears to be keeping quiet, just like the first.

The Breakthrough Listen SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project has scanned the interstellar Comet Borisov for "technosignatures" but come up empty so far, scientists announced today (Feb. 14).

'Oumuamua, the first confirmed interstellar object ever spotted in our solar system. The null results may be disappointing to alien enthusiasts out there, but they're valuable all the same, project team members said."

SETI search of interstellar Comet Borisov finds no sign of alien 'technosignatures' | Space


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeed, tumbling regularly while outgassing material is the smart way to stay relatively clean and well ahead of the constipated masses.


----------



## watchingfromafar

james bond said:


> I was able to compare what the Bible said and what evolution said and I thought the Bible was the real science. Science backs it up.



James, we agree on something-- while the adds of this were 1/100,0000,000
go figure -


----------



## watchingfromafar

james bond said:


> The Breakthrough Listen SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project has scanned the interstellar Comet Borisov for "technosignatures" but come up empty so far, scientists announced today



our communication skills are a bit naive. It's like trying to talk to a flock of birds only in this case we be da birds
-


----------



## james bond

Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.


----------



## james bond

watchingfromafar said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was able to compare what the Bible said and what evolution said and I thought the Bible was the real science. Science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James, we agree on something-- while the adds of this were 1/100,0000,000
> go figure -
Click to expand...


I believe in...







the Bible, and Jesus didn't die for aliens.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.



*Creation scientists say*

Meh.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation scientists say*
> 
> Meh.
Click to expand...


Who is right tho?  You just need to and stop believing in evolutionary fairy tales.  Better to spend money on lessening air and water poullution, i.e. making the Earth better.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation scientists say*
> 
> Meh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is right tho?  You just need to and stop believing in evolutionary fairy tales.  Better to spend money on lessening air and water poullution, i.e. making the Earth better.
Click to expand...


*Who is right tho?*

Not a "scientist" who gets his facts from a creation story.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation scientists say*
> 
> Meh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is right tho?  You just need to and stop believing in evolutionary fairy tales.  Better to spend money on lessening air and water poullution, i.e. making the Earth better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Who is right tho?*
> 
> Not a "scientist" who gets his facts from a creation story.
Click to expand...


That's why I say atheists are usually wrong.  It's not a _story_, but what actually happened in history.  However, aside from the Bible we do not have any witnesses there, except God, so it's the Bible theory.  If the facts fit, then it becomes a best theory.  However, God's nemesis Satan made up the lie of evolution through the Antibible that most of the people believe.  You believe in the Antibible theory which you call evolution theory.  The facts do not fit it as there are no aliens.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation scientists say*
> 
> Meh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is right tho?  You just need to and stop believing in evolutionary fairy tales.  Better to spend money on lessening air and water poullution, i.e. making the Earth better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Who is right tho?*
> 
> Not a "scientist" who gets his facts from a creation story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I say atheists are usually wrong.  It's not a _story_, but what actually happened in history.  However, aside from the Bible we do not have any witnesses there, except God, so it's the Bible theory.  If the facts fit, then it becomes a best theory.  However, God's nemesis Satan made up the lie of evolution through the Antibible that most of the people believe.  You believe in the Antibible theory which you call evolution theory.  The facts do not fit it as there are no aliens.
Click to expand...


*It's not a story, but what actually happened in history.  *

And where in the story, or in anything discovered by a "Creation scientist", did it mention the strength of the solar wind preventing life anywhere else in the Universe?

*The facts do not fit it as there are no aliens.*

How many planets did you look at to make this claim?
Can you post your list?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Creation scientists say*
> 
> Meh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is right tho?  You just need to and stop believing in evolutionary fairy tales.  Better to spend money on lessening air and water poullution, i.e. making the Earth better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Who is right tho?*
> 
> Not a "scientist" who gets his facts from a creation story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I say atheists are usually wrong.  It's not a _story_, but what actually happened in history.  However, aside from the Bible we do not have any witnesses there, except God, so it's the Bible theory.  If the facts fit, then it becomes a best theory.  However, God's nemesis Satan made up the lie of evolution through the Antibible that most of the people believe.  You believe in the Antibible theory which you call evolution theory.  The facts do not fit it as there are no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It's not a story, but what actually happened in history.  *
> 
> And where in the story, or in anything discovered by a "Creation scientist", did it mention the strength of the solar wind preventing life anywhere else in the Universe?
> 
> *The facts do not fit it as there are no aliens.*
> 
> How many planets did you look at to make this claim?
> Can you post your list?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.


"Creation scientists" aka religious hacks say many things that are false and groundless.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was able to compare what the Bible said and what evolution said and I thought the Bible was the real science. Science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James, we agree on something-- while the adds of this were 1/100,0000,000
> go figure -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Bible, and Jesus didn't die for aliens.
Click to expand...


Just another cult.


----------



## bripat9643

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is more interesting is whether we can live on another planet.  This may not be possible as _*Earth looks to be the most habitable planet*_ and there are no other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say the ONLY habitable planet.  No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.  Why do we need anybody else?  We're entirely self sufficient here and have been for thousands of years.  Humans probably will not have that much longer until the Second Coming, as prophesied in the Holy Bible.
Click to expand...

Obvious horseshit.  There are billions of such planets.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
Click to expand...

How do you know that?


----------



## bripat9643

ChemEngineer said:


> Life on earth is utterly beyond the pale of possible explanation by any naturalistic means.
> 
> Humans alone have ~5,000 proteins, ranging from a few hundred amino acids in length to titin, 33,450 amino acids in length.
> 
> NOBODY has ever nor will ever explain how the smallest one of say 300 amino acids long was formed by adding 1 out of a possible 20 amino acids in succession, or in other words 1/20 to the 300th power.  That's impossible and what does it say about repeating the process with ever greater exponents, five thousand times?  It's impossible.  _*We're ONLY here because Nature's God put us here.*_
> 
> "IN GO WE TRUST"
> 
> Class is over.


It happens every second, so how can it be "impossible?"


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was able to compare what the Bible said and what evolution said and I thought the Bible was the real science. Science backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James, we agree on something-- while the adds of this were 1/100,0000,000
> go figure -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Bible, and Jesus didn't die for aliens.
Click to expand...

The Bible is a fairy tale.  Any claims made based on it are horseshit.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.


No one has made any predictions of any dates.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know that?
Click to expand...


The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying when they explained what they found during investigation of the big bang.  These guys are the only scientists who get the big money grants today.  Afterward, I guess they buried all their _fine tuning_ work because it isn't online anymore.  It also went against evolutionary thinking.  But you don't believe this either.

The mass of the proton and neutron are fine tuned for life

Proton - Windows to the Universe

Stephen Hawking knew this.  He was the one who said this.  Afterward, he and the theoretical physicists went to the _multiverse_ theory which has been disproved now.



bripat9643 said:


> No one has made any predictions of any dates.



Now, who believes in the sky fairy (Satan) tales?  God doesn't live in the sky.  The Bible states Satan and his demons live there in the second heaven.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No other planet has oxygen, carbon and water in abundance, together with the habitable temperatures.*
> 
> None? Out of how many trillions? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you know?  It's real science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how one could factually claim we're the only one out of trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've asked the question before and it has been answered, but you still do not know.
> 
> 
> It's the Anthropic Principle and fine tuning facts.
> 
> Here's something new that I learned from fine tuning.  The protons are 1,836 times larger than electrons.  If they were a little bigger or a little smaller,  the atoms could not form the molecules we need to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying when they explained what they found during investigation of the big bang.  These guys are the only scientists who get the big money grants today.  Afterward, I guess they buried all their _fine tuning_ work because it isn't online anymore.  It also went against evolutionary thinking.  But you don't believe this either.
> 
> The mass of the proton and neutron are fine tuned for life
> 
> Proton - Windows to the Universe
> 
> Stephen Hawking knew this.  He was the one who said this.  Afterward, he and the theoretical physicists went to the multiverse theory which has been disproved now.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creation scientists say that God didn't create aliens on any of the creation days.  They haven't had to spend much money to promote this.  OTOH, NASA says we'll find alien life or evidence of past alien life by 2025 because they have spent a fortune in space exploration, telescopes and other high technology, and probes.  Even dead Hawking and his multimillionaire Russian buddy have set 2025 as the end point for their $100 million spending.  Creation scientists are right.  NASA, dead Hawking, and Russian billionaire Yuri Milner are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has made any predictions of any dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, who believes in the sky fairy (Satan) tales?  God doesn't live in the sky.  The Bible states Satan and his demons live there in the second heaven.
Click to expand...

*The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying*

Can you post any of the science research done by the "creation scientists"?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying*
> 
> Can you post any of the science research done by the "creation scientists"?



Sheesh.  I've posted this many, many, many times, but all you do is ask s----d questions and learn nothing.

Creation scientists - creation.com


----------



## james bond

Bottom line is there are no aliens because the Bible tells us God didn't create any.  If he did, then it would be in the days of creation.  This is what the creation or Bible theory is based on. 

Furthermore, in religious terms, Jesus didn't die for aliens.  He died for us.  All of this is evidence for God, but nothing I say will make you believe.  Only when _every eye will see_ will you believe, but then it will be too late.  Even I didn't know this until last year .  All of the differences between the Bible and Antibible cannot be coincidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying*
> 
> Can you post any of the science research done by the "creation scientists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  I've posted this many, many, many times, but all you do is ask s----d questions and learn nothing.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
Click to expand...


Does any of the "research" at that link prove your claim about planetary orbits?
Or about the solar wind preventing life across the Universe, except on Earth?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying*
> 
> Can you post any of the science research done by the "creation scientists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  I've posted this many, many, many times, but all you do is ask s----d questions and learn nothing.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does any of the "research" at that link prove your claim about planetary orbits?
> Or about the solar wind preventing life across the Universe, except on Earth?
Click to expand...


.  I rest my case.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Bottom line is there are no aliens because the Bible tells us God didn't create any.  If he did, then it would be in the days of creation.  This is what the creation or Bible theory is based on.
> 
> Furthermore, in religious terms, Jesus didn't die for aliens.  He died for us.  All of this is evidence for God, but nothing I say will make you believe.  Only when _every eye will see_ will you believe, but then it will be too late.  Even I didn't know this until last year .  All of the differences between the Bible and Antibible cannot be coincidence.



The mistake made xtian by religious extremists is presuming that their bibles are to be taken as science texts. 

BTW, where in any of the Bibles does it say the gods didn’t create aliens? This looks like another instance of a religious extremist re-writing the Bible.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying*
> 
> Can you post any of the science research done by the "creation scientists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  I've posted this many, many, many times, but all you do is ask s----d questions and learn nothing.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
Click to expand...


What we believe - creation.com


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Bottom line is there are no aliens because the Bible tells us God didn't create any.  If he did, then it would be in the days of creation.  This is what the creation or Bible theory is based on.
> 
> Furthermore, in religious terms, Jesus didn't die for aliens.  He died for us.  All of this is evidence for God, but nothing I say will make you believe.  Only when _every eye will see_ will you believe, but then it will be too late.  Even I didn't know this until last year .  All of the differences between the Bible and Antibible cannot be coincidence.


You can't use the Bible to prove anything.  It's a fairy tale. You also can't claim there aren't any aliens.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying*
> 
> Can you post any of the science research done by the "creation scientists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  I've posted this many, many, many times, but all you do is ask s----d questions and learn nothing.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does any of the "research" at that link prove your claim about planetary orbits?
> Or about the solar wind preventing life across the Universe, except on Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  I rest my case.
Click to expand...

On what, ignorance?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The creation scientists paid attention to what the atheist scientists were saying*
> 
> Can you post any of the science research done by the "creation scientists"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh.  I've posted this many, many, many times, but all you do is ask s----d questions and learn nothing.
> 
> Creation scientists - creation.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does any of the "research" at that link prove your claim about planetary orbits?
> Or about the solar wind preventing life across the Universe, except on Earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  I rest my case.
Click to expand...


I agree, your fact-free "case" needs a looong rest.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is there are no aliens because the Bible tells us God didn't create any.  If he did, then it would be in the days of creation.  This is what the creation or Bible theory is based on.
> 
> Furthermore, in religious terms, Jesus didn't die for aliens.  He died for us.  All of this is evidence for God, but nothing I say will make you believe.  Only when _every eye will see_ will you believe, but then it will be too late.  Even I didn't know this until last year .  All of the differences between the Bible and Antibible cannot be coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake made xtian by religious extremists is presuming that their bibles are to be taken as science texts.
> 
> BTW, where in any of the Bibles does it say the gods didn’t create aliens? This looks like another instance of a religious extremist re-writing the Bible.
Click to expand...








It feels like I've said this to you a million times -- _the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible_.  I've already presented the days of creation as a chart and it feels like I've posted it to you a million times.  Where does it say he created aliens?






Instead of posting -- What we believe - creation.com -- to me, you should have it tattooed all over your body so you can read it every day and not forget.  Or John 3:16 or John 14:6 would suffice.  Or you just accept it as true.  The power of the Holy Father is great.  When the secular science comes from Satan "the god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and is false, then the only real science you can get is from the creation websites.  Good day.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is there are no aliens because the Bible tells us God didn't create any.  If he did, then it would be in the days of creation.  This is what the creation or Bible theory is based on.
> 
> Furthermore, in religious terms, Jesus didn't die for aliens.  He died for us.  All of this is evidence for God, but nothing I say will make you believe.  Only when _every eye will see_ will you believe, but then it will be too late.  Even I didn't know this until last year .  All of the differences between the Bible and Antibible cannot be coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake made xtian by religious extremists is presuming that their bibles are to be taken as science texts.
> 
> BTW, where in any of the Bibles does it say the gods didn’t create aliens? This looks like another instance of a religious extremist re-writing the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like I've said this to you a million times -- _the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible_.  I've already presented the days of creation as a chart and it feels like I've posted it to you a million times.  Where does it say he created aliens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting -- What we believe - creation.com -- to me, you should have it tattooed all over your body so you can read it every day and not forget.  Or John 3:16 or John 14:6 would suffice.  Or you just accept it as true.  The power of the Holy Father is great.  When the secular science comes from Satan "the god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and is false, then the only real science you can get is from the creation websites.  Good day.
Click to expand...

Science definitely does not back up the Bible.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is there are no aliens because the Bible tells us God didn't create any.  If he did, then it would be in the days of creation.  This is what the creation or Bible theory is based on.
> 
> Furthermore, in religious terms, Jesus didn't die for aliens.  He died for us.  All of this is evidence for God, but nothing I say will make you believe.  Only when _every eye will see_ will you believe, but then it will be too late.  Even I didn't know this until last year .  All of the differences between the Bible and Antibible cannot be coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake made xtian by religious extremists is presuming that their bibles are to be taken as science texts.
> 
> BTW, where in any of the Bibles does it say the gods didn’t create aliens? This looks like another instance of a religious extremist re-writing the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like I've said this to you a million times -- _the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible_.  I've already presented the days of creation as a chart and it feels like I've posted it to you a million times.  Where does it say he created aliens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting -- What we believe - creation.com -- to me, you should have it tattooed all over your body so you can read it every day and not forget.  Or John 3:16 or John 14:6 would suffice.  Or you just accept it as true.  The power of the Holy Father is great.  When the secular science comes from Satan "the god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and is false, then the only real science you can get is from the creation websites.  Good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science definitely does not back up the Bible.
Click to expand...


Sure it does.  We've found that there are no aliens.  You just do not and can not accept the evidence due to your beliefs in the_ sky fairy_ whom the Bible points out as Satan.  He is the "prince of the power of the air."  Surely, the atheists all using the term "sky" fairy can't just be a coincidence.  They also use "god" as "god of the world."  That's another name for Satan, too.

The creation scientists didn't make those terms up.  The atheists did it by themselves.  Just like they believe in aliens for no reason.  Just like they believe in evolution for no reason.  Just like you and they believe in no God for no reason.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is there are no aliens because the Bible tells us God didn't create any.  If he did, then it would be in the days of creation.  This is what the creation or Bible theory is based on.
> 
> Furthermore, in religious terms, Jesus didn't die for aliens.  He died for us.  All of this is evidence for God, but nothing I say will make you believe.  Only when _every eye will see_ will you believe, but then it will be too late.  Even I didn't know this until last year .  All of the differences between the Bible and Antibible cannot be coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake made xtian by religious extremists is presuming that their bibles are to be taken as science texts.
> 
> BTW, where in any of the Bibles does it say the gods didn’t create aliens? This looks like another instance of a religious extremist re-writing the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like I've said this to you a million times -- _the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible_.  I've already presented the days of creation as a chart and it feels like I've posted it to you a million times.  Where does it say he created aliens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting -- What we believe - creation.com -- to me, you should have it tattooed all over your body so you can read it every day and not forget.  Or John 3:16 or John 14:6 would suffice.  Or you just accept it as true.  The power of the Holy Father is great.  When the secular science comes from Satan "the god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and is false, then the only real science you can get is from the creation websites.  Good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science definitely does not back up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  We've found that there are no aliens.  You just do not and can not accept the evidence due to your beliefs in the_ sky fairy_ whom the Bible points out as Satan.  He is the "prince of the power of the air."  Surely, the atheists all using the term "sky" fairy can't just be a coincidence.  They also use "god" as "god of the world."  That's another name for Satan, too.
> 
> The creation scientists didn't make those terms up.  The atheists did it by themselves.  Just like they believe in aliens for no reason.  Just like they believe in evolution for no reason.  Just like you and they believe in no God for no reason.
Click to expand...


* We've found that there are no aliens.  *

None in our own solar system?
Within 600 light years? 
10,000 light years?
In the entire Milky Way?

*Just like they believe in evolution for no reason. *

I thought the below was very interesting.
What do you think?

*What has been the most compelling evidence for you personally that has solidified your position as an evolutionary creationist?*

_Well, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not just that a piece here and there fits evolution: it’s the fact that virtually none of the evidence we have suggests anything else. What you see presented as “problems for evolution” by Christian anti-evolutionary groups are typically issues that are taken out of context or (intentionally or not) misrepresented to their non-specialist audiences. For me personally (as a geneticist) comparative genomics (comparing DNA sequences between different species) has really sealed the deal on evolution. Even if Darwin had never lived and no one else had come up with the idea of common ancestry, modern genomics would have forced us to that conclusion even if there was no other evidence available (which of course manifestly isn’t the case)._

_For example, we see the genes for air-based olfaction (smelling) in whales that no longer even have olfactory organs. Humans have the remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk production in our DNA in exactly the place that evolution would predict. Our genome is nearly identical to the chimpanzee genome, a little less identical to the gorilla genome, a little less identical to the orangutan genome, and so on—and this correspondence is present in ways that are not needed for function (such as the location of shared genetic defects, the order of genes on chromosomes, and on and on). If you’re interested in this research, you might find this (again, somewhat technical) lecture I gave a few years ago helpful. You can also see a less technical, but longer version here where I do my best to explain these lines of evidence to members of my church.

Ask an Evolutionary Creationist: A Q&A with Dennis Venema - Articles_


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *We've found that there are no aliens. *
> 
> None in our own solar system?
> Within 600 light years?
> 10,000 light years?
> In the entire Milky Way?



Why don't you just go looking for an invisible God instead of non-existent aliens?  It doesn't cost you anything while a Russian billionaire is losing his $100 million in an unwise investment.  Stephen Hawking died and is suffering now for it.  I doubt God is hiding when the evidence is that he's all around us.  He doesn't like sin, so he isn't here, but he's also here.  It's one of the grand mysteries of life.

However, I doubt my words will get through to you when Jesus' words didn't.  It's interesting to me that you replied as you may be the one who goes looking for aliens.  However, I think it will be boring trying to prove God is wrong.  I think you can do the checklist and then repeat it all over again.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Just like they believe in evolution for no reason. *
> 
> I thought the below was very interesting.
> What do you think?







Satan has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  They end up strolling through the wide gate in life.  What the evolutionary creationist states is evidence to fit the evolution theory and not evidence to make a theory with.  You notice he starts with _common ancestry_ which is part of Darwinism.  He _assumes_ common ancestry and the evidence he finds fits it.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be getting paid.  OTOH, creation scientists didn't assume anything.  We were told by God through his autobiography and then were able to verify.  Just like we were able to verify no aliens with solar winds and fine tuning (abandoned by atheist scientists).  So what does the evidence of genetics and genomes tell creation scientists and me?  It tells us that God reused the same parts.  The basic building blocks were fine and could be used for different groups of animals.  Where the smaller percentage of differences lie makes all the difference in the world.  This man should be looking at molecules instead of comparing human genomes to animal genomes.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is there are no aliens because the Bible tells us God didn't create any.  If he did, then it would be in the days of creation.  This is what the creation or Bible theory is based on.
> 
> Furthermore, in religious terms, Jesus didn't die for aliens.  He died for us.  All of this is evidence for God, but nothing I say will make you believe.  Only when _every eye will see_ will you believe, but then it will be too late.  Even I didn't know this until last year .  All of the differences between the Bible and Antibible cannot be coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake made xtian by religious extremists is presuming that their bibles are to be taken as science texts.
> 
> BTW, where in any of the Bibles does it say the gods didn’t create aliens? This looks like another instance of a religious extremist re-writing the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like I've said this to you a million times -- _the Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible_.  I've already presented the days of creation as a chart and it feels like I've posted it to you a million times.  Where does it say he created aliens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting -- What we believe - creation.com -- to me, you should have it tattooed all over your body so you can read it every day and not forget.  Or John 3:16 or John 14:6 would suffice.  Or you just accept it as true.  The power of the Holy Father is great.  When the secular science comes from Satan "the god of the world and prince of the power of the air" and is false, then the only real science you can get is from the creation websites.  Good day.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Nothing in science “backs up” the absurdities of the bibles. There is nothing in science that supports the notion of a 6,000 year old planet, global floods, men living to be 900 years old and similar outrageous ideas. 

I gave you the link: What we believe - creation.com because you should read it. Like other fundamentalist Christian websites posing as pseudo-science sites, they have a predefined bias in place that excludes them from science and presumes a clearly stated agenda.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We've found that there are no aliens. *
> 
> None in our own solar system?
> Within 600 light years?
> 10,000 light years?
> In the entire Milky Way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just go looking for an invisible God instead of non-existent aliens?  It doesn't cost you anything while a Russian billionaire is losing his $100 million in an unwise investment.  Stephen Hawking died and is suffering now for it.  I doubt God is hiding when the evidence is that he's all around us.  He doesn't like sin, so he isn't here, but he's also here.  It's one of the grand mysteries of life.
> 
> However, I doubt my words will get through to you when Jesus' words didn't.  It's interesting to me that you replied as you may be the one who goes looking for aliens.  However, I think it will be boring trying to prove God is wrong.  I think you can do the checklist and then repeat it all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just like they believe in evolution for no reason. *
> 
> I thought the below was very interesting.
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 309513
> 
> Satan has pulled the wool over many people's eyes.  They end up strolling through the wide gate in life.  What the evolutionary creationist states is evidence to fit the evolution theory and not evidence to make a theory with.  You notice he starts with _common ancestry_ which is part of Darwinism.  He _assumes_ common ancestry and the evidence he finds fits it.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be getting paid.  OTOH, creation scientists didn't assume anything.  We were told by God through his autobiography and then were able to verify.  Just like we were able to verify no aliens with solar winds and fine tuning (abandoned by atheist scientists).  So what does the evidence of genetics and genomes tell creation scientists and me?  It tells us that God reused the same parts.  The basic building blocks were fine and could be used for different groups of animals.  Where the smaller percentage of differences lie makes all the difference in the world.  This man should be looking at molecules instead of comparing human genomes to animal genomes.
Click to expand...


What is “the gods autobiography”? There is no such thing. 

If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. You are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. Like why the stories are so differing in key elements.


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> Science definitely does not back up the Bible.



There is nothing below that contradicts science, the Bible just documents the evolution of this planet on a level people could understand 3,420 years ago. If you were trying to convey an idea to people living 3,420 years ago, what would you say-?

_The Book of Genesis does not state when it was written. The date of authorship is likely between 1440 and 1400 B.C., between the time Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and his death._
Book of Genesis - Bible Survey | GotQuestions.org

*Genesis; The Beginning*

_1 *In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.*
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters
3 *And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.*
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 *God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”* And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And* God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”*
9 And *God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”* And it was so.
10 *God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.”* And God saw that it was good.
11 Then *God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it*, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 *The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.* And God saw that it was good.
16 *God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.* He also made the stars.
20 And *God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”*
21 *So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.*
24 *And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”*
26 Then *God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,* in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 *So God created mankind in his own image, *in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28 *God blessed them and said to them, *“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
31 *God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.*_

I don’t see anything above that contradicts scientific discovery; even the “great flood” has been scientifically proven.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> If you were willing to be objective, you would admit you have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. You are simply accepting they were


The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message. What you get out of it is your own ability to understand its intent.

 For me, I believe the author’s 3,420 years ago did a pretty good job.

Just my opinion

-


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

watchingfromafar said:


> There is nothing below that contradicts science, the Bible just documents the evolution of this planet on a level people could understand 3,420 years ago


In other words, no understanding whatsoever, and it was completely wrong. No, humans were not poofed into existence by magic, using dust. Give me a break.


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science definitely does not back up the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing below that contradicts science, the Bible just documents the evolution of this planet on a level people could understand 3,420 years ago. If you were trying to convey an idea to people living 3,420 years ago, what would you say-?
> 
> _The Book of Genesis does not state when it was written. The date of authorship is likely between 1440 and 1400 B.C., between the time Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and his death._
> Book of Genesis - Bible Survey | GotQuestions.org
> 
> *Genesis; The Beginning*
> 
> _1 *In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.*
> 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters
> 3 *And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.*
> 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
> 5 *God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”* And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> 6 And* God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”*
> 9 And *God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”* And it was so.
> 10 *God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.”* And God saw that it was good.
> 11 Then *God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it*, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
> 12 *The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.* And God saw that it was good.
> 16 *God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.* He also made the stars.
> 20 And *God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”*
> 21 *So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.*
> 24 *And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”*
> 26 Then *God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,* in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
> 27 *So God created mankind in his own image, *in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
> 28 *God blessed them and said to them, *“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
> 31 *God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.*_
> 
> I don’t see anything above that contradicts scientific discovery; even the “great flood” has been scientifically proven.
> -
Click to expand...

It all contradicts science.  Some gaseous vertebrate with a penis did not use magical powers to create the universe and man.  There isn't a shred of scientific evidence for this claim.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Well, no. Nothing in science “backs up” the absurdities of the bibles.



Pick one of the different versions of the Bible and and we can discuss.  I doubt you know anything about creation science despite all this time and all the posts I've made to you.  Not only that you know squat about evolution.  A chimp should do better than you.


----------



## james bond

watchingfromafar said:


> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.



You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
Click to expand...

She does understand the Bible.  You don't.

How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> In other words, no understanding whatsoever, and it was completely wrong. No, humans were not poofed into existence by magic, using dust. Give me a break.



More trolling, so I got one for you.  I bought some Lafayette, IN coffee and it ruined my morning.  It was bitter and even if I doused it with sugar and cream, I could not get rid of the bitterness .  The sweets were fine.  I complained and got a different cup, and while it was better the bitterness was there.  Afterward, I checked the reviews and it wasn't the greatest.

Copper Moon Coffee - Indianapolis, IN

The bitter coffee reminds me of your posts.



 

OTOH, humans were not poofed, but formed into existence by the dirt and God's breath.  The evidence is we return to dirt or dust after we die.  Also, we have the _supernatural of life spirit_ coexisting with the natural.  More evidence, but you believe in the lie of abiogenesis instead of Genesis.  Maybe you should get a year's supply of that coffee from Lafayette.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no. Nothing in science “backs up” the absurdities of the bibles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one of the different versions of the Bible and and we can discuss.  I doubt you know anything about creation science despite all this time and all the posts I've made to you.  Not only that you know squat about evolution.  A chimp should do better than you.
Click to expand...


As it happens so often when religious extremists are held accountable for falsely portraying their religious texts as science texts, they’re reduced to name-calling and emotional outbursts.

ID'iot creationism is not a scientific theory. It us window dressing for fundamentalist religion. There are no peer reviewed investigations proceeding in the area of ID'iot creationism. There have not been and never will be any scientific studies of ID, because it has nothing in it that is scientifically testable. no predictions, no theory, nothing. Do you need confirmation of that? Go ask Paul Nelson, Dembski or Behe or the hacks at creation.com. All they will give you is wishful thinking. They will spout on and on about the different “mechanisms” proposed by ID'iot creationism without actually saying there are any. No, I’m not kidding - go read the Dover transcript and see for yourself. Nelson is on record as agreeing that there is no scientific theory of ID. why do you suppose this is?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, no understanding whatsoever, and it was completely wrong. No, humans were not poofed into existence by magic, using dust. Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More trolling, so I got one for you.  I bought some Lafayette, IN coffee and it ruined my morning.  It was bitter and even if I doused it with sugar and cream, I could not get rid of the bitterness .  The sweets were fine.  I complained and got a different cup, and while it was better the bitterness was there.  Afterward, I checked the reviews and it wasn't the greatest.
> 
> Copper Moon Coffee - Indianapolis, IN
> 
> The bitter coffee reminds me of your posts.
> 
> View attachment 309541
> 
> OTOH, humans were not poofed, but formed into existence by the dirt and God's breath.  The evidence is we return to dirt or dust after we die.  Also, we have the _supernatural of life spirit_ coexisting with the natural.  More evidence, but you believe in the lie of abiogenesis instead of Genesis.  Maybe you should get a year's supply of that coffee from Lafayette.
Click to expand...

Those are hallucinations, not "proof."


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
Click to expand...


Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.  

How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
Click to expand...


*How's looking for aliens working for you?*

Save us all some time and post your proof that they don't exist.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How's looking for aliens working for you?*
> 
> Save us all some time and post your proof that they don't exist.
Click to expand...


You'll be dead, too, and still no aliens .


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
Click to expand...

I don't believe in a flat earth, moron.  As for the rest, when you prove they don't exist, perhaps someone will listen to your screeching.

Now answer the question:  How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How's looking for aliens working for you?*
> 
> Save us all some time and post your proof that they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be dead, too, and still no aliens .
Click to expand...


That still wouldn't prove the Biblical theory of creation is true.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in a flat earth, moron.  As for the rest, when you prove they don't exist, perhaps someone will listen to your screeching.
> 
> Now answer the question:  How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
Click to expand...


You just keep asking idiot questions.  Sure, you're a farking flat Earther.  You're a liberal and atheist and can't help but ask idiot questions and believe and say moronic things that your god and sky fairy commands you to do.  Just look in the mirror.  Look at the stupid face.   Bash your face into the mirror .  The best we can do for you is put you out of misery.  I found one here.  Toss him off the cliff.  Put the flat Earther out of misery.  Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit.



bripat9643 said:


> That still wouldn't prove the Biblical theory of creation is true.




Haha.  The flat Earther still believes in aliens.

Yes, it will flat Earther and aliens believer.  Do you believe in multiverses, too?  You'll just have to wait until the "all eyes will see" day.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in a flat earth, moron.  As for the rest, when you prove they don't exist, perhaps someone will listen to your screeching.
> 
> Now answer the question:  How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep asking idiot questions.  Sure, you're a farking flat Earther.  You're a liberal and atheist and can't help but ask idiot questions and believe and say moronic things that your god and sky fairy commands you to do.  Just look in the mirror.  Look at the stupid face.   Bash your face into the mirror .  The best we can do for you is put you out of misery.  I found one here.  Toss him off the cliff.  Put the flat Earther out of misery.  Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That still wouldn't prove the Biblical theory of creation is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  The flat Earther still believes in aliens.
> 
> Yes, it will flat Earther and aliens believer.  Do you believe in multiverses, too?  You'll just have to wait until the "all eyes will see" day.
Click to expand...


Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.

The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything. 

They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> 
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in a flat earth, moron.  As for the rest, when you prove they don't exist, perhaps someone will listen to your screeching.
> 
> Now answer the question:  How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep asking idiot questions.  Sure, you're a farking flat Earther.  You're a liberal and atheist and can't help but ask idiot questions and believe and say moronic things that your god and sky fairy commands you to do.  Just look in the mirror.  Look at the stupid face.   Bash your face into the mirror .  The best we can do for you is put you out of misery.  I found one here.  Toss him off the cliff.  Put the flat Earther out of misery.  Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That still wouldn't prove the Biblical theory of creation is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  The flat Earther still believes in aliens.
> 
> Yes, it will flat Earther and aliens believer.  Do you believe in multiverses, too?  You'll just have to wait until the "all eyes will see" day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.
> 
> The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything.
> 
> They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions.
Click to expand...


The jokers' laugh goes for you, too, you flat Earther.


----------



## james bond

I may be on to something here.  This guy lived and worked in NYC.  Do you think he would've voted for Obama had he lived?  He died a _flat_ Earther.


----------



## james bond

And you guys think a large asteroid is going to cause the end of the world.  That would squish you_ flat_.  You and your god and sky fairy.


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in a flat earth, moron.  As for the rest, when you prove they don't exist, perhaps someone will listen to your screeching.
> 
> Now answer the question:  How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep asking idiot questions.  Sure, you're a farking flat Earther.  You're a liberal and atheist and can't help but ask idiot questions and believe and say moronic things that your god and sky fairy commands you to do.  Just look in the mirror.  Look at the stupid face.   Bash your face into the mirror .  The best we can do for you is put you out of misery.  I found one here.  Toss him off the cliff.  Put the flat Earther out of misery.  Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That still wouldn't prove the Biblical theory of creation is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  The flat Earther still believes in aliens.
> 
> Yes, it will flat Earther and aliens believer.  Do you believe in multiverses, too?  You'll just have to wait until the "all eyes will see" day.
Click to expand...

Do you believe people can't see how you're running away?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> Do you believe people can't see how you're running away?








We're not the ones who are flat Earthers who believe in what their god and sky fairy Satan tells them.  We verified the Bible as God wanted us to do and came up with real science to honor him.  We go by the _scientific method_ and if it disproves our religion, then so be it.  However, this hasn't been the case as the Bible has withstood the test of time;.science backs it up.  OTOH, you have scientists who believe in multiverses like the guy pictured above.  He ended up looking like an idiot due to disease and his beliefs, but actually was a very smart guy.  Yet, his atheism led him to believe stupid stuff like multiverses which has been disproved now.


----------



## james bond

Here's the next battleground between creation scientists and atheist scientists since no multiverses.  Multiple dimensions.  You guys will be believing this silliness in no time.  We know that there is a fourth dimension of space and time and are trying to prove it.  Is this where God resides?  However, there isn't a string theory of ten or more dimensions.  There is no evidence for it.  Yet, this is what secular scientists believe now.  Brian Greene is the respectful atheist.  Now, boys go play nice in the sandbox.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in a flat earth, moron.  As for the rest, when you prove they don't exist, perhaps someone will listen to your screeching.
> 
> Now answer the question:  How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep asking idiot questions.  Sure, you're a farking flat Earther.  You're a liberal and atheist and can't help but ask idiot questions and believe and say moronic things that your god and sky fairy commands you to do.  Just look in the mirror.  Look at the stupid face.   Bash your face into the mirror .  The best we can do for you is put you out of misery.  I found one here.  Toss him off the cliff.  Put the flat Earther out of misery.  Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That still wouldn't prove the Biblical theory of creation is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  The flat Earther still believes in aliens.
> 
> Yes, it will flat Earther and aliens believer.  Do you believe in multiverses, too?  You'll just have to wait until the "all eyes will see" day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious extremists typically rail against science because they are terrified by it. The discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos and even abiogenesis terrify them because eventual confirmation of the process of abiogenesis and/or discovery of life beyond earth is utterly devastating to the religious articles. This is why we see the frantic claims from creationists that abiogenesis will never be confirmed and that “aliens” cannot exist.
> 
> The religious extremists demand that because not every answer to every question is known, it must be "the gods did it" when we have no reason to believe the gods did anything.
> 
> They may choose to remain ignorant and never explore beyond the bibles but that would require that humanity never proceed beyond ancient fears and superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The jokers' laugh goes for you, too, you flat Earther.
Click to expand...


That’s very convenient as a way to sidestep the issue but it does nothing to address a real fear of fundamentalist Christians. It’s just a fact that discovery of life off this planet devastates the idea of magic and supernaturalism as the requirement for life. 

The problem you're faced with is belief in a literal 6000 year old planet and life arising by supernatural means as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event. 

As we know, it is not fundamentalist Christians masquerading as “creation scientists” who are searching for life elsewhere. They refuse to do as they have a predefined agenda that requires belief despite factual evidence.They literally announce their bias: What we believe - creation.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here's the next battleground between creation scientists and atheist scientists since no multiverses.  Multiple dimensions.  You guys will be believing this silliness in no time.  We know that there is a fourth dimension of space and time and are trying to prove it.  Is this where God resides?  However, there isn't a string theory of ten or more dimensions.  There is no evidence for it.  Yet, this is what secular scientists believe now.  Brian Greene is the respectful atheist.  Now, boys go play nice in the sandbox.



There’s no battleground between scientists and religious extremists calling themselves “creation scientists”. As you know, the Christian religious extremists do no research. 

Announcing a bias toward fear and superstition (What we believe - creation.com), is about as far removed from the principles of the Scientific Method as one can stretch.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe people can't see how you're running away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not the ones who are flat Earthers who believe in what their god and sky fairy Satan tells them.  We verified the Bible as God wanted us to do and came up with real science to honor him.  We go by the _scientific method_ and if it disproves our religion, then so be it.  However, this hasn't been the case as the Bible has withstood the test of time;.science backs it up.  OTOH, you have scientists who believe in multiverses like the guy pictured above.  He ended up looking like an idiot due to disease and his beliefs, but actually was a very smart guy.  Yet, his atheism led him to believe stupid stuff like multiverses which has been disproved now.
Click to expand...


Science clearly does not “back up” Bible tales and fables.

Identify how science “backs up” a 6,000 year old planet or men living to be 900 years old or global floods. You can’t. Such fear mongering is time wasting.


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> _create the universe and man. There isn't a shred of scientific evidence for this claim_.



Was this a typo, did you mean to say "blame" but typed "claim" instead?
No animosity intended or implied.

just curious -


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> they have a predefined bias in place that excludes them from science and presumes a clearly stated agenda.



Please *Hollie*;Oh Wise One-
define "they" as used in your statement.-?
thanks in advance
-


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _create the universe and man. There isn't a shred of scientific evidence for this claim_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this a typo, did you mean to say "blame" but typed "claim" instead?
> No animosity intended or implied.
> 
> just curious -
Click to expand...

No.  I intended to us the word "claim."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is nothing more than a collection of books written by different people at different times. Some of the authors may have exaggerated here and there but in total they all convey a message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How's looking for aliens working for you?*
> 
> Save us all some time and post your proof that they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be dead, too, and still no aliens .
Click to expand...


And still no proof from you......weird.


----------



## Hollie

watchingfromafar said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have a predefined bias in place that excludes them from science and presumes a clearly stated agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please *Hollie*;Oh Wise One-
> define "they" as used in your statement.-?
> thanks in advance
> -
Click to expand...


From my earlier post. 
“... fundamentalist Christians masquerading as “creation scientists”


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the Bible if you believe this.  There was no exaggeration.  The different authors is how the kings of Israel were able to verify what was being said to them by God.  If you wrote the world is flat and no one backed it up, then you were tossed.  We know nothing was said in the Bible about a flat Earth.  However, one could surmise that it was spherical based on what was written.
> 
> 
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How's looking for aliens working for you?*
> 
> Save us all some time and post your proof that they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be dead, too, and still no aliens .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no proof from you......weird.
Click to expand...

He's devolved to spewing pure ad hominems.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She does understand the Bible.  You don't.
> 
> How would you deduce the Earth was spherical from what the Bible says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How's looking for aliens working for you?*
> 
> Save us all some time and post your proof that they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be dead, too, and still no aliens .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no proof from you......weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's devolved to spewing pure ad hominems.
Click to expand...


He's got zero science.....what else can he do?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> The problem you're faced with is belief in a literal 6000 year old planet and life arising by supernatural means as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.



Age of our planet--
_ Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only astronomical object known to harbor life. According to radiometric dating and other evidence, Earth formed over *4.5 billion years ago*. Earth's gravity interacts with other objects in space, especially the Sun and the Moon, which is Earth's only natural satellite._ Wikipedia

Hollie seems to believe our planet is 6,000 years old.
Sorry, you are mistaken
-
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Hollie said:


> “... fundamentalist Christians masquerading as “creation scientists”


What does judaism say --?
just curious
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> He's devolved to spewing pure ad hominems.


Who's he-?
just asking
-


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The problem you're faced with is belief in a literal 6000 year old planet and life arising by supernatural means as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.



Ofc Earth is around 6000 years old.  Here's the evidence -- Six Evidences of a Young Earth and radiocarbon dating -- while all you have is faulty radioisotope dating.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And still no proof from you......weird.



Haha.  Still no aliens.  You should learn to read better as the answer was already given.  For those who won't believe, the proof is waiting for you, some after you die, when "all eyes will see."  Everything will be settled on Earth.


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> He's devolved to spewing pure ad hominems.



It's not ad hominem if it's true feces for brains.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Haha. Still no aliens.


"As of now"

Which,  as has been pointed out to you, is not support for the truth of the claim that there are no aliens.  You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. Still no aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> "As of now"
> 
> Which,  as has been pointed out to you, is not support for the truth of the claim that there are no aliens.  You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...


After 75 years or so of looking and science finding fine tuning, solar winds, the great filter theory, Fermi paradox, Drake's equation, and more.  The best is the Bible telling us God didn't create any or else he would've told us.  Real science just goes .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no proof from you......weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Still no aliens.  You should learn to read better as the answer was already given.  For those who won't believe, the proof is waiting for you, some after you die, when "all eyes will see."  Everything will be settled on Earth.
Click to expand...


* You should learn to read better as the answer was already given.*

Your proof was, "Aliens aren't mentioned in Genesis"?


----------



## FA_Q2

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an idiot like you believe in a flat Earth.  You know absolutely squat.
> 
> How's looking for aliens working for you?  You'll be dead like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and still no aliens.  What about walking monkeys?  Same thing. Or abiogenesis.  Ditto.  You might as well add those to the flat Earth files .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How's looking for aliens working for you?*
> 
> Save us all some time and post your proof that they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll be dead, too, and still no aliens .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still no proof from you......weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's devolved to spewing pure ad hominems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's got zero science.....what else can he do?
Click to expand...

Blind adherence to nonsensical dogma?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no proof from you......weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Still no aliens.  You should learn to read better as the answer was already given.  For those who won't believe, the proof is waiting for you, some after you die, when "all eyes will see."  Everything will be settled on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * You should learn to read better as the answer was already given.*
> 
> Your proof was, "Aliens aren't mentioned in Genesis"?
Click to expand...


The other part was science backs up the Bible, 75 years of no aliens, and more.  What do you have for aliens?  Nothing.  You already admitted aliens wasn't important.  It means that you, atheists, and atheist scientists are _wrong_.  This is why nobody takes you seriously and you get .  It's more evidence of God and you're on the path through the wide gate.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha. Still no aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> "As of now"
> 
> Which,  as has been pointed out to you, is not support for the truth of the claim that there are no aliens.  You are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After 75 years or so of looking and science finding fine tuning, solar winds, the great filter theory, Fermi paradox, Drake's equation, and more.  The best is the Bible telling us God didn't create any or else he would've told us.  Real science just goes .
Click to expand...


Science never found any “fine tuning”. That’s a slogan used by the fundamentalist ministries. 

Have you never understood that the cosmos is a violent place of cometary bombardment of planets, radiation, extremes of temperatures, galactic collisions, etc.?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you're faced with is belief in a literal 6000 year old planet and life arising by supernatural means as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ofc Earth is around 6000 years old.  Here's the evidence -- Six Evidences of a Young Earth and radiocarbon dating -- while all you have is faulty radioisotope dating.
Click to expand...


AIG is a collection of charlatans who promote fraud as a means to press a religious agenda. 

Don’t be an accomplice to fraud.

About Answers in Genesis

Don’t you understand that your cutting and pasting from fundamentalist ministries, all with the same agenda of promoting fraud, is not to be taken seriously?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still no proof from you......weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Still no aliens.  You should learn to read better as the answer was already given.  For those who won't believe, the proof is waiting for you, some after you die, when "all eyes will see."  Everything will be settled on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * You should learn to read better as the answer was already given.*
> 
> Your proof was, "Aliens aren't mentioned in Genesis"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The other part was science backs up the Bible, 75 years of no aliens, and more.  What do you have for aliens?  Nothing.  You already admitted aliens wasn't important.  It means that you, atheists, and atheist scientists are _wrong_.  This is why nobody takes you seriously and you get .  It's more evidence of God and you're on the path through the wide gate.
Click to expand...


*The other part was science backs up the Bible*

Which part of the Bible explained planetary orbits?

*75 years of no aliens, and more. *

Thousands of years before we understood what powered the Sun. So?

*What do you have for aliens? *

I'm going to stop looking...….when you post your proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Well, once again, the religious nutters pollute a science thread. Let's clean it up a bit:

Protein discovered inside a meteorite


----------



## ChemEngineer

NASA's Gold Record


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> NASA's Gold Record



I’m thinking that Europe breaking away from church doctrine about a heliocentric system and ending the Dark Ages was positive for humanity. 

But, that’s just me.


----------



## Mindful

Can anyone get their head round this one?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Mindful said:


> Can anyone get their head round this one?




There is NO NEED to discuss this absurdity. 
1.  Meteors strike the earth every day.  How large an object in space would be needed to destroy this
fantasmagoric imaginary constantly accelerating space ship?   A pebble would destroy it.

2.  How much fuel would be required to provide constant acceleration for a year?  Far more than could be launched from earth.


3.  How much food, and water and oxygen would be needed for a multi-year journey?

4. Suppose you get there and find it utterly hostile?  Nothing to see, do, retrieve, or even land on.

All movie boloney.  See my website NASAGoldRecord.blogspot.com


----------



## Mindful

ChemEngineer said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone get their head round this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO NEED to discuss this absurdity.
> 1.  Meteors strike the earth every day.  How large an object in space would be needed to destroy this
> fantasmagoric imaginary constantly accelerating space ship?   A pebble would destroy it.
> 
> 2.  How much fuel would be required to provide constant acceleration for a year?  Far more than could be launched from earth.
> 
> 
> 3.  How much food, and water and oxygen would be needed for a multi-year journey?
> 
> 4. Suppose you get there and find it utterly hostile?  Nothing to see, do, retrieve, or even land on.
> 
> All movie boloney.  See my website NASAGoldRecord.blogspot.com
Click to expand...



I can't get my head around that either.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Interesting take:

New Paper Suggests Life Could Be Common Across The Universe, Just Not Near Us


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Interesting take:
> 
> New Paper Suggests Life Could Be Common Across The Universe, Just Not Near Us



Fake science.  The paper may as well be tp due to shortage.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting take:
> 
> New Paper Suggests Life Could Be Common Across The Universe, Just Not Near Us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fake science.  The paper may as well be tp due to shortage.
Click to expand...

Life off of this planet puts the religious extremists in panic mode. Life elsewhere will be devastating to Christianity.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Life off of this planet puts the religious extremists in panic mode. Life elsewhere will be devastating to Christianity.



It wouldn't cause any panic and we still would believe.  However, it would lead to questions about whether Jesus died for aliens.  To the contrary, Jesus died to pay ransom for _our_ sins.  _Not aliens._

Thus, no aliens.  We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.  Are the atheists and non-believers of Jesus quaking in their bare feet today?  I think so like the cowards they are.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life off of this planet puts the religious extremists in panic mode. Life elsewhere will be devastating to Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't cause any panic and we still would believe.  However, it would lead to questions about whether Jesus died for aliens.  To the contrary, Jesus died to pay ransom for _our_ sins.  _Not aliens._
> 
> Thus, no aliens.  We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.  Are the atheists and non-believers of Jesus quaking in their bare feet today?  I think so like the cowards they are.
Click to expand...

Firstly, whether anyone named Jesus died for “our” sins is pure speculation, hearsay and part of one system of ancient dogma. There’s no evidence for any of it. Myth and dogma surrounding the various Greek gods is precisely as reliable as the myth and dogma you parade around for your gods. And yes, discovery of life off this planet (even primitive biological life), throws all of Christianity into question. Christian creationism (all of the earth and universe as well as fully formed man by supernatural means), is uniquely a supernatural, earthly event. The enterprise of Christian fundamentalism would have nothing but stuttering and mumbling as a response to life off of this planet.

Secondly, no, you have no “fine tuning” argument. Nothing about the chaos of universe and our solar system speaks to fine tuning. Remember Schumaker-Levy? We live in a demonstrably violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us live our lifetimes in the relative calm between now and what happened 65 million years ago to this planet. I understand you can’t accept geologic time frames in your world of a 6,000 year old planet but I have no reason to accept those limitations to reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life off of this planet puts the religious extremists in panic mode. Life elsewhere will be devastating to Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't cause any panic and we still would believe.  However, it would lead to questions about whether Jesus died for aliens.  To the contrary, Jesus died to pay ransom for _our_ sins.  _Not aliens._
> 
> Thus, no aliens.  We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.  Are the atheists and non-believers of Jesus quaking in their bare feet today?  I think so like the cowards they are.
Click to expand...


*We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*

You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.


----------



## james bond

[


Toddsterpatriot said:


> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.



Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.

I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
Click to expand...

*
Solar wind is fact*

A fact not mentioned in the Bible.

Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
Click to expand...


Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
Click to expand...


*Why do you believe in lies?*

I don't believe in your lies.

That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.

Because you lie.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you believe in lies?*
> 
> I don't believe in your lies.
> 
> That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.
> 
> Because you lie.
Click to expand...


How can I lie when there are no aliens?  So, why do YOU believe in lies?  Are you stupid?

I'll just have to assume you are .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you believe in lies?*
> 
> I don't believe in your lies.
> 
> That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.
> 
> Because you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I lie when there are no aliens?  So, why do YOU believe in lies?  Are you stupid?
> 
> I'll just have to assume you are .
Click to expand...


*How can I lie when there are no aliens?  *

You lied about the solar wind. Liar.

And don't get me started again about your planetary orbits lie.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you believe in lies?*
> 
> I don't believe in your lies.
> 
> That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.
> 
> Because you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I lie when there are no aliens?  So, why do YOU believe in lies?  Are you stupid?
> 
> I'll just have to assume you are .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How can I lie when there are no aliens?  *
> 
> You lied about the solar wind. Liar.
> 
> And don't get me started again about your planetary orbits lie.
Click to expand...


Still can't answer my questions you dipsy doodle.  Since you're so interested in solar wind, you should experience it first hand.  

Let me answer it for you.  You believe in lies of aliens because it fits how life started on this planet due to evolution.  However, that is a lie so that is the reason why there are no aliens.  You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life.  You're too stupid to realize it.  It is special because this is the only planet with life.  However, you cannot believe it because of so many other planets.  Yet, your scientists discovered the fine tuning parameters and found that this planet has been incredibly lucky.  It has what it takes for life to populate itself throught natural selection.  It's the Noah's Ark thing.  You just can't believe all this because you are stupid.  Thus, you keep looking for aliens, life to pop up from primordial soup or geyers or whatever your stupid fake science tells you.  You believe in lies.  That is just part of the atheist religion and indoctrination.  Other believers believe in lies, too, but they got a different religion than yours.  All of you ended up believing in a false prophet.  What it really is is pagan materialism.  There were believers who were fooled into worshiping pagan religions, too.  They were swayed by a golden calf back in ancient times.  Today, they were swayed by the universities.  Bottom line is there are no aliens and no abiogenesis, but you continue to believe in lies.  That's why when someone tells you the truth, you keep clamoring for evidence or proof.  It's because you believe in lies that the truth can't be the truth.  That's for the smart atheists.  The rest just believe in lies and don't question it.  In your case, you question it, but the answer just goes in one ear and out the other.  Your brain is wired stupid like that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you believe in lies?*
> 
> I don't believe in your lies.
> 
> That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.
> 
> Because you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I lie when there are no aliens?  So, why do YOU believe in lies?  Are you stupid?
> 
> I'll just have to assume you are .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How can I lie when there are no aliens?  *
> 
> You lied about the solar wind. Liar.
> 
> And don't get me started again about your planetary orbits lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't answer my questions you dipsy doodle.  Since you're so interested in solar wind, you should experience it first hand.
> 
> Let me answer it for you.  You believe in lies of aliens because it fits how life started on this planet due to evolution.  However, that is a lie so that is the reason why there are no aliens.  You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life.  You're too stupid to realize it.  It is special because this is the only planet with life.  However, you cannot believe it because of so many other planets.  Yet, your scientists discovered the fine tuning parameters and found that this planet has been incredibly lucky.  It has what it takes for life to populate itself throught natural selection.  It's the Noah's Ark thing.  You just can't believe all this because you are stupid.  Thus, you keep looking for aliens, life to pop up from primordial soup or geyers or whatever your stupid fake science tells you.  You believe in lies.  That is just part of the atheist religion and indoctrination.  Other believers believe in lies, too, but they got a different religion than yours.  All of you ended up believing in a false prophet.  What it really is is pagan materialism.  There were believers who were fooled into worshiping pagan religions, too.  They were swayed by a golden calf back in ancient times.  Today, they were swayed by the universities.  Bottom line is there are no aliens and no abiogenesis, but you continue to believe in lies.  That's why when someone tells you the truth, you keep clamoring for evidence or proof.  It's because you believe in lies that the truth can't be the truth.  That's for the smart atheists.  The rest just believe in lies and don't question it.  In your case, you question it, but the answer just goes in one ear and out the other.  Your brain is wired stupid like that.
Click to expand...


*You believe in lies of aliens*

Aliens are lies? Because.....solar wind? 

That's funny!

*You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life. *

I don't? Link?

* It is special because this is the only planet with life. *

It's the only planet in this solar system, so far, that we know can sustain life.
Now, if you have proof it's the only planet in the entire Universe that can sustain life, what are you waiting for, Sparky? Post your proof already.

Enough of your twat-waffling. And post up your solar wind proof too.

Unless you pulled it out of your ass......like so much of what you post here?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you believe in lies?*
> 
> I don't believe in your lies.
> 
> That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.
> 
> Because you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I lie when there are no aliens?  So, why do YOU believe in lies?  Are you stupid?
> 
> I'll just have to assume you are .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How can I lie when there are no aliens?  *
> 
> You lied about the solar wind. Liar.
> 
> And don't get me started again about your planetary orbits lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't answer my questions you dipsy doodle.  Since you're so interested in solar wind, you should experience it first hand.
> 
> Let me answer it for you.  You believe in lies of aliens because it fits how life started on this planet due to evolution.  However, that is a lie so that is the reason why there are no aliens.  You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life.  You're too stupid to realize it.  It is special because this is the only planet with life.  However, you cannot believe it because of so many other planets.  Yet, your scientists discovered the fine tuning parameters and found that this planet has been incredibly lucky.  It has what it takes for life to populate itself throught natural selection.  It's the Noah's Ark thing.  You just can't believe all this because you are stupid.  Thus, you keep looking for aliens, life to pop up from primordial soup or geyers or whatever your stupid fake science tells you.  You believe in lies.  That is just part of the atheist religion and indoctrination.  Other believers believe in lies, too, but they got a different religion than yours.  All of you ended up believing in a false prophet.  What it really is is pagan materialism.  There were believers who were fooled into worshiping pagan religions, too.  They were swayed by a golden calf back in ancient times.  Today, they were swayed by the universities.  Bottom line is there are no aliens and no abiogenesis, but you continue to believe in lies.  That's why when someone tells you the truth, you keep clamoring for evidence or proof.  It's because you believe in lies that the truth can't be the truth.  That's for the smart atheists.  The rest just believe in lies and don't question it.  In your case, you question it, but the answer just goes in one ear and out the other.  Your brain is wired stupid like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You believe in lies of aliens*
> 
> Aliens are lies? Because.....solar wind?
> 
> That's funny!
> 
> *You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life. *
> 
> I don't? Link?
> 
> * It is special because this is the only planet with life. *
> 
> It's the only planet in this solar system, so far, that we know can sustain life.
> Now, if you have proof it's the only planet in the entire Universe that can sustain life, what are you waiting for, Sparky? Post your proof already.
> 
> Enough of your twat-waffling. And post up your solar wind proof too.
> 
> Unless you pulled it out of your ass......like so much of what you post here?
Click to expand...


Too late.  You had your chance.  Thus, I was forced to answer my questions for you.  Why don't you stop asking the dumb questions as the answers just go in one ear and out the other.  Why don't you post when you actually have evidence of aliens and abiogenesis?  We'll be long gone before then (hopefully not due to corona).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you believe in lies?*
> 
> I don't believe in your lies.
> 
> That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.
> 
> Because you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I lie when there are no aliens?  So, why do YOU believe in lies?  Are you stupid?
> 
> I'll just have to assume you are .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How can I lie when there are no aliens?  *
> 
> You lied about the solar wind. Liar.
> 
> And don't get me started again about your planetary orbits lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't answer my questions you dipsy doodle.  Since you're so interested in solar wind, you should experience it first hand.
> 
> Let me answer it for you.  You believe in lies of aliens because it fits how life started on this planet due to evolution.  However, that is a lie so that is the reason why there are no aliens.  You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life.  You're too stupid to realize it.  It is special because this is the only planet with life.  However, you cannot believe it because of so many other planets.  Yet, your scientists discovered the fine tuning parameters and found that this planet has been incredibly lucky.  It has what it takes for life to populate itself throught natural selection.  It's the Noah's Ark thing.  You just can't believe all this because you are stupid.  Thus, you keep looking for aliens, life to pop up from primordial soup or geyers or whatever your stupid fake science tells you.  You believe in lies.  That is just part of the atheist religion and indoctrination.  Other believers believe in lies, too, but they got a different religion than yours.  All of you ended up believing in a false prophet.  What it really is is pagan materialism.  There were believers who were fooled into worshiping pagan religions, too.  They were swayed by a golden calf back in ancient times.  Today, they were swayed by the universities.  Bottom line is there are no aliens and no abiogenesis, but you continue to believe in lies.  That's why when someone tells you the truth, you keep clamoring for evidence or proof.  It's because you believe in lies that the truth can't be the truth.  That's for the smart atheists.  The rest just believe in lies and don't question it.  In your case, you question it, but the answer just goes in one ear and out the other.  Your brain is wired stupid like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You believe in lies of aliens*
> 
> Aliens are lies? Because.....solar wind?
> 
> That's funny!
> 
> *You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life. *
> 
> I don't? Link?
> 
> * It is special because this is the only planet with life. *
> 
> It's the only planet in this solar system, so far, that we know can sustain life.
> Now, if you have proof it's the only planet in the entire Universe that can sustain life, what are you waiting for, Sparky? Post your proof already.
> 
> Enough of your twat-waffling. And post up your solar wind proof too.
> 
> Unless you pulled it out of your ass......like so much of what you post here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late.  You had your chance.  Thus, I was forced to answer my questions for you.  Why don't you stop asking the dumb questions as the answers just go in one ear and out the other.  Why don't you post when you actually have evidence of aliens and abiogenesis?  We'll be long gone before then (hopefully not due to corona).
Click to expand...


*Why don't you post when you actually have evidence of aliens and abiogenesis?  *

I never claimed to have evidence of either.
Now, back to your lies about aliens and solar wind......isn't lying a sin?

Don't be a lying sinner...…....again.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you believe in lies?*
> 
> I don't believe in your lies.
> 
> That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.
> 
> Because you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I lie when there are no aliens?  So, why do YOU believe in lies?  Are you stupid?
> 
> I'll just have to assume you are .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How can I lie when there are no aliens?  *
> 
> You lied about the solar wind. Liar.
> 
> And don't get me started again about your planetary orbits lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't answer my questions you dipsy doodle.  Since you're so interested in solar wind, you should experience it first hand.
> 
> Let me answer it for you.  You believe in lies of aliens because it fits how life started on this planet due to evolution.  However, that is a lie so that is the reason why there are no aliens.  You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life.  You're too stupid to realize it.  It is special because this is the only planet with life.  However, you cannot believe it because of so many other planets.  Yet, your scientists discovered the fine tuning parameters and found that this planet has been incredibly lucky.  It has what it takes for life to populate itself throught natural selection.  It's the Noah's Ark thing.  You just can't believe all this because you are stupid.  Thus, you keep looking for aliens, life to pop up from primordial soup or geyers or whatever your stupid fake science tells you.  You believe in lies.  That is just part of the atheist religion and indoctrination.  Other believers believe in lies, too, but they got a different religion than yours.  All of you ended up believing in a false prophet.  What it really is is pagan materialism.  There were believers who were fooled into worshiping pagan religions, too.  They were swayed by a golden calf back in ancient times.  Today, they were swayed by the universities.  Bottom line is there are no aliens and no abiogenesis, but you continue to believe in lies.  That's why when someone tells you the truth, you keep clamoring for evidence or proof.  It's because you believe in lies that the truth can't be the truth.  That's for the smart atheists.  The rest just believe in lies and don't question it.  In your case, you question it, but the answer just goes in one ear and out the other.  Your brain is wired stupid like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You believe in lies of aliens*
> 
> Aliens are lies? Because.....solar wind?
> 
> That's funny!
> 
> *You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life. *
> 
> I don't? Link?
> 
> * It is special because this is the only planet with life. *
> 
> It's the only planet in this solar system, so far, that we know can sustain life.
> Now, if you have proof it's the only planet in the entire Universe that can sustain life, what are you waiting for, Sparky? Post your proof already.
> 
> Enough of your twat-waffling. And post up your solar wind proof too.
> 
> Unless you pulled it out of your ass......like so much of what you post here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late.  You had your chance.  Thus, I was forced to answer my questions for you.  Why don't you stop asking the dumb questions as the answers just go in one ear and out the other.  Why don't you post when you actually have evidence of aliens and abiogenesis?  We'll be long gone before then (hopefully not due to corona).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why don't you post when you actually have evidence of aliens and abiogenesis?  *
> 
> I never claimed to have evidence of either.
> Now, back to your lies about aliens and solar wind......isn't lying a sin?
> 
> Don't be a lying sinner...…....again.
Click to expand...


Your post doesn't make any sense.  You are an imbecile with your childish arguments.

You will never have any evidence of aliens and abiogenesis because it's a false dilemma.  First, you say there are too many planets so one of them must have aliens.  Thus, you set up ways to communicate with them using telescopes.  Later, you find out the fine tuning facts that would greatly reduce the chance of finding any aliens.  Your opposition states the solar wind and your fine tuning facts.  You ignore and continue on with your lying science.  It isn't just a matter of time and too many planets.  That is irrelevant now. 

You do the same with abiogenesis.  It has to happen because we are here and there is no God as creator.  It's just a matter of time before it happens.  You ignore the science of chirality as that greatly reduces the chance of amino acids becoming proteins.  Moreover, your opposition demonstrates only life begets life.  You ignore that, too.  Thus, it's impossible for abiogenesis, but you continue to claim it will happen with long time and the right circumstances.  Another false dilemma.

As for long time, we find that does not make sense.  Rocks and fossils cannot last for millions nor billions of years.  They would wear down due to their environment and get worn down, crack, break, and crumble into dust.

So quit lying, believing in lies, and not being an imbecile with your childish arguments.  Why don't you forget about evolution and take up a new hobby and religion?    Try Buddhism.  They don't have a God and they believe in karma for the afterlife.  Their Buddhist priests can meditate to block out pain so they can withstand burning themselves to death.  Isn't that like what happens when you get tossed into the Lake of Fire?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you believe in lies?*
> 
> I don't believe in your lies.
> 
> That's why I keep calling you out on your lies.
> 
> Because you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I lie when there are no aliens?  So, why do YOU believe in lies?  Are you stupid?
> 
> I'll just have to assume you are .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How can I lie when there are no aliens?  *
> 
> You lied about the solar wind. Liar.
> 
> And don't get me started again about your planetary orbits lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still can't answer my questions you dipsy doodle.  Since you're so interested in solar wind, you should experience it first hand.
> 
> Let me answer it for you.  You believe in lies of aliens because it fits how life started on this planet due to evolution.  However, that is a lie so that is the reason why there are no aliens.  You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life.  You're too stupid to realize it.  It is special because this is the only planet with life.  However, you cannot believe it because of so many other planets.  Yet, your scientists discovered the fine tuning parameters and found that this planet has been incredibly lucky.  It has what it takes for life to populate itself throught natural selection.  It's the Noah's Ark thing.  You just can't believe all this because you are stupid.  Thus, you keep looking for aliens, life to pop up from primordial soup or geyers or whatever your stupid fake science tells you.  You believe in lies.  That is just part of the atheist religion and indoctrination.  Other believers believe in lies, too, but they got a different religion than yours.  All of you ended up believing in a false prophet.  What it really is is pagan materialism.  There were believers who were fooled into worshiping pagan religions, too.  They were swayed by a golden calf back in ancient times.  Today, they were swayed by the universities.  Bottom line is there are no aliens and no abiogenesis, but you continue to believe in lies.  That's why when someone tells you the truth, you keep clamoring for evidence or proof.  It's because you believe in lies that the truth can't be the truth.  That's for the smart atheists.  The rest just believe in lies and don't question it.  In your case, you question it, but the answer just goes in one ear and out the other.  Your brain is wired stupid like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You believe in lies of aliens*
> 
> Aliens are lies? Because.....solar wind?
> 
> That's funny!
> 
> *You don't believe this planet is special and conducive to life. *
> 
> I don't? Link?
> 
> * It is special because this is the only planet with life. *
> 
> It's the only planet in this solar system, so far, that we know can sustain life.
> Now, if you have proof it's the only planet in the entire Universe that can sustain life, what are you waiting for, Sparky? Post your proof already.
> 
> Enough of your twat-waffling. And post up your solar wind proof too.
> 
> Unless you pulled it out of your ass......like so much of what you post here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late.  You had your chance.  Thus, I was forced to answer my questions for you.  Why don't you stop asking the dumb questions as the answers just go in one ear and out the other.  Why don't you post when you actually have evidence of aliens and abiogenesis?  We'll be long gone before then (hopefully not due to corona).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why don't you post when you actually have evidence of aliens and abiogenesis?  *
> 
> I never claimed to have evidence of either.
> Now, back to your lies about aliens and solar wind......isn't lying a sin?
> 
> Don't be a lying sinner...…....again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post doesn't make any sense.  You are an imbecile with your childish arguments.
> 
> You will never have any evidence of aliens and abiogenesis because it's a false dilemma.  First, you say there are too many planets so one of them must have aliens.  Thus, you set up ways to communicate with them using telescopes.  Later, you find out the fine tuning facts that would greatly reduce the chance of finding any aliens.  Your opposition states the solar wind and your fine tuning facts.  You ignore and continue on with your lying science.  It isn't just a matter of time and too many planets.  That is irrelevant now.
> 
> You do the same with abiogenesis.  It has to happen because we are here and there is no God as creator.  It's just a matter of time before it happens.  You ignore the science of chirality as that greatly reduces the chance of amino acids becoming proteins.  Moreover, your opposition demonstrates only life begets life.  You ignore that, too.  Thus, it's impossible for abiogenesis, but you continue to claim it will happen with long time and the right circumstances.  Another false dilemma.
> 
> As for long time, we find that does not make sense.  Rocks and fossils cannot last for millions nor billions of years.  They would wear down due to their environment and get worn down, crack, break, and crumble into dust.
> 
> So quit lying, believing in lies, and not being an imbecile with your childish arguments.  Why don't you forget about evolution and take up a new hobby and religion?    Try Buddhism.  They don't have a God and they believe in karma for the afterlife.  Their Buddhist priests can meditate to block out pain so they can withstand burning themselves to death.  Isn't that like what happens when you get tossed into the Lake of Fire?
Click to expand...

*
You will never have any evidence of aliens and abiogenesis because it's a false dilemma.*

If you say so. Your proof is very convincing.

*First, you say there are too many planets so one of them must have aliens. *

And you said none can have aliens because....solar wind.

Am I just supposed to take your word for that?

*Rocks and fossils cannot last for millions nor billions of years.  They would wear down due to their environment and get worn down, crack, break, and crumble into dust.*

What would cause rocks underground to wear down?
Ones not exposed to air or water wouldn't be expected to crumble to dust, would they?

*So quit lying, believing in lies, and not being an imbecile with your childish arguments. *

Thanks. I won't believe your lying lies.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *First, you say there are too many planets so one of them must have aliens. *
> 
> And you said none can have aliens because....solar wind.
> 
> Am I just supposed to take your word for that?



You need to bow down and consider me your master in regards to science and religion.  I said no aliens b/c of fine tuning and solar wind.  Those are the facts.  We also have the other theories which I've mentioned many times.  What are those again?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Rocks and fossils cannot last for millions nor billions of years. They would wear down due to their environment and get worn down, crack, break, and crumble into dust.*
> 
> What would cause rocks underground to wear down?
> Ones not exposed to air or water wouldn't be expected to crumble to dust, would they?



Weathering, chemical processes, mechanical process, and natural catastrophes.  You can see rock wears down by water.  We got chemicals leaching into the ground.  We also have great pressure from mechanical changes like plate tectonics.  We were one continent and it broke up into seven.  We've had a deep earthquake from under the ocean when Earth didn't have so much water.  That caused magma to rise up and form the highest mountain ranges and deepest valleys we have.  Water rushed in and that is why we have such deep oceans.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We got fine tuning facts, solar wind, and other theories backing us up.*
> 
> You should post those theories. Start with solar wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll be able to test it in the next life.  That's some harsh burning radiation.
> 
> I've explained the other theories so many times.  Solar wind is fact.  It's the atheist scientists who keep wasting money to try and find aliens.  One Russian billionaire and the now dead atheist Stephen Hawking are still spending his money until 2025 to find space signals and any evidence they can.  After that, they toss in the towel.  It's really stupid things they are doing, but it's his money and Hawking's name which has gone down the tubes over it.  Hawking should've stuck to Hawking radiation instead of multiverses (already disproved) and aliens.  For a genius, he made stupid choices.  He was still trying to find evidence for multiverses when he kicked the bucket.  Why do you believe in lies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Solar wind is fact*
> 
> A fact not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> Now, are you going to post more of your theory that the solar wind makes life possible nowhere
> in the Universe except on the Earth......or are you going to run away.....again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Why do you believe in lies?  Is it because you're stupid?
Click to expand...


Why are you stuttering?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First, you say there are too many planets so one of them must have aliens. *
> 
> And you said none can have aliens because....solar wind.
> 
> Am I just supposed to take your word for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to bow down and consider me your master in regards to science and religion.  I said no aliens b/c of fine tuning and solar wind.  Those are the facts.  We also have the other theories which I've mentioned many times.  What are those again?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Rocks and fossils cannot last for millions nor billions of years. They would wear down due to their environment and get worn down, crack, break, and crumble into dust.*
> 
> What would cause rocks underground to wear down?
> Ones not exposed to air or water wouldn't be expected to crumble to dust, would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weathering, chemical processes, mechanical process, and natural catastrophes.  You can see rock wears down by water.  We got chemicals leaching into the ground.  We also have great pressure from mechanical changes like plate tectonics.  We were one continent and it broke up into seven.  We've had a deep earthquake from under the ocean when Earth didn't have so much water.  That caused magma to rise up and form the highest mountain ranges and deepest valleys we have.  Water rushed in and that is why we have such deep oceans.
Click to expand...

Among your comments about “fine tuning” you acknowledge natural disasters. Plate tectonics (the movement of the earth’s crust and substrata), causes earthquakes.

Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.









Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
Click to expand...

So, I have to assume your sidestep about the chaos in the universe was intended to avoid addressing a failed "fine tuning" claim.

The "atheist science" slogan you litter threads with is merely an attempt to vilify the knowledge and reason that conflicts with the extremist dogma at the fundie ministries. 

It's a shame that your "fine tuning" slogan is such an a abysmal fraud.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Until we learn otherwise, we are the Crown of Creation.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> So, I have to assume your sidestep about the chaos in the universe was intended to avoid addressing a failed "fine tuning" claim.
> 
> The "atheist science" slogan you litter threads with is merely an attempt to vilify the knowledge and reason that conflicts with the extremist dogma at the fundie ministries.
> 
> It's a shame that your "fine tuning" slogan is such an a abysmal fraud.



Did I just prove a negative?  Ofc, I did.

It's been 75 years of looking for aliens with multi-million dollar telescopes and signaling and receiving equipment and still nothing.





Toddsterpatriot must've got a job.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First, you say there are too many planets so one of them must have aliens. *
> 
> And you said none can have aliens because....solar wind.
> 
> Am I just supposed to take your word for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to bow down and consider me your master in regards to science and religion.  I said no aliens b/c of fine tuning and solar wind.  Those are the facts.  We also have the other theories which I've mentioned many times.  What are those again?
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Rocks and fossils cannot last for millions nor billions of years. They would wear down due to their environment and get worn down, crack, break, and crumble into dust.*
> 
> What would cause rocks underground to wear down?
> Ones not exposed to air or water wouldn't be expected to crumble to dust, would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weathering, chemical processes, mechanical process, and natural catastrophes.  You can see rock wears down by water.  We got chemicals leaching into the ground.  We also have great pressure from mechanical changes like plate tectonics.  We were one continent and it broke up into seven.  We've had a deep earthquake from under the ocean when Earth didn't have so much water.  That caused magma to rise up and form the highest mountain ranges and deepest valleys we have.  Water rushed in and that is why we have such deep oceans.
Click to expand...


*You need to bow down and consider me your master in regards to science and religion.  *

Your lies make Jesus cry.

*I said no aliens b/c of fine tuning and solar wind. *

Cool story, bro. Now post your proof, master of science. And stop lying.

*Weathering, chemical processes, mechanical process, and natural catastrophes.  You can see rock wears down by water. *

But not the rocks untouched by water.

*We got chemicals leaching into the ground. *

Which chemicals are leaching through granite?

*We've had a deep earthquake from under the ocean when Earth didn't have so much water. *

When did the Earth have less water? Why?

*That caused magma to rise up and form the highest mountain ranges *

What about the mountain ranges with sedimentary rock?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
Click to expand...


I don't recall the Fermi paradox in scripture.......help me out. Link?

*He believes in lies. *

You're lying. Liar.

* and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  *

Is our solar wind rougher than in other star systems? Or less rough?

*Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other. *

Your lies haven't taught me a thing.

*Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over. *

This thread will be over when you produce your evidence of no aliens.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You need to bow down and consider me your master in regards to science and religion. *
> 
> Your lies make Jesus cry.
> 
> *I said no aliens b/c of fine tuning and solar wind. *
> 
> Cool story, bro. Now post your proof, master of science. And stop lying.
> 
> *Weathering, chemical processes, mechanical process, and natural catastrophes. You can see rock wears down by water. *
> 
> But not the rocks untouched by water.
> 
> *We got chemicals leaching into the ground. *
> 
> Which chemicals are leaching through granite?
> 
> *We've had a deep earthquake from under the ocean when Earth didn't have so much water. *
> 
> When did the Earth have less water? Why?
> 
> *That caused magma to rise up and form the highest mountain ranges *
> 
> What about the mountain ranges with sedimentary rock?



*Your lies make Jesus cry.*

Your first sentence is why you need a master.  

*Cool story, bro. Now post your proof, master of science. And stop lying.*

Your second statement shows stuff I teach you go in one ear and out the other.

*But not the rocks untouched by water.*

Do you know how fossils form?  Thus, you are caught lying again in your third statement.

And the rest show more ignorance than that of a rock.

Why don't you look up the Russian billionaire's name and see what his equipment has come up with?  I haven't heard a good alien story since Mulder and Sculley.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You need to bow down and consider me your master in regards to science and religion. *
> 
> Your lies make Jesus cry.
> 
> *I said no aliens b/c of fine tuning and solar wind. *
> 
> Cool story, bro. Now post your proof, master of science. And stop lying.
> 
> *Weathering, chemical processes, mechanical process, and natural catastrophes. You can see rock wears down by water. *
> 
> But not the rocks untouched by water.
> 
> *We got chemicals leaching into the ground. *
> 
> Which chemicals are leaching through granite?
> 
> *We've had a deep earthquake from under the ocean when Earth didn't have so much water. *
> 
> When did the Earth have less water? Why?
> 
> *That caused magma to rise up and form the highest mountain ranges *
> 
> What about the mountain ranges with sedimentary rock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your lies make Jesus cry.*
> 
> Your first sentence is why you need a master.
> 
> *Cool story, bro. Now post your proof, master of science. And stop lying.*
> 
> Your second statement shows stuff I teach you go in one ear and out the other.
> 
> *But not the rocks untouched by water.*
> 
> Do you know how fossils form?  Thus, you are caught lying again in your third statement.
> 
> And the rest show more ignorance than that of a rock.
> 
> Why don't you look up the Russian billionaire's name and see what his equipment has come up with?  I haven't heard a good alien story since Mulder and Sculley.
Click to expand...

*
Your first sentence is why you need a master. *

You are the Master of Lies.

*Your second statement shows stuff I teach you go in one ear and out the other.*

Teach me your solar wind proof. Liar.

*Do you know how fossils form?  *

In less than 6000 years? LOL!

*Why don't you look up the Russian billionaire's name*

Why would I give a shit?

You have proof there is no other life in the universe, so post it.

Or run away like the lying pussy you are.


----------



## Flash

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
Click to expand...



The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.

Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I have to assume your sidestep about the chaos in the universe was intended to avoid addressing a failed "fine tuning" claim.
> 
> The "atheist science" slogan you litter threads with is merely an attempt to vilify the knowledge and reason that conflicts with the extremist dogma at the fundie ministries.
> 
> It's a shame that your "fine tuning" slogan is such an a abysmal fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I just prove a negative?  Ofc, I did.
> 
> It's been 75 years of looking for aliens with multi-million dollar telescopes and signaling and receiving equipment and still nothing.
> 
> View attachment 314725
> 
> Toddsterpatriot must've got a job.
Click to expand...

Your artificial timeline of 75 years is arbitrary and capricious. In part because the concerted search has not been ongoing for 75 years, and, I was not aware you were tasked with establishing a timeline.

On the other hand, 2,000 years and your various Christian gods have not returned. 2,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, burning people at the stake, crusades, wars of conquest, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats.

Thus, we can eliminate your various gods as mere myth and legend. I haven’t heard a good Jesus story since someone saw him in their bowl of cereal.


----------



## james bond

Flash said:


> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere. We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth. Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.



That was the assumption, but it has changed.  We have discovered that life is rare and now getting rarer if the extensions hold true for this virus.  Just today, I've read America could be the new epicenter replacing Italy.  In California, people in San Francisco aren't taking this seriously.  What was concern for going to a martial law lockdown has turned into abject fear.  The people in China seem to get it as they've put things into place I haven't seen elsewhere.

It doesn't matter if there is or isn't another data point in the universe if one is dead.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why don't you look up the Russian billionaire's name*
> 
> Why would I give a shit?



Jeez, you're no fun in these trying times.  He's the one who got together with Stephen Hawking to spend $100 million to look for aliens.  He should be doing something and getting some kind of results.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Until we learn otherwise, we are the Crown of Creation.


By what standard? Just ego.


----------



## Flash

james bond said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere. We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth. Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the assumption, but it has changed.  We have discovered that life is rare and now getting rarer if the extensions hold true for this virus.  Just today, I've read America could be the new epicenter replacing Italy.  In California, people in San Francisco aren't taking this seriously.  What was concern for going to a martial law lockdown has turned into abject fear.  The people in China seem to get it as they've put things into place I haven't seen elsewhere.
> 
> It doesn't matter if there is or isn't another data point in the universe if one is dead.
Click to expand...



Can you imagine if we ever did find another planet with life on it?  You know, going star trekking across the universe.

We get out of our spaceship and are immediately attacked by scores of viruses.  We have no immunity to any of them.  No screwing Green Orion Slave Girls.  Not only do we die but we infect the planet with our germs and half the life dies out in a couple of months.

The book _War of the Worlds_ predicted that  about 100 years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.


"Most logical"

That phrase doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why don't you look up the Russian billionaire's name*
> 
> Why would I give a shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez, you're no fun in these trying times.  He's the one who got together with Stephen Hawking to spend $100 million to look for aliens.  He should be doing something and getting some kind of results.
Click to expand...


*He's the one who got together with Stephen Hawking to spend $100 million to look for aliens.*

Silly guy, he should have just asked you for your proof aliens don't exist.

What haven't you posted it yet, Master of Lies?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your artificial timeline of 75 years is arbitrary and capricious. In part because the concerted search has not been ongoing for 75 years, and, I was not aware you were tasked with establishing a timeline.



The time has been more than Fermi's paradox and Drake equation.  Why do you ignore science and probability when it doesn't fit your atheist religion and worldview?  Toddsterpatriot doesn't seem to care anymore.  The woman who was head of NASA who claimed discovering aliens on Mars by 2025 lost her job and was replaced by a man when Trump took over.  Good thing; it would've been a waste of taxpayer money.  Maybe the rich will try to go into space in order to avoid the coronavirus and become the first ones to get it in space.  How ironic would that be?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *He's the one who got together with Stephen Hawking to spend $100 million to look for aliens.*
> 
> Silly guy, he should have just asked you for your proof aliens don't exist.
> 
> What haven't you posted it yet, Master of Lies?



Yes, but he's a billionaire so he can afford to blow $100 million.  He must be having fun playing Buck Rogers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He's the one who got together with Stephen Hawking to spend $100 million to look for aliens.*
> 
> Silly guy, he should have just asked you for your proof aliens don't exist.
> 
> What haven't you posted it yet, Master of Lies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but he's a billionaire so he can afford to blow $100 million.  He must be having fun playing Buck Rogers.
Click to expand...


Which name do you prefer to be called, Master of Lies, Beezlebub, Satan, Lucifer or something else?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we learn otherwise, we are the Crown of Creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what standard? Just ego.
Click to expand...


Show something better.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we learn otherwise, we are the Crown of Creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what standard? Just ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show something better.
Click to expand...

Better? Sure, whales are better. Thanks for asking. So are binary star systems. And star clusters. All are better. Whatever the hell that means in your mind... We both know you won't explain it...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your artificial timeline of 75 years is arbitrary and capricious. In part because the concerted search has not been ongoing for 75 years, and, I was not aware you were tasked with establishing a timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The time has been more than Fermi's paradox and Drake equation.  Why do you ignore science and probability when it doesn't fit your atheist religion and worldview?  Toddsterpatriot doesn't seem to care anymore.  The woman who was head of NASA who claimed discovering aliens on Mars by 2025 lost her job and was replaced by a man when Trump took over.  Good thing; it would've been a waste of taxpayer money.  Maybe the rich will try to go into space in order to avoid the coronavirus and become the first ones to get it in space.  How ironic would that be?
Click to expand...


You seem not to understand that it was only in 1960 when the first SETI experiment was performed. 

You seem not to understand that the universe is, you know, kind’a big. Even nearest stars are hundreds of light years away. Subtract 1960 from 2020. How many years is that?

On the other hand, 2,000 years and no signs of your gods or anyone else’s gods. Why is that?

Lastly, remember that because the Bible suggests the earth is flat we can only send radio signals in a band of 180 degrees from the flat surface so we have, you know, a lot of space we can’t broadcast to.


----------



## alang1216

Flash said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
Click to expand...

The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.


----------



## Ringtone

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.




There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> The Prime Directive. Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development. Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.








That Tom Cruise movie War of the Worlds was good except now we're the bad guys.  We got plenty to offer them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.


Ah, ringtone the attention-begging troll is back. *Iggy*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
Click to expand...


*There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  *

There's no reason to think it doesn't.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere. *
> 
> There's no reason to think it doesn't.



There is reason to think there are no aliens anywhere.  This is the type of behavior that shows things just go in one ear and out the other with you.

*What you just said is a lie.*


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
Click to expand...

Actually, we know with 100% certainty that abiogenesis occurred because biological life exists. While the prayer leader at your madrassah may use the term "life from nothing", that's the fundie talkin'. 

Shirley, you can make a better case for "the gawds did it". Just make sure you make a convincing case for your particular, supernatural gawds then move on to a convincing case for supernatural creation 6,000 years ago. 

Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere. *
> 
> There's no reason to think it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is reason to think there are no aliens anywhere.  This is the type of behavior that shows things just go in one ear and out the other with you.
> 
> *What you just said is a lie.*
Click to expand...


*There is reason to think there are no aliens anywhere.  *

So post it.
And post your solar wind theory. Come on, Lucy.


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere. *
> 
> There's no reason to think it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is reason to think there are no aliens anywhere.  This is the type of behavior that shows things just go in one ear and out the other with you.
> 
> *What you just said is a lie.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is reason to think there are no aliens anywhere.  *
> 
> So post it.
> And post your solar wind theory. Come on, Lucy.
Click to expand...


I already did .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere. *
> 
> There's no reason to think it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is reason to think there are no aliens anywhere.  This is the type of behavior that shows things just go in one ear and out the other with you.
> 
> *What you just said is a lie.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is reason to think there are no aliens anywhere.  *
> 
> So post it.
> And post your solar wind theory. Come on, Lucy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did .
Click to expand...


Liar.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive. Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development. Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Tom Cruise movie War of the Worlds was good except now we're the bad guys.  We got plenty to offer them.
Click to expand...

No, even my dog is immune to the virus, the ETs certainly have nothing to fear.


----------



## ReinyDays

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, even my dog is immune to the virus, the ETs certainly have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...


You shouldn't be giving your dog beer ... if ET does show up, give them a Corona, they'll leave ...


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we know with 100% certainty that abiogenesis occurred because biological life exists. While the prayer leader at your madrassah may use the term "life from nothing", that's the fundie talkin'.
> 
> Shirley, you can make a better case for "the gawds did it". Just make sure you make a convincing case for your particular, supernatural gawds then move on to a convincing case for supernatural creation 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Hollie said _life exists, therefore, abiogenesis occurred . . . _and then called me a fundie.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Behold the mindless thought processes of the fundies of materialism/naturalism.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we know with 100% certainty that abiogenesis occurred because biological life exists. While the prayer leader at your madrassah may use the term "life from nothing", that's the fundie talkin'.
> 
> Shirley, you can make a better case for "the gawds did it". Just make sure you make a convincing case for your particular, supernatural gawds then move on to a convincing case for supernatural creation 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...



Then you explain where life came from...and why it only occurred one time.


----------



## Ringtone

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  *
> 
> There's no reason to think it doesn't.
Click to expand...



Abiogenesis is nonsense, an impossibility.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we know with 100% certainty that abiogenesis occurred because biological life exists. While the prayer leader at your madrassah may use the term "life from nothing", that's the fundie talkin'.
> 
> Shirley, you can make a better case for "the gawds did it". Just make sure you make a convincing case for your particular, supernatural gawds then move on to a convincing case for supernatural creation 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie said _life exists, therefore, abiogenesis occurred . . . _and then called me a fundie.
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> Behold the mindless thought processes of the fundies of materialism/naturalism.
Click to expand...

That’s correct, angry, self-hating fundie. Life formed on the planet either through supernatural intervention via one or more gods, (nor necessarily your gods), or by entirely natural mechanisms. 

The utter failure of the religious extremist argument for their particular gods is their need to create the argument from incredulity, thus creating their gods of the gaps. The gods were responsible for thunder and lightning until we determined natural, environmental causes. The gods were blamed for infectious diseases until science unlocked the biology of bacteria and viruses. Your gods are confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

Actually, abiogenesis is the likely cause for life on the planet. Your gods are too incompetent to have performed much beyond floods.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we know with 100% certainty that abiogenesis occurred because biological life exists. While the prayer leader at your madrassah may use the term "life from nothing", that's the fundie talkin'.
> 
> Shirley, you can make a better case for "the gawds did it". Just make sure you make a convincing case for your particular, supernatural gawds then move on to a convincing case for supernatural creation 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain where life came from...and why it only occurred one time.
Click to expand...

Life most likely came from elements that are abundant in the universe. We have no evidence to confirm it occurred only once.

So, you explain supernaturalism and how the Hindu gods (as opposed to your gods), supernaturally created life.


----------



## Flash

alang1216 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
Click to expand...


The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.

Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.  

Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.


----------



## Flash

Hollie said:


> Life most likely came from elements that are abundant in the universe. We have no evidence to confirm it occurred only once.
> 
> So, you explain supernaturalism and how the Hindu gods (as opposed to your gods), supernaturally created life.



We understand chemistry and we understand biology.  However, we don't know how chemistry turns into biology.

It may be common, or it may rare or it may only be unique to the conditions that existed on earth.

If it was easy to turn chemistry into life then every Jr High School science class would be doing it as a classroom experiment.

Until we get another data point we have nothing.


----------



## Hollie

Flash said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life most likely came from elements that are abundant in the universe. We have no evidence to confirm it occurred only once.
> 
> So, you explain supernaturalism and how the Hindu gods (as opposed to your gods), supernaturally created life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand chemistry and we understand biology.  However, we don't know how chemistry turns into biology.
> 
> It may be common, or it may rare or it may only be unique to the conditions that existed on earth.
> 
> If it was easy to turn chemistry into life then every Jr High School science class would be doing it as a classroom experiment.
> 
> Until we get another data point we have nothing.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised to learn that there is a journal entitled, “_Journal of Biological Chemistry”.  

The Journal of Biological Chemistry _

You might be surprised to learn that the science of biology relies directly on the science of chemistry in understanding how proteins are the building blocks of viruses, for one example.

Why bother with learning the process of chemistry into life when the science text of the Bible tells us everything we need to know?


----------



## Hollie

Flash said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.
Click to expand...


Understanding your rigorous pursuit of the truth, I took the liberty of adjusting your earlier comments. 

Show me the money!  Show me where life _the gawds_ exist outside the earth. 

Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life _the gawds_ exist outside earth.


----------



## Flash

Hollie said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understanding your rigorous pursuit of the truth, I took the liberty of adjusting your earlier comments.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life _the gawds_ exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life _the gawds_ exist outside earth.
Click to expand...



So you believe in magic?

The universe magically creating itself out of nothing?

Did Samantha do it?


----------



## Hollie

Flash said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understanding your rigorous pursuit of the truth, I took the liberty of adjusting your earlier comments.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life _the gawds_ exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life _the gawds_ exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in magic?
> 
> The universe magically creating itself out of nothing?
> 
> Did Samantha do it?
> 
> View attachment 315503
Click to expand...


Why do you believe the universe created itself out of nothing?

That’s not the model that science points to. 

Can you make a case for the magical creation of your gods and their magical creation of the universe?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Ringtone said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  *
> 
> There's no reason to think it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is nonsense, an impossibility.
Click to expand...


Feel free to post your proof.


----------



## Flash

Hollie said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understanding your rigorous pursuit of the truth, I took the liberty of adjusting your earlier comments.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life _the gawds_ exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life _the gawds_ exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in magic?
> 
> The universe magically creating itself out of nothing?
> 
> Did Samantha do it?
> 
> View attachment 315503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the universe created itself out of nothing?
> 
> That’s not the model that science points to.
> 
> Can you make a case for the magical creation of your gods and their magical creation of the universe?
Click to expand...



After you boil down all the berries there are really only two possibilities.  Either the universe magically created itself out of nothing or else there is some intelligent design to the creation.

You may spin that magic idea anyway you want but that is what it is.

I am not a astrophysicist but since I studied a little physics in engineering school I simply don't comprehend the idea of sumtin from nutin.

Maybe you could explain it to me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Flash said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understanding your rigorous pursuit of the truth, I took the liberty of adjusting your earlier comments.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life _the gawds_ exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life _the gawds_ exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in magic?
> 
> The universe magically creating itself out of nothing?
> 
> Did Samantha do it?
> 
> View attachment 315503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the universe created itself out of nothing?
> 
> That’s not the model that science points to.
> 
> Can you make a case for the magical creation of your gods and their magical creation of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After you boil down all the berries there are really only two possibilities.  Either the universe magically created itself out of nothing or else there is some intelligent design to the creation.
> 
> You may spin that magic idea anyway you want but that is what it is.
> 
> I am not a astrophysicist but since I studied a little physics in engineering school I simply don't comprehend the idea of sumtin from nutin.
> 
> Maybe you could explain it to me.
Click to expand...


*I am not a astrophysicist but since I studied a little physics in engineering school I simply don't comprehend the idea of sumtin from nutin.*

God works in mysterious ways.


----------



## Hollie

Flash said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understanding your rigorous pursuit of the truth, I took the liberty of adjusting your earlier comments.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life _the gawds_ exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life _the gawds_ exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in magic?
> 
> The universe magically creating itself out of nothing?
> 
> Did Samantha do it?
> 
> View attachment 315503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe being magically created out of nothing is aligned with Christian dogma. Science has a well developed theory about the beginning of the universe and the theory makes no appeals to magic or supernaturalism as religion does.
> 
> Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...fractions of a second after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> Not surprisingly, it is scientists, not religious institutions, who are studying and learning about the beginnings of the universe.
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the universe created itself out of nothing?
> 
> That’s not the model that science points to.
> 
> Can you make a case for the magical creation of your gods and their magical creation of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After you boil down all the berries there are really only two possibilities.  Either the universe magically created itself out of nothing or else there is some intelligent design to the creation.
> 
> You may spin that magic idea anyway you want but that is what it is.
> 
> I am not a astrophysicist but since I studied a little physics in engineering school I simply don't comprehend the idea of sumtin from nutin.
> 
> Maybe you could explain it to me.
Click to expand...

If you had studied physics, you might have learned that science makes no appeals to magic as religion does. Science has a well developed theory about the "Big Bang". You can learn about that with some self-motivation.

So tell us about this intelligent design. It presumes magic and supernaturalism, right?


----------



## james bond

Toddsterpatriot said:


> God works in mysterious ways.



Even this is explanable if one looks at this analogy the right way.  If there was a flatland where two dimensional beings lived, then we would be able to place 2-D objects into it.  We place a 3-D orange into flatland and it would become a 2-D circular object.  We would have 3-dimensional objects that we can place into flatland, if such a place existed, and we can view it.  Any 3-D object would be rendered into 2-D in order to exist there.  Thus, for a supernatural being in the 4th dimension who can see space and time and have control over it, it would not be that difficult for him to put a 4-D object into our 3-D world.  What's the catch?  Although, many of us believe in a 4th dimension, we have no evidence of it existing.

Now that the multiverse hypothesis has been proven pseudoscience, we see the theoretical physicists such as atheist Brian Greene going to the multidimensional theory of strings.  The wacko science and fairy tales continue despite the previously believed multiverse being destroyed.  It doesn't matter, one couldn't see it nor see things pop into existence out of nothing, but the atheist scientists believed it with all their hearts.  The ringleader, Stephen Hawking, is dead now and screaming his arse off 24/7 in his private part of Hades.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said _life exists, therefore, abiogenesis occurred _


Which is accurate. Welcome to the science section. It appears you are looking for the religion section, which is over there ->


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> After you boil down all the berries there are really only two possibilities. Either the universe magically created itself out of nothing or else there is some intelligent design to the creation.


False. Another option is that the universe has always been. Another is that it arose from the remnant of an earlier universe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> God works in mysterious ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even this is explanable if one looks at this analogy the right way.  If there was a flatland where two dimensional beings lived, then we would be able to place 2-D objects into it.  We place a 3-D orange into flatland and it would become a 2-D circular object.  We would have 3-dimensional objects that we can place into flatland, if such a place existed, and we can view it.  Any 3-D object would be rendered into 2-D in order to exist there.  Thus, for a supernatural being in the 4th dimension who can see space and time and have control over it, it would not be that difficult for him to put a 4-D object into our 3-D world.  What's the catch?  Although, many of us believe in a 4th dimension, we have no evidence of it existing.
> 
> Now that the multiverse hypothesis has been proven pseudoscience, we see the theoretical physicists such as atheist Brian Greene going to the multidimensional theory of strings.  The wacko science and fairy tales continue despite the previously believed multiverse being destroyed.  It doesn't matter, one couldn't see it nor see things pop into existence out of nothing, but the atheist scientists believed it with all their hearts.  The ringleader, Stephen Hawking, is dead now and screaming his arse off 24/7 in his private part of Hades.
Click to expand...


Hey, Lucifer, where is your solar wind theory?


----------



## Flash

Hollie said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understanding your rigorous pursuit of the truth, I took the liberty of adjusting your earlier comments.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life _the gawds_ exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life _the gawds_ exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in magic?
> 
> The universe magically creating itself out of nothing?
> 
> Did Samantha do it?
> 
> View attachment 315503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe being magically created out of nothing is aligned with Christian dogma. Science has a well developed theory about the beginning of the universe and the theory makes no appeals to magic or supernaturalism as religion does.
> 
> Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...fractions of a second after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> Not surprisingly, it is scientists, not religious institutions, who are studying and learning about the beginnings of the universe.
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the universe created itself out of nothing?
> 
> That’s not the model that science points to.
> 
> Can you make a case for the magical creation of your gods and their magical creation of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After you boil down all the berries there are really only two possibilities.  Either the universe magically created itself out of nothing or else there is some intelligent design to the creation.
> 
> You may spin that magic idea anyway you want but that is what it is.
> 
> I am not a astrophysicist but since I studied a little physics in engineering school I simply don't comprehend the idea of sumtin from nutin.
> 
> Maybe you could explain it to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had studied physics, you might have learned that science makes no appeals to magic as religion does. Science has a well developed theory about the "Big Bang". You can learn about that with some self-motivation.
> 
> So tell us about this intelligent design. It presumes magic and supernaturalism, right?
Click to expand...


If you knew anything about science you would know that you can't make something out of nothing, which is exactly  what this silly ass magic theory of the universe creating itself postulates.

One day there was nothing.  The next day the universe magically creates itself.  You know, like if Samantha wiggled her nose and it just happened.  That is the silly crap you evidentially believe in.  Not only does that not pass the sincker test but it goes against the Laws of Physics.   You would know that if you ever took a college Freshman Physics class.   

If you want to be believe in magic then fine.  Go for it Sport.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we know with 100% certainty that abiogenesis occurred because biological life exists. While the prayer leader at your madrassah may use the term "life from nothing", that's the fundie talkin'.
> 
> Shirley, you can make a better case for "the gawds did it". Just make sure you make a convincing case for your particular, supernatural gawds then move on to a convincing case for supernatural creation 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain where life came from...and why it only occurred one time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life most likely came from elements that are abundant in the universe. We have no evidence to confirm it occurred only once.
> 
> So, you explain supernaturalism and how the Hindu gods (as opposed to your gods), supernaturally created life.
Click to expand...



Wait..life formed "from elements in the Universe"? "Most Likely"? LOL LOL

  Ok.


----------



## DOTR

Hollie said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we know with 100% certainty that abiogenesis occurred because biological life exists. While the prayer leader at your madrassah may use the term "life from nothing", that's the fundie talkin'.
> 
> Shirley, you can make a better case for "the gawds did it". Just make sure you make a convincing case for your particular, supernatural gawds then move on to a convincing case for supernatural creation 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain where life came from...and why it only occurred one time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life most likely came from elements that are abundant in the universe. We have no evidence to confirm it occurred only once.
> 
> So, you explain supernaturalism and how the Hindu gods (as opposed to your gods), supernaturally created life.
Click to expand...



   You just disputed the modern Theory of Evolution which is based, correctly, on the supposition of universal common descent.

  The Hindu gods didnt create life. Hindus believe life exists in and of itself with the gods as a result rather than a cause of the cosmos.


----------



## DOTR

Flash said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life most likely came from elements that are abundant in the universe. We have no evidence to confirm it occurred only once.
> 
> So, you explain supernaturalism and how the Hindu gods (as opposed to your gods), supernaturally created life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand chemistry and we understand biology.  However, we don't know how chemistry turns into biology.
> 
> It may be common, or it may rare or it may only be unique to the conditions that existed on earth.
> 
> If it was easy to turn chemistry into life then every Jr High School science class would be doing it as a classroom experiment.
> 
> Until we get another data point we have nothing.
Click to expand...



   It was a unique event as far as we know. Not only was it unique but it was apparently destined as we now know life formed almost as soon as oceans formed. Time is not a factor.


----------



## Hollie

Flash said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again about this “fine tuning” thing the gods managed to get so horribly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's use Toddsterpatriot as an example.  He believes in lies.  His faith in atheism and atheist science makes him reject the fine tuning facts and how rough solar wind conditions could be.  Moreover, he cannot even tell us what the other theories are to reject aliens.  Everything that I taught him has gone in one ear and out the other.  Otherwise, he would've produced evidence of aliens years ago and this thread would be over.  Yet, I believe it will grow to over 100 pages because the atheists just gotta have aliens even with no evidence.  Next, we be hearing they were wiped out by coronavirus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is that chart is that there is life elsewhere.  We have no idea if life exist elsewhere because we only have one data point and that is earth.  Until we get another data point on life charts like that are meaningless.
> 
> Until we can confirm that life exist elsewhere then the most logical reason for us not being contacted yet is because there is nobody to contact us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Prime Directive.  Intelligent ETs are here studying us so they can't contact us without screwing up our development.  Besides they are so advanced, we have nothing to offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Prime Directive is a Hollywood created invention to sell entertainment.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understanding your rigorous pursuit of the truth, I took the liberty of adjusting your earlier comments.
> 
> Show me the money!  Show me where life _the gawds_ exist outside the earth.
> 
> Until you can do that then the fact is that we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that life _the gawds_ exist outside earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in magic?
> 
> The universe magically creating itself out of nothing?
> 
> Did Samantha do it?
> 
> View attachment 315503
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe being magically created out of nothing is aligned with Christian dogma. Science has a well developed theory about the beginning of the universe and the theory makes no appeals to magic or supernaturalism as religion does.
> 
> Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...fractions of a second after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> 
> Not surprisingly, it is scientists, not religious institutions, who are studying and learning about the beginnings of the universe.
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the universe created itself out of nothing?
> 
> That’s not the model that science points to.
> 
> Can you make a case for the magical creation of your gods and their magical creation of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After you boil down all the berries there are really only two possibilities.  Either the universe magically created itself out of nothing or else there is some intelligent design to the creation.
> 
> You may spin that magic idea anyway you want but that is what it is.
> 
> I am not a astrophysicist but since I studied a little physics in engineering school I simply don't comprehend the idea of sumtin from nutin.
> 
> Maybe you could explain it to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had studied physics, you might have learned that science makes no appeals to magic as religion does. Science has a well developed theory about the "Big Bang". You can learn about that with some self-motivation.
> 
> So tell us about this intelligent design. It presumes magic and supernaturalism, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about science you would know that you can't make something out of nothing, which is exactly  what this silly ass magic theory of the universe creating itself postulates.
> 
> One day there was nothing.  The next day the universe magically creates itself.  You know, like if Samantha wiggled her nose and it just happened.  That is the silly crap you evidentially believe in.  Not only does that not pass the sincker test but it goes against the Laws of Physics.   You would know that if you ever took a college Freshman Physics class.
> 
> If you want to be believe in magic then fine.  Go for it Sport.
Click to expand...

If you can't make something from nothing then explain where your gods came from. Or. do you react as other religionists and simply presume " but.... but.... but....but .... my gods get special exceptions....because.

I know it was identified earlier for you that science theories don't propose the universe as coming from nothing. 

You're hoping to vilify a subject matter you have never taken the time to understand.


----------



## Hollie

DOTR said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to think that life exists elsewhere.  Yours is the leap of faith that expects, presumably, abiogenesis is possible.  Abiogenesis is a pipedream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, we know with 100% certainty that abiogenesis occurred because biological life exists. While the prayer leader at your madrassah may use the term "life from nothing", that's the fundie talkin'.
> 
> Shirley, you can make a better case for "the gawds did it". Just make sure you make a convincing case for your particular, supernatural gawds then move on to a convincing case for supernatural creation 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you explain where life came from...and why it only occurred one time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life most likely came from elements that are abundant in the universe. We have no evidence to confirm it occurred only once.
> 
> So, you explain supernaturalism and how the Hindu gods (as opposed to your gods), supernaturally created life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait..life formed "from elements in the Universe"? "Most Likely"? LOL LOL
> 
> Ok.
Click to expand...


LOL LOL.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> God works in mysterious ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even this is explanable if one looks at this analogy the right way.  If there was a flatland where two dimensional beings lived, then we would be able to place 2-D objects into it.  We place a 3-D orange into flatland and it would become a 2-D circular object.  We would have 3-dimensional objects that we can place into flatland, if such a place existed, and we can view it.  Any 3-D object would be rendered into 2-D in order to exist there.  Thus, for a supernatural being in the 4th dimension who can see space and time and have control over it, it would not be that difficult for him to put a 4-D object into our 3-D world.  What's the catch?  Although, many of us believe in a 4th dimension, we have no evidence of it existing.
> 
> Now that the multiverse hypothesis has been proven pseudoscience, we see the theoretical physicists such as atheist Brian Greene going to the multidimensional theory of strings.  The wacko science and fairy tales continue despite the previously believed multiverse being destroyed.  It doesn't matter, one couldn't see it nor see things pop into existence out of nothing, but the atheist scientists believed it with all their hearts.  The ringleader, Stephen Hawking, is dead now and screaming his arse off 24/7 in his private part of Hades.
Click to expand...

How very xtian of you to use your religion as a way to promote your hate for others.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> If you knew anything about science you would know that you can't make something out of nothing,


Show us that law, professor. Since it is science. A link will do.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew anything about science you would know that you can't make something out of nothing,
> 
> 
> 
> Show us that law, professor. Since it is science. A link will do.
Click to expand...


A link?  Some people just do not have common sense.

Common sense just isn't that common .


----------



## sealybobo

Natural Citizen said:


> I was reading some place where they're making plans to land on Europa.


3 kinds of live. Animals not as smart as us, as smart, or smarter.

Im guessing more or less. The chances of them being human like are slim.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Show us that law, professor. Since it is science. A link will do.


I think you can make something from nothing actually.

Or, you can make something from something else. For example living things once didn’t have eyes. So eyes came to be where once eyes didn’t exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> A link?  Some people just do not have common sense.
> 
> Common sense just isn't that common .


Your common sense is laughably stupid. This is why we invented science.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I think you can make something from nothing actually.
> 
> Or, you can make something from something else. For example living things once didn’t have eyes. So eyes came to be where once eyes didn’t exist.



Your ignorance is truly a wonder to behold. Child like, but still dull and lacking insight.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> Your ignorance is truly a wonder to behold. Child like, but still dull and lacking insight.


Your divine declarations do not belong in the science section, shaman.


----------



## miketx

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your common sense is laughably stupid. This is why we invented science.


All leftists like you invent is misery, failure, lost productivity, crime, poverty, murdered babies, fear and a host of others.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

miketex said:


> All leftists like you invent is misery, failure, lost productivity, crime, poverty, murdered babies, fear and a host of others.


Hi! Mike! Apparently you have not yet had your dose of self soothing crybabying. I.E., your "morning coffee".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So it is absurd to think the universe possibly "came from nothing".

But believing a magical, invisible sky daddy "came from nothing" and cares if the peeners touch is perfectly reasonable.

Let me look up and check which section I am in, again...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your divine declarations do not belong in the science section, shaman.


 Can you remove your head from your anus and repeat that? It was muffled.

Remember, one of us is a real scientist, the other a moron socialist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> Can you remove your head from your anus and repeat that? It was muffled.
> 
> Remember, one of us is a real scientist, the other a moron socialist.


Oh look, more vapid whining. If that's all you got, then I think you did a fine job of undermining yourself without any assistance from me.


Uncensored2008 said:


> Can you remove your head from your anus and repeat that? It was muffled.
> 
> Remember, one of us is a real scientist, the other a moron socialist.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So it is absurd to think the universe possibly "came from nothing".
> 
> But believing a magical, invisible sky daddy "came from nothing" and cares if the peeners touch is perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Let me look up and check which section I am in, again...



How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?

Mental masturbation is of little practical use.

I was raised on "the big bang," now it looks as if that was wrong.

Such is the reality of scientific discovery. Hypothesis, testing, falsification, refinement.

It makes little difference, particularly in connection to the secular angels of "aliens" that so many embrace.

It's just a recasting of the same magical bullshit of the dark ages with ET rather than Saraphim.

Might there be life on other planets? Sure, and it's most likely in the range of viruses or bacteria,

No spaceship is coming to punish Orange Man Bad and declare to wonders of Communism for all of the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> I was raised on "the big bang," now it looks as if that was wrong.


Hmm, not really. It's just that we realized we cannot know what happened before the inflationary period, so the Big Bang has been limited in its scope. Now it basically refers to inflation. 

Note the important part: "we don't know".


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh look, more vapid whining. If that's all you got, then I think you did a fine job of undermining yourself without any assistance from me.



?

It was you whining, son.

You, as a person who can't grasp the empirical evidence of the number of genders among mammals, should be good for a laugh in defining what "nothing" is?

You claim with zero evidence, that the Universe came from nothinf. So define "nothing" and explain the process that transforms "nothing" into "something?"


----------



## Death Angel

Natural Citizen said:


> I was reading some place where they're making plans to land on Europa.


Launch October 2024.
Arrival April 2030


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> You claim with zero evidence, that the Universe came from nothinf.


I have have over and over said only that it cannot be ruled out. Please correct your lie and fashion a better response.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Uncensored2008 said:


> How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?


I heard it was angels.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grumblenuts said:


> I heard it was angels.


Stop being obtuse.

*rimshot


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So it is absurd to think the universe possibly "came from nothing".
> 
> But believing a magical, invisible sky daddy "came from nothing" and cares if the peeners touch is perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Let me look up and check which section I am in, again...


It's actually quite logical once you realize God is no thing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Take Uncensored2008  's little strawman dollies away from him, and he doesn't have much to say.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop being obtuse.
> 
> *rimshot


An obtuse angle would fit, but none greater than 180°


----------



## miketx

Natural Citizen said:


> I was reading some place where they're making plans to land on Europa.


I saw the movie. They were all mad about brexit.


----------



## ReinyDays

Wow ... this went downhill fast ... aren't we blaming Congress for all this? ...


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Show us that law, professor. Since it is science. A link will do.


Physics calls that law: "conservation of matter," although since Einstein it's more appropriately called "conservation of energy" where matter is just another form of energy.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

However, creation of the universe would violate the principle.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Physics calls that law: "perseveration of matter," although since Einstein it's more appropriately called "preservation of energy" where matter is just another form of energy.


More to the point, conservation of energy. 

So, if the universe has net zero energy, which may be the case, "a universe from nothing" would not violate that law. 
And even if the numbers we know don't produce the "net zero energy universe" result, we would still be in a position of ignorance where we can't definitively rule it out. As we don't know everything, yet.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> More to the point, conservation of energy.
> 
> So, if the universe has net zero energy, which may be the case, "a universe from nothing" would not violate that law.
> And even if the numbers we know don't produce the "net zero energy universe" result, we would still be in a position of ignorance where we can't definitively rule it out. As we don't know everything, yet.


How can the universe have zero net energy? Every atom is a bundle of energy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> How can the universe have zero net energy? Every atom is a bundle of energy.


Because gravity has "negative" energy value. 

Fascinating, really.





__





						Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because gravity has "negative" energy value.
> 
> Fascinating, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Look at you using what I taught you.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because gravity has "negative" energy value.
> 
> Fascinating, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


I've never seen that in any physics book


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm, not really. It's just that we realized we cannot know what happened before the inflationary period, so the Big Bang has been limited in its scope. Now it basically refers to inflation.
> 
> Note the important part: "we don't know".



Hypothesis, testing, falsification, refinement.

We took mathematical observations which suggest an expanding universe and extrapolated an elaborate central event. There is nothing to suggest such an event, it's just speculation based on the suggested expansion of the universe.

Now, even that is in question.

Because of the distances and timescales involved, we cannot observe. We extrapolate based on mathematical models. 

Data from Kepler suggests that the universe more likely pulses - that is expands for a period, then contracts for a period, in an endless cycle. But again, this is based on extremely limited information gathered from tracking stars and other bodies. We see more based on Kepler, Hubble, Webb, et al. than we did in the 1930's, but our knowledge is still infinitesimal and what we this we know is little more than fantasy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Grumblenuts said:


> I heard it was angels.



That too, but obtuse and acute can really get down and boogie...


----------



## Ringtone

bripat9643 said:


> Physics calls that law: "conservation of matter," although since Einstein it's more appropriately called "conservation of energy" where matter is just another form of energy.
> 
> Conservation of energy - Wikipedia
> 
> *However, creation of the universe would violate the principle.*


Assuming I correctly understand what _you_ mean by "creation of the universe," the law of conservation of energy has absolutely no bearing on the matter; that is to say, the universe coming into existence _ex nihilo_ does not violate the principle.  The principle strictly pertains to the substances of the closed system that is our universe, not to any substances or forces of agency beyond the universe.


----------



## sealybobo

miketex said:


> All leftists like you invent is misery, failure, lost productivity, crime, poverty, murdered babies, fear and a host of others.


Actually the globalists invented everything. Trump supporters invent nothing except mr pillows.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Take Uncensored2008  's little strawman dollies away from him, and he doesn't have much to say.



Wow, what a poignant and biting response.


----------



## Ringtone

bripat9643 said:


> How can the universe have zero net energy? Every atom is a bundle of energy.


Precisely!

The sum total of energy in our universe is zero; that is to say, the energy of matter is positive, and the energy of gravitation is negative.  They always add up to zero.  But a sum total of zero energy does not mean the universe is literally composed of nothing.  The negative energy of the universe stored in the gravitational attraction _between _all of the positive-energy particles balances (or cancels out) the positive energy.  Hence, there is both positive and negative energy in different places in the universe and an overall zero-sum of energy in the universe at the same time.  But matter and energy and things.   A huge amount of energy balanced against a huge amount of matter is a doubly huge amount of something.  Nevertheless, the backdrop of this zero-sum total of energy in today's universe was the boost behind the cosmic inflation of the early universe: the special state of matter believed to have existed at extremely high energies which would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a violently repulsive force rather than an attractive force.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> Precisely!
> 
> The sum total of energy in our universe is zero; that is to say, the energy of matter is positive, and the energy of gravitation is negative.  They always add up to zero.  But a sum total of zero energy does not mean the universe is literally composed of nothing.  The negative energy of the universe stored in the gravitational attraction _between _all of the positive-energy particles balances (or cancels out) the positive energy.  Hence, there is both positive and negative energy in different places in the universe and an overall zero-sum of energy in the universe at the same time.  But matter and energy and things.   A huge amount of energy balanced against a huge amount of matter is a doubly huge amount of something.  Nevertheless, the backdrop of this zero-sum total of energy in today's universe was the boost behind the cosmic inflation of the early universe: the special state of matter believed to have existed at extremely high energies which would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a violently repulsive force rather than an attractive force.


Actually there’s slightly more matter than anti matter.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> Actually there’s slightly more matter than anti matter.


Not sure what you're getting at regarding zero-sum energy.  Please elaborate.  Thanks.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Uncensored2008 said:


> That too, but obtuse and acute can really get down and boogie...


Above my pay grade, but I do enjoy the notion of obtuse or pinheaded angels attempting to gather and dance on a pinhead.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> Not sure what you're getting at regarding zero-sum energy.  Please elaborate.  Thanks.


Me neither. Way above my pay grade. I’m just wondering what we would do if we found life on another planet. Right off the bat we should wonder if they are edible. Maybe that’s why we fear an alien who’s smarter than us. We eat everything not as smart as us.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> I've never seen that in any physics book


You would and will, if you read about gravitational fields.

The gravitational potential in the field has to be negative, because of conservation of energy.

The energy in the closed system must remain constant. Consider a system of two objects. As one object is accelerated toward the other, it gains kinetic energy. That energy has to be balanced out. So, when this happens the magnitude of the gravitational potential increases, and that energy is necessarily negative.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> There is nothing to suggest such an event,


You just commemted on how all of our observations and theory all point to the occurrence of such an event. 

Yet still, scientists don't insist with any real certainty that the Universe started as a singularity.

We only know that there was rapid inflation from an earlier, ultradense state. And no, the evidence is not just theoretical. We took a picture of it.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> Me neither. Way above my pay grade. I’m just wondering what we would do if we found life on another planet. Right off the bat we should wonder if they are edible. Maybe that’s why we fear an alien who’s smarter than us. We eat everything not as smart as us.


I don't think life on other planets is very likely, but. . . .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Actually there’s slightly more matter than anti matter.


One of the biggest mysteries of cosmology.

Like...why?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which is why scientists don't insist with anyreal certainty that the Universe started as a singularity.


You should stop using that term.  You don't know what it means.  

A singularity is a region of space where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite as determined by mathematical equations.  

If you are trying to imply anything more than it is the limit of the equations, you are wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You would and will, if you read about gravitational fields.
> 
> The gravitational potential in the field has to be negative, because of conservation of energy.



Produce a link to that or shut the fuck up.




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The energy in the closed system must remain constant. Consider a system of two objects. As one object is accelerated toward the other, it gains kinetic energy. That energy has to be balanced out. So, when this happens the magnitude of the gravitational potential increases, and that energy is necessarily negative.




There is no such thing as "gravitational energy."  There is something called potential energy, but that's not what you are implying it is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> Produce a link to that


I already did. Follow the links in there. Or look up gravitational fields, or gravitational potential energy.

It's not something you can get around. It just is what it is. Gravitational potential is negative. And it is a form of energy.

I gave you the simplest explanation and example, too. Two body system.


----------



## bripat9643

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I already did. Follow the links in there. Or look up gravitational fields, or gravitational potential energy.
> 
> It's not something you can get around. It just is what it is. Gravitational potential is negative. And it is a form of energy.
> 
> I gave you the simplest explanation and example, too. Two body system.


You did no such thing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643 said:


> You did no such thing.


Well, you just failed the quiz for this part of the semester, I guess.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bripat9643

Furthermore, this concept is key to the eventual fate of the universe. If the net energy of the universe is negative, it will eventually collapse in on itself in the Big Crunch. If the net energy of the universe is positive, it will eventually fly apart in the Big Rip.


----------



## ding

Oh brother


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You should stop using that term.  You don't know what it means.
> 
> A singularity is a region of space where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite as determined by mathematical equations.
> 
> If you are trying to imply anything more than it is the limit of the equations, you are wrong.


Ah. So IF I eventually say something wrong, it will be wrong. That's deep, man.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> I don't think life on other planets is very likely, but. . . .



Actually, I tend to believe the reverse and that is at least at one point or another in the history of a planet very possible if it is possible.

However, odds are likely that it only lasts for a certain period of time, and rarely evolved much more than "pond scum" before going extinct.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mushroom said:


> Actually, I tend to believe the reverse and that is at least at one point or another in the history of a planet very possible if it is possible.
> 
> However, odds are likely that it only lasts for a certain period of time, and rarely evolved much more than "pond scum" before going extinct.


Same. One strong bit of support for this is how quickly life formed on Earth, once conditions were not prohibitive.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Basic "life" should just always form, if there is liquid water and organic compounds and their building blocks around, and if it is given enough time to do so.

That's the nature of the concept of selection. It's a form of bias built right into our universe, caused by the laws of the universe.

Selection will "select for" persistence of more stable molecules. Of stable models like membranes. It "selects for " persistence of replicating models, on the scale of life.

So, now we have to try to define "life". It's harder than you think. Try it.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> I don't think life on other planets is very likely, but. . . .


That’s thinking very small. There’s so much we don’t know. There’s probably life in europa. There was probably life on Mars at one time. Long before there was life on earth.

If any of that is true, life is probably surrounding every star. Maybe not at this very minute. Maybe 1 billion years ago. Maybe one billion years from now.

But to say you don’t think there is any life other than here in the entire universe, is pretty damn ignorant and small thinking.

The odds are there is lots. Jus because we can’t see it doesn’t mean shit.

Do you kno there may be another planet in our solar system? So far out beyond Pluto in the dark and we can’t see it. Way out at the edge of our solar system. And we don’t even know it.

The ignorance to suggest we are the only life. Stunning.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> Actually, I tend to believe the reverse and that is at least at one point or another in the history of a planet very possible if it is possible.
> 
> However, odds are likely that it only lasts for a certain period of time, and rarely evolved much more than "pond scum" before going extinct.


There is zero chance that chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has ever occurred anywhere in the Universe in the first place, but I suppose it's possible that God may have created microorganismal foundations elsewhere, though, for theological reasons, I think it highly unlikely.


----------



## Mushroom

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Same. One strong bit of support for this is how quickly life formed on Earth, once conditions were not prohibitive.



Exactly, and we have been seeing possible indicators on Mars for years.

However, this is a case that shows what happened to most of it did evolve.  As of the three outer rocky planets (Venus, Earth, Mars), we live on the only one that still has an active core creating a magnetic field.  There is ample evidence Mars once had liquid water, a sizeable atmosphere, and everything else needed for life.  But at about the time that life on our planet was evolving past the single cell phase their core died and along with it eventually all life that might have evolved.

Other than possible extremophiles that live deep underground.  That is likely the fact for what happens to "life" on most exoplanets.  And it may have evolved on some of the moons in our solar system, especially on moons where they still have a core kept active not by the core itself but gravity stress from their parent planet.  Life is probably very easy to form I believe, but you need something more to enable it to go from simple bacteria and since celled organisms to "life" as most recognize it.  And odds are that is damned rare in the universe.  We know for a fact it only exists in one place in our solar system, and has not been found yet anywhere else we have found planets.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> I suppose, that God may have created microorganismal foundations elsewhere, though I think it highly unlikely for theological reasons.



Therefore that is a theological claim, and does not really belong in a "science" debate thread.


----------



## sealybobo

Mushroom said:


> Actually, I tend to believe the reverse and that is at least at one point or another in the history of a planet very possible if it is possible.
> 
> However, odds are likely that it only lasts for a certain period of time, and rarely evolved much more than "pond scum" before going extinct.


Don’t act like humans have been around forever. Blink of an eye.

It really is amazing everything that had to happen for us to be here. Dinosaurs get wiped out. Moon gets put where it is.

And for it to last for 1 million years give or take? But even a million years is a blink of an eye.

This planet will have life on it long after humans go extinct. Unless we get off this rock and master the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mushroom said:


> Exactly, and we have been seeing possible indicators on Mars for years.
> 
> However, this is a case that shows what happened to most of it did evolve.  As of the three outer rocky planets (Venus, Earth, Mars), we live on the only one that still has an active core creating a magnetic field.  There is ample evidence Mars once had liquid water, a sizeable atmosphere, and everything else needed for life.  But at about the time that life on our planet was evolving past the single cell phase their core died and along with it eventually all life that might have evolved.
> 
> Other than possible extremophiles that live deep underground.  That is likely the fact for what happens to "life" on most exoplanets.  And it may have evolved on some of the moons in our solar system, especially on moons where they still have a core kept active not by the core itself but gravity stress from their parent planet.  Life is probably very easy to form I believe, but you need something more to enable it to go from simple bacteria and since celled organisms to "life" as most recognize it.  And odds are that is damned rare in the universe.  We know for a fact it only exists in one place in our solar system, and has not been found yet anywhere else we have found planets.


True, but we have one small advantage, there: In our current snapshot of the universe, we can see stars of all ages. So we should find a basically overwhelming number of young planets around young stars that might resemble those in our solar system 4 billion years ago. Yes, it's optimistic. But, when you think about it, wouldn't that be a way to increase the likelihood of finding life on exoplanets? I mean even the simplest life. Even just single celled creatures.

As for other intelligent life? Ships passing in the night. Personally, I wouldn't bet on ever meeting any of them. The universe is very very big. Maybe an intelligent species in Andromeda (assuming one intelligent species per galaxy existing "simultaneously" ,  for a total of 100 billion+ intelligent species in the universe at any given time) sent us a message 2 million years ago after seeing strong  biomarkers on our planet originating 2 million years before that, and we get it tomorrow.

So, we reply. 4 million years after they sent a message to us, they get a reply. And so on. We wait 4 million years to find out if they still exist 2 million years from now.  Makes the brain hurt.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> That’s thinking very small. There’s so much we don’t know. There’s probably life in europa. There was probably life on Mars at one time. Long before there was life on earth.
> 
> If any of that is true, life is probably surrounding every star. Maybe not at this very minute. Maybe 1 billion years ago. Maybe one billion years from now.
> 
> But to say you don’t think there is any life other than here in the entire universe, is pretty damn ignorant and small thinking.
> 
> The odds are there is lots. Jus because we can’t see it doesn’t mean shit.
> 
> Do you kno there may be another planet in our solar system? So far out beyond Pluto in the dark and we can’t see it. Way out at the edge of our solar system. And we don’t even know it.
> 
> The ignorance to suggest we are the only life. Stunning.


My opinion isn't based on ignorance any more than I need to resort to pejoratives to assert it.  It's based on my firsthand, expert knowledge of the findings of abiogenetic research.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> Therefore that is a theological claim, and does not really belong in a "science" debate thread.


Theology belongs wherever it belongs, and I say it belongs here.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> My opinion isn't based on ignorance any more than I need to resort to pejoratives to assert it.  It's based on my firsthand, expert knowledge of the findings of abiogenetic research.


No, is thinking small and ignorant. The numbers suggest Youre wrong. Jus an ignorant stupid human on the 3rd rock from the sun.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So we should find a basically overwhelming number of young planets around young stars that might resemble those in our solar system 4 billion years ago.


The James Webb Telescope will do this for us.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> My opinion isn't based on ignorance any more than I need to resort to pejoratives to assert it.  It's based on my firsthand, expert knowledge of the findings of abiogenetic research.


All there has to be is one planet with water and it’s probably covered with tardigrades.

If you knew more you’d realize how ridiculous your conclusion is.

Expert knowledge and research? Like Carl Sagan?


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The James Webb Telescope will do this for us.


And most stars are binary. So planets around most stars don’t have the stability for intelligent life to develop. But tardigrades can develop anywhere. Humans can’t.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ah. So IF I eventually say something wrong, it will be wrong. That's deep, man.


It's more like you are trying to imply more importance to the term singularity than it warrants.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> It's more like you are trying to imply more importance to the term singularity than it warrants.


You’re the king of doing that. Thinking something proves something it doesn’t.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> You’re the king of doing that. Thinking something proves something it doesn’t.


Cool story, bro.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> It's based on my firsthand, expert knowledge of the findings of abiogenetic research.


Code for: "We can't make life in a lab!"

We can't make stars, either. We have never seen an electron. We can't make a volcano. Or a mountain. We can't make uranium in a lab. We have to dig for it. But we know that uranium did, indeed, form from lighter elements. And we know where and how, for the most part.

Abiogenesis is just that: the formation of life. No life, then life.

Star formation: no star, then star.

"Uranogenesis": once no uranium atom, then a uranium atom. Yes I made up the word.

Not much to argue, there. Either life formed, or it was always here. What is your proposal for how abiogenesis worked? Creationism? Okay, but you're still just attempting to explain abiogenesis by substituting divine magic for the letter "a", making it divine "biogenesis". You aren't denying that life appeared when and where there was once no life. You are saying exactly that.

Why do you propose a sudden, divine intervention (which would seem to indicate a need for a correction; apparently God can admit when He is wrong), here? Why can't God's plan from the beginning for the formation of life just be abiogenesis (so He built it right into the laws of the universe)? Surely you think God is capable of such a thing, no?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> And most stars are binary.


True. Which helps our search. Why is that?

Because there is still an absolutely overwhelming number of stars that are not binary stars. So we can cut out half of the systems in one cut and still have a basically unmanageable amount of science to do.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> All there has to be is one planet with water and it’s probably covered with tardigrades.
> 
> If you knew more you’d realize how ridiculous your conclusion is.
> 
> Expert knowledge and research? Like Carl Sagan?


Carl Sagan was not an expert on abiogenetic research.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Code for: "We can't make life in a lab!"
> 
> We can't make stars, either. We have never seen an electron. We can't make a volcano. Or a mountain. We can't make uranium in a lab. We have to dig for it. But we know that uranium did, indeed, form from lighter elements. And we know where and how, for the most part.
> 
> Abiogenesis is just that: the formation of life. No life, then life.
> 
> Star formation: no star, then star.
> 
> Not much to argue, there. Either life formed, or it was always here. What is your proposal for how abiogenesis worked? Creationism? Okay, but you're still just attempting to explain abiogenesis. You aren't denying that life appeared when and where there was once no life. You are saying exactly that.


God could have poofed life into existence. One minute no humans the next, Adam and Eve. Why didn’t god just poor an entire tribe into existence rather than make Adam and eves kids fuck each other?


----------



## Mushroom

sealybobo said:


> Don’t act like humans have been around forever. Blink of an eye.
> 
> It really is amazing everything that had to happen for us to be here. Dinosaurs get wiped out. Moon gets put where it is.



Where did I say humans?  Nowhere, actually.  But we know the timeline of life, and it took about 2-3 billion years for life to go from single cells to more complex multi-cellular life.  And I doubt most planets had that long.


----------



## Mushroom

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> True, but we have one small advantage, there: In our current snapshot of the universe, we can see stars of all ages. So we should find a basically overwhelming number of young planets around young stars that might resemble those in our solar system 4 billion years ago.



Oh, it is much more than even that.  Because most models only have the cores of a "standard planet" lasting from 2-3 billion years before it solidifies.  And once the core dies, the planet dies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Why didn’t god just poor an entire tribe into existence rather than make Adam and eves kids fuck each other?


Apparently He did, if you ask an Apologist. It is the way around the incest question: God created other humans after he created Adam and Eve.

God "poofed" more humans into existence. But only some. Just enough. Naturally. The rest were born exactly as we would expect they were.


----------



## toobfreak

Mushroom said:


> But we know the timeline of life, and it took about 2-3 billion years for life to go from single cells to more complex multi-cellular life.



RUBBISH.  After the surface of the Earth sufficiently cooled and solidified, it took life here only about 200,000 years to emerge as prokaryotes, and only about another 1.5 billion years for eukaryotes, mitochondrial organelles and chloroplasts (the beginnings of multicellular, specialized cellular life) to emerge.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mushroom said:


> Oh, it is much more than even that.  Because most models only have the cores of a "standard planet" lasting from 2-3 billion years before it solidifies.  And once the core dies, the planet dies.


Right, and it appears that life formed on Earth "right away", when given the chance. It doesn't seem to need 3 billion years, or even  1 billion. We may be nailing it down to a window of 200 million years after the oceans formed.

So, even if our planet was one of the unfortunate ones that died at 1 billion years old, life would have already been around for 800 million years.

Also, our planet has a large core, proportionally. One explanation for this: Theia


----------



## toobfreak

Mushroom said:


> Because most models only have the cores of a "standard planet" lasting from 2-3 billion years before it solidifies.



  Standard models?  Boy, what is proven wrong more often than our standard models?  Of all the exoplanets we have actually found, we are discovering that most rocky worlds tend to be LARGER than the Earth--- much larger.  The Earth is a rather puny thing as far as typical rocky worlds are concerned.  So planets capable of holding magnetic fields for many billions of years must be rather commonplace across the galaxy.


----------



## Mushroom

toobfreak said:


> RUBBISH. After the surface of the Earth sufficiently cooled and solidified, it took life here only about 200,000 years to emerge as prokaryotes, and only about another 1.5 billion years for eukaryotes, mitochondrial organelles and chloroplasts (the beginnings of multicellular, specialized cellular life) to emerge.



You are aware that we do not know that, right?  That original "Earth Mark I" vanished about 4.5 gya.  And your timeline is more than a little off.  eukaryotes evolved around  2.1–1.6 gya, not the 3+ gya you are claiming.  And it was about 3.5 gya that blue-green algae developed, almost a billion years after your "200,000 year" claim.

Go back and look at some science books.  I doubt you will find any that claim that blue-green algae (prokaryotes) evolved some 4.49 gya.


----------



## Mushroom

toobfreak said:


> So planets capable of holding magnetic fields for many billions of years must be rather commonplace across the galaxy.



True, Mars had one for billions of years, as did Venus.  But both are cold now.

The Earth is largely a lucky accident, which is why our core will still be active when the planet is absorbed by the sun in a few billion more years.


----------



## Mushroom

toobfreak said:


> Standard models? Boy, what is proven wrong more often than our standard models?



So you just react all scientific beliefs, and just make your own up as you go along.  Got it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You just commemted on how all of our observations and theory all point to the occurrence of such an event.
> 
> Yet still, scientists don't insist with any real certainty that the Universe started as a singularity.
> 
> We only know that there was rapid inflation from an earlier, ultradense state. And no, the evidence is not just theoretical. We took a picture of it.



Correlation is not causality.

I commented on the fact that mathematical data suggests a universe that pulses. The idea that this means a singularity is pure speculation.


----------



## toobfreak

Mushroom said:


> You are aware that we do not know that, right?  That original "Earth Mark I" vanished about 4.5 gya.


Yes, that impact reset the clock all over from the beginning, so you don't get to ADD that time to that coming after.



Mushroom said:


> And your timeline is more than a little off.  eukaryotes evolved around  2.1–1.6 gya, not the 3+ gya you are claiming.


Eukaryotes emerged a little over 2 billion years ago, about 1.6 billion years after the first prokaryotes.



Mushroom said:


> And it was about 3.5 gya that blue-green algae developed, almost a billion years after your "200,000 year" claim.


I said nothing about algae much less its emerging just 200,000 years after the Earth cooled.  You better go back and learn to read.  That first life likely appeared on the ocean floor in the form of chemoautotrophs.  Cyanobacteria like blue-green algae did not appear in the historical record until long after the first prokaryotes, about 3.4 billion years ago, which is again, just a little over a billion years since the surface could first support life, all of which conflicts with your original claim as stated.


----------



## toobfreak

Mushroom said:


> True, Mars had one for billions of years, as did Venus.  But both are cold now.


Yet Mercury still has one and it is smaller than some of our moons!



Mushroom said:


> The Earth is largely a lucky accident,


How the fuck would you know that?  Now you are just talking out of your ass.



Mushroom said:


> which is why our core will still be active when the planet is absorbed by the sun in a few billion more years.


Several billion years.  No one can say if our field will last that long.


----------



## toobfreak

Mushroom said:


> So you just react all scientific beliefs, and just make your own up as you go along.  Got it.



No, jackass, I'm just noting the obvious, that none of our models are ever very accurate to what we EXPECT, and scientists are continually surprised by what we have found as we have gone farther and farther out into space.


----------



## Mushroom

toobfreak said:


> Eukaryotes emerged a little over 2 billion years ago, about 1.6 billion years after the first prokaryotes.



OK, now I have absolutely no idea where you are trying to go with this timeline.  It really is skewed all over the place.  That there means that according to what you just said, prokaryotes evolved at around 3.6 gya (2 gya + 1.6 gya).  Which is about a billion years off of your first claim of 200kya after the formation of the planet (4.5gya-299kya).

Look, if you want to be taken seriously, how about sticking to a common timeline and not constantly shift it around at a whim?


----------



## Mushroom

toobfreak said:


> Yet Mercury still has one and it is smaller than some of our moons!



Only because of tidal forces.  Just as many of the moons around the gas giants.  It is no longer alive because of the core itself.  It is because of outside influence.

And no one can say if our field will last that long?  What in the hell do you think makes our magnetic field?  Fairies and happy thoughts?

You shift your own timelines at a whim, you fail to grasp some basic aspects of science, and toss insults because somebody does not agree with you.  Good thing I no longer take you seriously.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> I commented on the fact that mathematical data suggests a universe that pulses. The idea that this means a singularity is pure speculation.


It is speculation,no doubt.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is speculation,no doubt.


This is what pisses me off about people who think there is no other life out there.

So we take a telescope and we look at another star.  What do we see?  Let's try this.  Let's go to another star and look at our solar system.  What do we see?






We don't see earth.  So anyone who was looking at our solar system would see Jupiter and Saturn, maybe Neptune and Uranus and say, "no life there"  

Scientists have discovered a new object orbiting a Sun-like star that had been missed by previous searches.









						Extrasolar Planets News
					

Extrasolar Planet News. Astronomers discover extrasolar planets in a nearby star system. Could extrasolar planets support life? Images, full-text articles. Free.



					www.sciencedaily.com


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> What in the hell do you think makes our magnetic field?


Nuclear reactors?


----------



## Mushroom

sealybobo said:


> This is what pisses me off about people who think there is no other life out there.



Actually, I believe life is not all that uncommon.  But what likely is not out there is what most would call "Intelligent Life".  No Klingons or Borg waiting behind the next nebula.  I doubt that more than a handful of planets in the Milky Way Galaxy can meet all the requirements for life to evolve much past the simple aquatic multi-cellular stage.


----------



## ding

toobfreak said:


> Several billion years. No one can say if our field will last that long.


It depends on who's right about the core.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> This is what pisses me off about people who think there is no other life out there.
> ...


People don't _know_ that there is other life out there. No one does.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> You’re the king of doing that. Thinking something proves something it doesn’t.


If he's the king, you're the queen.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> It depends on who's right about the core.



And most estimates range from 50-90 billion years.  Which is a period of time significantly past the roughly 7.5 billion years when the sun will swallow the Earth.

We know that through a happy chance of fate, that our planet has a core that is roughly double that is a "traditional" planet of our size.  And that additional injection of core is what gives us such a strong field, and why it will last long past any others.  It is more than just the placement of a planet inside the "Goldilocks Zone", there are a great many things that have to happen in order to have life develop, and mature to anything past pond scum.


----------



## Unkotare

Mushroom said:


> And most estimates range from 50-90 billion years.  Which is a period of time significantly past the roughly 7.5 billion years when the sun will swallow the Earth.
> 
> We know that through a happy chance of fate, that our planet has a core that is roughly double that is a "traditional" planet of our size.  And that additional injection of core is what gives us such a strong field, and why it will last long past any others.  It is more than just the placement of a planet inside the "Goldilocks Zone", there are a great many things that have to happen in order to have life develop, and mature to anything past pond scum.


Like Sealybobo.


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> And most estimates range from 50-90 billion years.  Which is a period of time significantly past the roughly 7.5 billion years when the sun will swallow the Earth.
> 
> We know that through a happy chance of fate, that our planet has a core that is roughly double that is a "traditional" planet of our size.  And that additional injection of core is what gives us such a strong field, and why it will last long past any others.  It is more than just the placement of a planet inside the "Goldilocks Zone", there are a great many things that have to happen in order to have life develop, and mature to anything past pond scum.


It's been awhile since I looked into it but that range isn't what I remember seeing.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> It's been awhile since I looked into it but that range isn't what I remember seeing.



It is constantly shifting as more things are discovered.  Including most recently a new understanding of Large low-shear-velocity provinces in the deep mantle and where they likely came from.

But we do know that we have an exceptionally large core, far larger than what would have developed naturally during traditional planetary formation.  And it is why our planet is still dynamic where as on other planets almost all geological activity has ended and they are simply in a slow death.

And I have also seen reports that the core on the planet will be active for "as little" of a period of time as 10 billion years.  And to be honest, at any time that this estimate goes past 8 billion it really becomes insignificant.  Because past about 7.5 billion years the planet will no longer even exist no matter what.  It will be swallowed by the sun, and become yet more materials for our star to cook and compress until it is emitted as yet more heavy materials from the cosmic forge.


----------



## the other mike

One of my neighbors is pretty tight with God, and he said He said "After the Big Bang, I created 840,582 Earth-like planets...some make it , some don't. You guys got one of my best ones and it pisses me off that you're fucking it up."

My neighbor and I are spreading the word musically.


----------



## Flash

Mushroom said:


> It is constantly shifting as more things are discovered.  Including most recently a new understanding of Large low-shear-velocity provinces in the deep mantle and where they likely came from.
> 
> But we do know that we have an exceptionally large core, far larger than what would have developed naturally during traditional planetary formation.  And it is why our planet is still dynamic where as on other planets almost all geological activity has ended and they are simply in a slow death.
> 
> And I have also seen reports that the core on the planet will be active for "as little" of a period of time as 10 billion years.  And to be honest, at any time that this estimate goes past 8 billion it really becomes insignificant.  Because past about 7.5 billion years the planet will no longer even exist no matter what.  It will be swallowed by the sun, and become yet more materials for our star to cook and compress until it is emitted as yet more heavy materials from the cosmic forge.


Excellent point.

The earth had a collision with Theia that created the Moon.  A very happenstance event.

The collision did not only tear off enough mantle to create the Moon that stabilized the earth but it caused the merging of two iron cores.

Earth has a very large molten iron core.  This not only produces the dynamic forces that you cited but also a large magnetic field that shields us from radiation.

 Earth is a very unique planet.  Maybe being unique enough to be the only one in the universe to have life.

If the universe is finite then it will have unique things in it.  It could be that life is unique to earth because of several happenstance events like the merging of two planets at the right angle at the right time in the development of the solar system.


----------



## Mushroom




----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> It is constantly shifting as more things are discovered.  Including most recently a new understanding of Large low-shear-velocity provinces in the deep mantle and where they likely came from.
> 
> But we do know that we have an exceptionally large core, far larger than what would have developed naturally during traditional planetary formation.  And it is why our planet is still dynamic where as on other planets almost all geological activity has ended and they are simply in a slow death.
> 
> And I have also seen reports that the core on the planet will be active for "as little" of a period of time as 10 billion years.  And to be honest, at any time that this estimate goes past 8 billion it really becomes insignificant.  Because past about 7.5 billion years the planet will no longer even exist no matter what.  It will be swallowed by the sun, and become yet more materials for our star to cook and compress until it is emitted as yet more heavy materials from the cosmic forge.


That's the general consensus. 

But...









						Is Earth’s magnetic field powered by a ‘nuclear reactor’?
					

In August 2002, a cover article appeared in Discover magazine on the “Nuclear Planet.”



					www.oakridger.com


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> People don't _know_ that there is other life out there. No one does.


Why are you telling me this captain obvious?  I said people who think there is no other life out there.  

Why are you stating the obvious?  Is that all you had to say?  Piss off krunt.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Like Sealybobo.


Mushroom, he's obsessed with me.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> But...





> The article introduced lay readers to *a new fringe theory* that deep in Earth is a “five-mile wide ball of uranium” that “burns, churns, and reacts, creating the planet's magnetic field, as well as the heat that powers volcanoes and continental-plate movements.”



"Fringe Theory", it says so right in your very own citation.

Might as well be moon fairies and happy thoughts.  This is a science area, and I discuss science.  What is current consensus and understanding, not quack theories.

And no, it is not a "nuclear reactor", as it is neither fission or fusion but radioactive decay that is fueling it.  Not unlike an RTG


----------



## Mushroom

sealybobo said:


> Mushroom, he's obsessed with me.



Actually, I could not care less about you.

However, I will always try to correct wrong or sloppy information.  So if you think I am "obsessed", realize that is likely because you repeatedly post incorrect information.  Or things that simply do not apply to a topic.

To be honest, you really do not matter to me at all.


----------



## the other mike

Here's something new, Flash ...


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> "Fringe Theory", it says so right in your very own citation.


Maybe.  Maybe not.  Time will tell.  I bet you stopped reading right there.

It explains polarity switches instead of arm waving and it explains why  He-3 and He-4 isotopes are found in basalt extruded from volcanic lava.

I believe the scenario of many reactors over a single reactor is more likely though.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> I bet you stopped reading right there.



Actually, no.  I did actually read through it, and this also jumped right out.



> The “nuclear planet” theory *was proposed in 1993* by J. Marvin Herndon, now president of the Transdyne Corp. in San Diego, Calif., who published a paper titled, “Feasibility of a Nuclear Fission Reactor at the Center of the Earth as the Energy Source for the Geomagnetic Field.”



Hmmm, proposed in 1993.  Discussed in a magazine in 2002.  And from then, seems like nobody really cares.

And I know other things that it kind of skips around.  Like their trying to link helium to nuclear fission and fusion.  Meanwhile, it is also a component of radioactive decay that is not linked to fission or fusion.

I mentioned in another thread not all that long ago about tritium.  That one of the things that required maintenance in our nuclear weapons is that many are enhanced with tritium.  And a natural byproduct of tritium decay is helium-3.  In fact, one of the reasons the country has had a "helium shortage" over the past decade or so is because there is less helium being vented from our tritium stockpile as the number of nuclear weapons we have has decreased greatly over the decades.

So taking a leap and just jumping at an idea that the helium is coming from some nuclear reaction instead of the natural decay which is in the current accepted theory is just the kind of fringe junk science I regularly examine, then dismiss.  And as this is still only a fringe theory after almost 30 years, it is even more so.  Even the idea that Yellowstone was a supervolcano that started life in California got accepted quicker than that.

However, once again notice that your very own reference called this a "fringe theory".


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> I believe the scenario of many reactors over a single reactor is more likely though.



It is not any kind of "reactor" at all.  It is radioactive decay.  Just like what powers an RTG.


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> Actually, no. I did actually read through it, and this also jumped right out.


I knew you hadn't.

Then when you did finally read it you looked for things you could argue against it, right?

That's a quite a scientific mind you have there.


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> It is not any kind of "reactor" at all.  It is radioactive decay.  Just like what powers an RTG.


Ummmm... no, it's not just radioactive decay.  Again... did you read the whole article?  

Do you need for me to point out where he uses the term fission and nuclear reactors in the article?   Or maybe you can get a clue from the title of the paper they published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Deep-Earth *Reactor*: Nuclear *Fission*, Helium, and the Geomagnetic Field.”

I think I'm going to go with the nuclear engineer from  Oak Ridge National Laboratory on this one.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Mushroom, he's obsessed with me.


I bet I'm looking pretty good to you right about now


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> Where did I say humans?  Nowhere, actually.  But we know the timeline of life, and it took about 2-3 billion years for life to go from single cells to more complex multi-cellular life.  And I doubt most planets had that long.


False.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your common sense is laughably stupid. This is why we invented science.


You mean _your_ atheist science.  I never heard of _real science_ ignoring valid data.  Thus, evolution is lmao stupid as science does not back up evolution.  All evolution is is a bunch of papers written by atheist scientists in order to continue getting their funding.

Do you get funding?  If not, then LMAO.  Where's your payoff?


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> No, is thinking small and ignorant. The numbers suggest Youre wrong. Jus an ignorant stupid human on the 3rd rock from the sun.


_Small and ignorant_ is naturalist speak.  Numbers?  Please elaborate.


----------



## sealybobo

Mushroom said:


> Actually, I could not care less about you.
> 
> However, I will always try to correct wrong or sloppy information.  So if you think I am "obsessed", realize that is likely because you repeatedly post incorrect information.  Or things that simply do not apply to a topic.
> 
> To be honest, you really do not matter to me at all.


You're going to be embarrassed.  I was talking about Unkotare.  I like you, dick.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> _Small and ignorant_ is naturalist speak.  Numbers?  Please elaborate.


There are more suns in the universe than there are grains of sand on the beaches of the earth.  Wake up you stupid humans.  Let me guess, you believe in an invisible man who created you and has a heaven awaiting.  Amirite?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Mushroom said:


> Actually, I could not care less about you.
> 
> However, I will always try to correct wrong or sloppy information.  So if you think I am "obsessed", realize that is likely because you repeatedly post incorrect information.  Or things that simply do not apply to a topic.
> 
> To be honest, you really do not matter to me at all.





sealybobo said:


> You're going to be embarrassed.  I was talking about Unkotare.  I like you, dick.


I was about to say. Unk actually isn't so bad either. Mushroom is like a breath of fresh air.. whereas ding, already revealing his true, wet fart value here, is the dick.


----------



## Mushroom

sealybobo said:


> I like you, dick.



And notice, I said nothing directly against you at all.  Simply the kinds of things I generally react to, and if it does not apply then it does not apply.

Notice I did not say "you" in the specific, but in the aspect that anybody who thinks I am obsessed about them is not realizing that I largely could not care about most in here.  I respond to claims, and how likely they are when compared to facts.  I take very little personally.

However, ding I am largely dismissing because he seems to fail to grasp a single theory that his own reference calls a "fringe theory" is just that.


----------



## toobfreak

Mushroom said:


> OK, now I have absolutely no idea where you are trying to go with this timeline.  Look, if you want to be taken seriously, how about sticking to a common timeline and not constantly shift it around at a whim?



Idiot, no one is shifting anything around.  I can't help it you have the brains of a grapefruit and know about as much about astronomy and stratographic time as a baboon.


----------



## toobfreak

Mushroom said:


> Only because of tidal forces.  Just as many of the moons around the gas giants.  It is no longer alive because of the core itself.  It is because of outside influence.
> And no one can say if our field will last that long?  What in the hell do you think makes our magnetic field?  Fairies and happy thoughts?


Asshole.



Mushroom said:


> You shift your own timelines at a whim


I've shifted nothing around you asshole.  I dare you to produced a published authoritarian source on the matter that says any different from what I've quoted you.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> There are more suns in the universe than there are grains of sand on the beaches of the earth.  Wake up you stupid humans.  Let me guess, you believe in an invisible man who created you and has a heaven awaiting.  Amirite?


You forgot to "therefore" your metaphysical presupposition of naturalism on rye with a side of ad hominem. 

Allow me to clarify your reasoning, such as it is:

1.  Naturalism is necessarily true.
2.  Abiogenesis is necessarily possible.
3.  Life necessarily arose on Earth via some process of chemical evolution.
4.  There are gobs and gobs of stars.
5.  Therefore, life necessarily exists elsewhere. 

It would seem that your conclusion is necessarily embedded in a number of key premises that are indemonstrable assumptions. 

Just saying.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> whereas ding, already revealing his true, wet fart value here, is the dick.





Mushroom said:


> However, ding I am largely dismissing because he seems to fail to grasp a single theory that his own reference calls a "fringe theory" is just that.


Come at me, bro.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> That's the general consensus.


I recommend you go with that.


----------



## Mushroom

toobfreak said:


> I've shifted nothing around you asshole.





toobfreak said:


> RUBBISH.  *After the surface of the Earth sufficiently cooled and solidified*, *it took life here only about 200,000 years to emerge as prokaryotes, and only about another 1.5 billion years for eukaryotes*, mitochondrial organelles and chloroplasts (the beginnings of multicellular, specialized cellular life) to emerge.





toobfreak said:


> Yes, that impact reset the clock all over from the beginning, so you don't get to ADD that time to that coming after.
> 
> 
> *Eukaryotes emerged a little over 2 billion years ago, about 1.6 billion years after the first prokaryotes*.
> 
> 
> I said nothing about algae much less its emerging just 200,000 years after the Earth cooled.  You better go back and learn to read.  That first life likely appeared on the ocean floor in the form of chemoautotrophs.  Cyanobacteria like blue-green algae did not appear in the historical record until long after the first prokaryotes, about 3.4 billion years ago, which is again, just a little over a billion years since the surface could first support life, all of which conflicts with your original claim as stated.



I can only respond to what you wrote.  What you meant to say or implied is not the same thing.  But you do seem to be bouncing all over the place.  And the constant use of insults tends to make me believe you are just sloppy and irrational, and you just blindly lash out at anybody that does not agree with you.

Oh, and the green part I found particularly funny.  You see, blue-green algae is also known as cyanobacteria.  And the very reason that Prokaryote became used was to describe cyanobacteria, and differentiate them from Eukaryotes.  So you literally are saying "Prokaryotes did not appear until after the first Prokaryotes".

As far as Prokaryotes and evolution, it is largely speculative as they do not positively appear in the fossil record until around 2.1 gya.  But there is ample evidence in things like the change in the atmosphere that indicated they existed at least between 2.4-2.7 gya.  And we do have stromalites that date to over 3.5 gya.  They are believed to be cyanobacteria, but it is impossible to say if it is indeed the bluegreen algae, or some earlier variation.

So yes, you really are bouncing all over the board.  But let me know when you actually want to try and discus science, and not just randomly lob insults at anybody that does not agree with you.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I recommend you go with that.


I never said I didn't actually.    

You guys are freaking hilarious.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I never said I didn't actually.


Ok good. So you do. Oh wait, you didn't say that either. So I guess this is where i say you are freaking hilarious.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ok good


So happy I have your blessing.  You don't know how much that means to me.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I know you are not, because now you have nothing to whine about and no good reason to change the topic to me. Bummer for you.


Did my roll my eyes emoticon give it away?

Ummm.... you were the one who initiated this conversation with me.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ok good. So you do. Oh wait, you didn't say that either. So I guess this is where i say you are freaking hilarious.


Are you done editing your posts?


----------



## sealybobo

Grumblenuts said:


> I was about to say. Unk actually isn't so bad either. Mushroom is like a breath of fresh air.. whereas ding, already revealing his true, wet fart value here, is the dick.


Ding tries to be nice but his real personality comes out.  Unkotare tries to be a dick but he isn't smart enough to get into a debate with anyone, so it's just him flinging poop.  YOURE A RACIST poop.  LIAR poop.

But never explaining why.  He's the biggest dick.

Ding's just a stupid bible thumper who thinks he's smart enough to have proof of a god. 

Unk is the worse.  It must be he agrees with you so you don't see what a tool he is.  He never answers any questions.  I may not agree with you but when I ask you a simple question, you'll answer it right?  He won't.  So trust me, he's the biggest fool on USMB.

Just do a search for his name.  Titles only.  You'll see how many have started threads about what an asshole loser he is.


----------



## toobfreak

Mushroom said:


> I can only respond to what you wrote.  What you meant to say or implied is not the same thing.  But you do seem to be bouncing all over the place.  And the constant use of insults tends to make me believe you are just sloppy and irrational, and you just blindly lash out at anybody that does not agree with you.
> 
> Oh, and the green part I found particularly funny.  You see, blue-green algae is also known as cyanobacteria.  And the very reason that Prokaryote became used was to describe cyanobacteria, and differentiate them from Eukaryotes.  So you literally are saying "Prokaryotes did not appear until after the first Prokaryotes".
> 
> As far as Prokaryotes and evolution, it is largely speculative as they do not positively appear in the fossil record until around 2.1 gya.  But there is ample evidence in things like the change in the atmosphere that indicated they existed at least between 2.4-2.7 gya.  And we do have stromalites that date to over 3.5 gya.  They are believed to be cyanobacteria, but it is impossible to say if it is indeed the bluegreen algae, or some earlier variation.
> 
> So yes, you really are bouncing all over the board.  But let me know when you actually want to try and discus science, and not just randomly lob insults at anybody that does not agree with you.



FUCK OFF YOU DEMENTED ASSHOLE.  And take your pseudoscience bullshit and doubletalk and shove it all up your ass.  You know nothing, and you babble gibberish.  Better take out a better book to refer to from the school library, moron.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ok good. So you do. Oh wait, you didn't say that either. So I guess this is where i say you are freaking hilarious.


Why?  Because I chimed in on a conversation about how long our core would keep generating its magnetic field with the comment that it depends on who is right about what our core is made of and then linked to a paper that hypothesized a nuclear core?


----------



## sealybobo

Mushroom said:


> And notice, I said nothing directly against you at all.  Simply the kinds of things I generally react to, and if it does not apply then it does not apply.
> 
> Notice I did not say "you" in the specific, but in the aspect that anybody who thinks I am obsessed about them is not realizing that I largely could not care about most in here.  I respond to claims, and how likely they are when compared to facts.  I take very little personally.
> 
> However, ding I am largely dismissing because he seems to fail to grasp a single theory that his own reference calls a "fringe theory" is just that.


Like I said before, Ding thinks he's smarter than he really is.  Or he thinks we are dumber than we really are.  Because he will post these things that might sound good but essentially, his posts are filled with fatal flaws.  

Like one of these:  

All Elephants are Grey
Ding is Grey
So Ding must be an Elephant.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Like I said before, Ding thinks he's smarter than he really is.  Or he thinks we are dumber than we really are.  Because he will post these things that might sound good but essentially, his posts are filled with fatal flaws.
> 
> Like one of these:
> 
> All Elephants are Grey
> Ding is Grey
> So Ding must be an Elephant.


Really?  I don't think I'm that smart.  I think you guys think I'm smart.

Why else would you keep bringing it up?


----------



## sealybobo

toobfreak said:


> FUCK OFF YOU DEMENTED ASSHOLE.  And take your pseudoscience bullshit and doubletalk and shove it up all your ass.  You know nothing, and you babble gibberish.  Better take out a better book to refer to from the school library, moron.


You tell him Freak!  Notice 


Ringtone said:


> You forgot to "therefore" your metaphysical presupposition of naturalism on rye with a side of ad hominem.
> 
> Allow me to clarify your reasoning, such as it is:
> 
> 1.  Naturalism is necessarily true.
> 2.  Abiogenesis is necessarily possible.
> 3.  Life necessarily arose on Earth via some process of chemical evolution.
> 4.  There are gobs and gobs of stars.
> 5.  Therefore, life necessarily exists elsewhere.
> 
> It would seem that your conclusion is necessarily embedded in a number of key premises that are indemonstrable assumptions.
> 
> Just saying.


No.  I listen to the scientists.  They tell us what star and planets are made up of.  And it turns out shit is the same no matter where you go in the universe.  All the building blocks of life are everywhere.  And when the conditions are right, and that could be a planet like ours in the goldylocks zone or a moon that has water inside it and it gets stretched so much that the water stays liquid, like Europa,

Or the fact that they believe life was once on mars.  

From what it looks like to scientists, life is probably EVERYWHERE in the universe.  Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.  

It's you making the assumptions bro.  Yes I am too but what I'm assuming is that if there are a trillion planets out there, and the building blocks of life are everyone, and cooked up in planets, and if it happened here, it probably happened elsewhere too.

Why are you so sure we are all there is?  Does your bible have something to do with it?  I have no bible telling me we are the only life in the universe.  I have an open mind.  You, maybe be brainwashed by a Christian cult.  Just sayin


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Like I said before, Ding thinks he's smarter than he really is.



Hey... look what I found.



sealybobo said:


> Btw you remind me of boss so I’m going to tell you before it’s too late I appreciate and respect you as a poster even if I don’t show it. You’re a smart guy



Now what was it that you were saying again, fletcher?


----------



## Grumblenuts

sealybobo said:


> Ding tries to be nice but his real personality comes out.  Unkotare tries to be a dick but he isn't smart enough to get into a debate with anyone, so it's just him flinging poop.  YOURE A RACIST poop.  LIAR poop.
> 
> But never explaining why.  He's the biggest dick.
> 
> Ding's just a stupid bible thumper who thinks he's smart enough to have proof of a god.
> 
> Unk is the worse.  It must be he agrees with you so you don't see what a tool he is.  He never answers any questions.  I may not agree with you but when I ask you a simple question, you'll answer it right?  He won't.  So trust me, he's the biggest fool on USMB.
> 
> Just do a search for his name.  Titles only.  You'll see how many have started threads about what an asshole loser he is.


Sorry to have encouraged more here. I know Unk. He's a teacher, so earns my respect for that if little else.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Really?  I don't think I'm that smart.  I think you guys think I'm smart.
> 
> Why else would you keep bringing it up?


I remember you posted this:

I'm smart enough not to speak for God or to think I was anything special. 
I'm smart enough not to attack the faith of others.
I'm smart enough not to be a deceitful subversive.
I'm smart enough to spot a deceitful subversive when I see one.
And I am smart enough to know you don't worship, praise or believe in God. 

You aren't smart enough to fool anyone.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Hey... look what I found.
> 
> 
> 
> Now what was it that you were saying again, fletcher?


Until you told JohnDB

Without having to explain all of the details, can you provide a summary explanation that a six year old could understand. I'm not very smart.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> I remember you posted this:
> 
> I'm smart enough not to speak for God or to think I was anything special.
> I'm smart enough not to attack the faith of others.
> I'm smart enough not to be a deceitful subversive.
> I'm smart enough to spot a deceitful subversive when I see one.
> And I am smart enough to know you don't worship, praise or believe in God.
> 
> You aren't smart enough to fool anyone.


Yep.  That all sounds like things I have said.  What's the problem?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Yep.  That all sounds like things I have said.  What's the problem?


And then that one time you said

Physiologically speaking, we aren’t much different _than_ we were 10,000 years ago. Just taller. Knowledge is not intelligence. They are two different things. If _you_ cannot understand the distinction, _you_ may not be very intelligent.

What an idiot!  That's when I lost all respect for your dumb ass.  lol


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Until you told JohnDB
> 
> Without having to explain all of the details, can you provide a summary explanation that a six year old could understand. I'm not very smart.


And that's unreasonable?  You know that's what Einstein said, right?  That if you can't explain something such that a 6 year old can understand then maybe you don't understand it yourself.

Still not seeing a problem here.  What's the problem?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> And then that one time you said
> 
> Physiologically speaking, we aren’t much different _than_ we were 10,000 years ago. Just taller. Knowledge is not intelligence. They are two different things. If _you_ cannot understand the distinction, _you_ may not be very intelligent.


That's a true statement.  What's wrong with it?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> And then that one time you said
> 
> Physiologically speaking, we aren’t much different _than_ we were 10,000 years ago. Just taller. Knowledge is not intelligence. They are two different things. If _you_ cannot understand the distinction, _you_ may not be very intelligent.





sealybobo said:


> What an idiot! That's when I lost all respect for your dumb ass. lol


Can you explain why that makes me an idiot and why that would make you lose all respect for me?


----------



## ding

sealybobo I am truly sorry if I offended you but I don't think you understand what it means to say someone is not very intelligent.  It seems to me that you think that means that that is the same thing as calling someone stupid.  It's not.  Understanding the distinction between knowledge and intelligence is something that people who are VERY intelligent would be able to instantly distinguish.  So what that statement was saying is that you aren't in the upper range of intelligence if you can't distinguish knowledge from intelligence.  So if you are able to make that distinction then there is no cause to take that as an insult.  And if you aren't, it's still not calling you stupid.  I understand that you are intelligent.  I have always enjoyed sparring with you.   

I am truly impressed that you were able to quote my posts so accurately from memory.  I do appreciate that too.  I can't tell you how many times my posts get twisted into things I never said or meant.  So I commend you for getting them right.  Do you keep a file of my posts?


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> You tell him Freak!  Notice
> 
> No.  I listen to the scientists.  They tell us what star and planets are made up of.  And it turns out shit is the same no matter where you go in the universe.  All the building blocks of life are everywhere.  And when the conditions are right, and that could be a planet like ours in the goldylocks zone or a moon that has water inside it and it gets stretched so much that the water stays liquid, like Europa,
> 
> Or the fact that they believe life was once on mars.
> 
> From what it looks like to scientists, life is probably EVERYWHERE in the universe.  Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
> 
> It's you making the assumptions bro.  Yes I am too but what I'm assuming is that if there are a trillion planets out there, and the building blocks of life are everyone, and cooked up in planets, and if it happened here, it probably happened elsewhere too.
> 
> Why are you so sure we are all there is?  Does your bible have something to do with it?  I have no bible telling me we are the only life in the universe.  I have an open mind.  You, maybe be brainwashed by a Christian cult.  Just sayin


You write:
Why are you so sure we are all there is?  Does your bible have something to do with it?  I have no bible telling me we are the only life in the universe.  I have an open mind.  You, maybe be [sic] brainwashed by a Christian cult.  Just sayin['.]​
I've already answered that question.  My opinion is based on an extensive store of firsthand knowledge regarding the findings of abiogenetic research.  My expert opinion is that abiogenesis via the natural means of ordinary chemistry is impossible.  An instance of abiogenesis would necessarily entail a staggeringly complex array of synchronously instantaneous events that could have only been orchestrated by a superpowerful intelligence.  There is no way in hell, not on Earth or any other place in the Universe, that life arose from nonliving material via an accumulative process of natural means.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> There is no way in hell, not on Earth or on any other planet in the Universe, that life arose from nonliving material via an accumulative process of natural means.


But your opinion means Jack shit. Like, less than nothing. What matters is evidence. And determinism. All you have is naysaying and magical proposals. Surely you don't think such a baseless, childish opinion deserves any deference or respect.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> My expert opinion is that abiogenesis via the natural means of ordinary chemistry is impossible.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


>


And still no direct counter.  Why am I not surprised.  Just saying.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> And still no direct counter.  Why am I not surprised.


You made an unevidenced assertion that you base on magic.

Exactly what counter or refutation do you think such a stunted, childish, unsupported assertion deserves, besides "Nope, that's stupid and wrong."...?

None.

If I claimed rainbown unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension, what is the appropriate "counter" to that?

You handicap yourself with your magical declarations. That's your problem, nobody else's


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Can you explain why that makes me an idiot and why that would make you lose all respect for me?


No I can’t explain it. If I met you I think I would like and respect you enough despite your dopey beliefs.

Im watching that 1864 tv show. Yellowstone origin story. It’s crazy how different people were back then. Savages. Barbarians. Brutal. But I agree, people were people thousands of years ago. Not much different than we are now.

God you’re smart.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> No I can’t explain it. If I met you I think I would like and respect you enough despite your dopey beliefs.
> 
> Im watching that 1864 tv show. Yellowstone origin story. It’s crazy how different people were back then. Savages. Barbarians. Brutal. But I agree, people were people thousands of years ago. Not much different than we are now.
> 
> God you’re smart.


Stop it.

You do know it's possible to disagree with someone without actually fighting, right?  You probably did it all the time when you were growing up.  It's OK to disagree.  Everything doesn't have to be personal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> This is what pisses me off about people who think there is no other life out there.
> 
> So we take a telescope and we look at another star.  What do we see?  Let's try this.  Let's go to another star and look at our solar system.  What do we see?
> 
> View attachment 577739
> 
> We don't see earth.  So anyone who was looking at our solar system would see Jupiter and Saturn, maybe Neptune and Uranus and say, "no life there"
> 
> Scientists have discovered a new object orbiting a Sun-like star that had been missed by previous searches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extrasolar Planets News
> 
> 
> Extrasolar Planet News. Astronomers discover extrasolar planets in a nearby star system. Could extrasolar planets support life? Images, full-text articles. Free.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedaily.com




Jar Jar Binks is just waiting to come save you.

The believe in extraterrestrials by you morons is identical to the belief in angels and demons by the morons in the dark ages.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> And still no direct counter. Why am I not surprised.



Well, how about first giving us any reason whatsoever to believe you are an "expert".


----------



## Mushroom

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If I claimed rainbown unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension, what is the appropriate "counter" to that?



But it is, we have video to prove that is true!


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> despite your dopey beliefs


Dopey beliefs like the geologic record has never shown that CO2 drives the climate of earth?  

Guilty as charged.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> ..... So trust me, he's the biggest fool on USMB.
> .....


Trust _you?_  You are, by far, the stupidest son of a bitch on this site. It's not even close.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Trust _you?_  You are, by far, the stupidest son of a bitch on this site. It's not even close.


Dumber than LARAMFAN?  You know that's not true.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Jar Jar Binks is just waiting to come save you.
> 
> The believe in extraterrestrials by you morons is identical to the belief in angels and demons by the morons in the dark ages.


That's stupid.  Believing in gods and angels is dumb because it requires you to suspend common sense and science and use magical thinking.  BELIEVING in something that couldn't possibly be true, like a god.  Now that's dumb.  

But believing that there are other planets that hold life is nothing close to believing in fairy tails.  It's completely different.  Mathamatically, there MUST be life on other planets.  We aren't saying we believe one day we are going to magically be taken to a place called heaven.  We are just saying based on the numbers, we believe there must be life on other planets.  And who are we to decide there isn't when we know so little?  You seem CERTAIN there isn't.  Now that's a stupid BELIEF if you ask me.  I mean, just based on all the facts.  How life got started here, how there is water in Europa.  How there was life once on Mars.  If these things are true, it's logical that life exists on other planets.

You know billions of years ago Earth didn't have any life on it?  And in billions of years, there won't be any life on earth.  So if one day life evolves on another planet in another solar system after we are gone, and they look at earth, they'll say, "see, no life in that solar system" but they won't know that a billion years ago there was.  

They will think a god poofed them on that planet and they are special.  Gods only children.  That's what those stupid bastards will think.  Can you believe it?


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Trust _you?_  You are, by far, the stupidest son of a bitch on this site. It's not even close.


You're the biggest faggot here pussy.  lol


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Dumber than LARAMFAN?  You know that's not true.


He's mentally ill, you're just farm animal stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> He's mentally ill, you're just farm animal stupid.


Yea but I could still mentally and physically fuck you up public school light weight wrestler.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> That's stupid.  Believing in gods and angels is dumb because it requires you to suspend common sense and science and use magical thinking.  BELIEVING in something that couldn't possibly be true, like a god.  Now that's dumb.
> 
> But believing that there are other planets that hold life is nothing close to believing in fairy tails.  It's completely different.  Mathamatically, there MUST be life on other planets.  We aren't saying we believe one day we are going to magically be taken to a place called heaven.  We are just saying based on the numbers, we believe there must be life on other planets.  And who are we to decide there isn't when we know so little?  You seem CERTAIN there isn't.  Now that's a stupid BELIEF if you ask me.  I mean, just based on all the facts.  How life got started here, how there is water in Europa.  How there was life once on Mars.  If these things are true, it's logical that life exists on other planets.
> 
> You know billions of years ago Earth didn't have any life on it?  And in billions of years, there won't be any life on earth.  So if one day life evolves on another planet in another solar system after we are gone, and they look at earth, they'll say, "see, no life in that solar system" but they won't know that a billion years ago there was.
> 
> They will think a god poofed them on that planet and they are special.  Gods only children.  That's what those stupid bastards will think.  Can you believe it?


So you believe it's just a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired for life and intelligence?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> So you believe it's just a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired for life and intelligence?


Coincidence?  What does that even mean?  Universes pop into existence.  It's natural.  Some things we don't know but I don't know what you mean by coincidence?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Coincidence?  What does that even mean?  Universes pop into existence.  It's natural.  Some things we don't know but I don't know what you mean by coincidence?


Coincidence as in accidental.  You believe it is just a coincidence or an accident that the very fabric of matter just happens to hardwire the universe for life and intelligence.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Coincidence as in accidental.  You believe it is just a coincidence or an accident that the very fabric of matter just happens to hardwire the universe for life and intelligence.


Accidental?  What does that even mean?  Is it an accident when a meteor hits the earth or when a star goes supernova?  

You sound like my dad.  He says, "look at the human body, it's so perfect, all this happened by itself?"

No dad, a god invented us in the fucking lab.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> ... Mathamatically, [sic] there MUST be life on other planets.  ...


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Yea but I could still mentally and physically fuck you up.......


You keep telling yourself that little fairy tale, brainless.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> That's stupid.  Believing in gods and angels is dumb because it requires you to suspend common sense and science and use magical thinking.  BELIEVING in something that couldn't possibly be true, like a god.  Now that's dumb.



So, just like belief in space men then 



sealybobo said:


> But believing that there are other planets that hold life is nothing close to believing in fairy tails.



But believing that there are other lands and dimensions that hold magical life is nothing close to believing in fairytales....





sealybobo said:


> It's completely different.



Oh, right. I mean - your angels come from outer space. not heaven.

Wait, where is heaven again? 



sealybobo said:


> Mathamatically, there MUST be life on other planets.



Zat rite sploogy?

Because you want to BLEEVE




sealybobo said:


> We aren't saying we believe one day we are going to magically be taken to a place called heaven.



No, just that you're going to magically be taken to the spaceship of super beings - which is basically heaven...



sealybobo said:


> We are just saying based on the numbers, we believe there must be life on other planets.



How fun.

If there is, mankind will never know.

Because that life is unlikely to ever develop past single cell - if it develops at all.



sealybobo said:


> And who are we to decide there isn't when we know so little?



You can have whatever fantasy you like - but it is just a fantasy.

Where I blast you is the hypocrisy of claiming your absurd and baseless fantasy is somehow superior to the absurd and baseless fantasy of peasants in the dark ages.

You've done nothing but trade one superstition for another.



sealybobo said:


> You seem CERTAIN there isn't.  Now that's a stupid BELIEF if you ask me.  I mean, just based on all the facts.  How life got started here, how there is water in Europa.  How there was life once on Mars.  If these things are true, it's logical that life exists on other planets.



There could be life on other planets - it's irrelevant since we have no way of EVER coming in contact with that life.

Unlike you, I actually DO follow the science.

Reality isn't as fun as fantasy.



sealybobo said:


> You know billions of years ago Earth didn't have any life on it?  And in billions of years, there won't be any life on earth.  So if one day life evolves on another planet in another solar system after we are gone, and they look at earth, they'll say, "see, no life in that solar system" but they won't know that a billion years ago there was.
> 
> They will think a god poofed them on that planet and they are special.  Gods only children.  That's what those stupid bastards will think.  Can you believe it?



Irrelevant.  The fantasy that Mr. Spock is going to beam down and show us all how Communism is the real true way ain't gunna happen.

What you can't grasp is the distances involved, the radiation involved, the effects of zero gravity.

There is never going to be a Star Wars universe - ever.  You are just engaged in magical thinking.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Accidental?  What does that even mean?  Is it an accident when a meteor hits the earth or when a star goes supernova?
> 
> You sound like my dad.  He says, "look at the human body, it's so perfect, all this happened by itself?"
> 
> No dad, a god invented us in the fucking lab.


Accidental as in unintentional.  You believe the complexity of life is a coincidence, an accident, unintentional.  As opposed to preordained by the laws of nature.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> So, just like belief in space men then
> 
> 
> 
> But believing that there are other lands and dimensions that hold magical life is nothing close to believing in fairytales....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, right. I mean - your angels come from outer space. not heaven.
> 
> Wait, where in heaven again.
> 
> 
> 
> Zat rite sploogy?
> 
> Because you want to BLEEVE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just that you're going to magically be taken to the spaceship of super beings - which is basically heaven...
> 
> 
> 
> How fun.
> 
> If there is, mankind will never know.
> 
> Because that life is unlikely to ever develop past single cell - if it develops at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You can have whatever fantasy you like - but it is just a fantasy.
> 
> Where I blast you is the hypocrisy of claiming your absurd and baseless fantasy is somehow superior to the absurd and baseless fantasy of peasants in the dark ages.
> 
> You've done nothing but trade one superstition for another.
> 
> 
> 
> There could be life on other planets - it's irrelevant since we have no way of EVER coming in contact with that life.
> 
> Unlike you, I actually DO follow the science.
> 
> Reality isn't as fun as fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  The fantasy that Mr. Spock is going to beam down and show us all how Communism is the real true way ain't gunna happen.
> 
> What you can't grasp is the distances involved, the radiation involved, the effects of zero gravity.
> 
> There is never going to be a Star Wars universe - ever.  You are just engaged in magical thinking.


Who said the creatures I'm referring to are coming here?  Why are you calling them spacemen?  Are you a spaceman?  No.  You're an animal living on this one small planet in one solar system in an entire universe.  And you don't have the technology to determine if there is or isn't life on other planets, yet.  

But you are certain that there isn't another rock somewhere in the entire universe that has life on it.

BUT, you do believe in a rhelm called heaven where you become a god after you die.  What a joke.  This is how primitive we still are.  You're only 2 steps out of the cave bro.  Time to start evolving.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Coincidence?  What does that even mean?  Universes pop into existence.



They do? Because a Spiderman comic book says so?



sealybobo said:


> It's natural.



It is?

Can you demonstrate some other universes so we can compare them to ours?



sealybobo said:


> Some things we don't know but I don't know what you mean by coincidence?



And that which you don't know, you just make up to promote your idiotic fantasies.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Accidental as in unintentional.  You believe the complexity of life is a coincidence, an accident, unintentional.  As opposed to preordained by the laws of nature.


Yes, when the earth was just in the right spot and the chemicals came together, whammo, life happened.  NOT intentional.  Intentional would suggest god moved the earth, sent the meteor and put the moon where it is.  Do you believe a god did all that to make earth habitable for humans?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> No dad, a god invented us in the fucking lab.


Not exactly.

Going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Given that everything is made manifest by mind one must recognize that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff.

It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> They do? Because a Spiderman comic book says so?
> 
> 
> 
> It is?
> 
> Can you demonstrate some other universes so we can compare them to ours?
> 
> 
> 
> And that which you don't know, you just make up to promote your idiotic fantasies.


I don't need to show you another universe.  Look at the one you're in now.  The planets all were made naturally, the moons, meteors, all can be explained how it all happened.

And no, god did not POOF it into existence.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ding said:


> Accidental as in unintentional.  You believe the complexity of life is a coincidence, an accident, unintentional.  As opposed to preordained by the laws of nature.



The idea that life is a coincidence, an accident, unintentional makes the odds of intelligent life developing elsewhere even more remote.

We can't even demonstrate that the most simple forms of life have developed elsewhere.

There is ZERO evidence to support the idea of intelligent life elsewhere. Wishes are not evidence.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Yes, when the earth was just in the right spot and the chemicals came together, whammo, life happened.  NOT intentional.  Intentional would suggest god moved the earth, sent the meteor and put the moon where it is.  Do you believe a god did all that to make earth habitable for humans?


So it's just a coincidence that the structure and charge of atoms are exactly the right distances and charges for life to exist?


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> So, just like belief in space men then
> 
> 
> 
> But believing that there are other lands and dimensions that hold magical life is nothing close to believing in fairytales....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, right. I mean - your angels come from outer space. not heaven.
> 
> Wait, where is heaven again?
> 
> 
> 
> Zat rite sploogy?
> 
> Because you want to BLEEVE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just that you're going to magically be taken to the spaceship of super beings - which is basically heaven...
> 
> 
> 
> How fun.
> 
> If there is, mankind will never know.
> 
> Because that life is unlikely to ever develop past single cell - if it develops at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You can have whatever fantasy you like - but it is just a fantasy.
> 
> Where I blast you is the hypocrisy of claiming your absurd and baseless fantasy is somehow superior to the absurd and baseless fantasy of peasants in the dark ages.
> 
> You've done nothing but trade one superstition for another.
> 
> 
> 
> There could be life on other planets - it's irrelevant since we have no way of EVER coming in contact with that life.
> 
> Unlike you, I actually DO follow the science.
> 
> Reality isn't as fun as fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  The fantasy that Mr. Spock is going to beam down and show us all how Communism is the real true way ain't gunna happen.
> 
> What you can't grasp is the distances involved, the radiation involved, the effects of zero gravity.
> 
> There is never going to be a Star Wars universe - ever.  You are just engaged in magical thinking.


I re read your entire post.  What a fucking idiot you must be.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> The idea that life is a coincidence, an accident, unintentional makes the odds of intelligent life developing elsewhere even more remote.
> 
> We can't even demonstrate that the most simple forms of life have developed elsewhere.
> 
> There is ZERO evidence to support the idea of intelligent life elsewhere. Wishes are not evidence.


That's what cavemen used to say.  No way of telling if there is life on other planets.  Then we invented telescopes and spaceships that can travel to go see if there is or ever was life on places like Europa and Mars.  We still haven't gotten to Europa and we just got to Mars.  We didn't know a few years ago there was water on Mars.  Now we know there is.

So moron, it's too soon for you to decide there is no life and that we will never be able to find out.  You're a fucking idiot based on your position on this subject.  You sound so ignorant.  

I'll tell you what we will never find.  A heaven.  

Oh, and I don't want to believe there's life on other planets.  It does nothing for me if there is so why would I wish for that?  But you WISH for a place called heaven.  You WANT there to be a heaven.  Wishful thinking.  I don't wish there is life in Europa.  I just think that would be pretty cool.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I don't need to show you another universe.



Of course not, you have your comic books.



sealybobo said:


> Look at the one you're in now.



Yes?



sealybobo said:


> The planets all were made naturally,



You made the childish claim "Universes pop into existence."

That has nothing to do with the formation of planets.

We have evidence of the formation of planets, there is observable data. Life is a different situation.



sealybobo said:


> the moons, meteors, all can be explained how it all happened.



No, they explain how those bodies formed, they have no bearing on "Universes pop into existence." 



sealybobo said:


> And no, god did not POOF it into existence.



There is equal evidence to support both claims - which is to say not a bit for either.

You've just replaced one god with another equally absurd god.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> So it's just a coincidence that the structure and charge of atoms are exactly the right distances and charges for life to exist?


It's either coincidence or the way it's supposed to be.  AKA Natural.  

If it happened, it's natural.  Oh, and one day the structure and charge of atoms won't be the exact right distance and humans on earth will die.  Will that be a coincidence when that happens or did God decide to murder us all that day?


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I re read your entire post.  What a fucking idiot you must be.



Yes, I don't have faith in your comic book fantasy, hence I must be an idiot.

Jar Jar Binks died for your sins.

Fucktard.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Of course not, you have your comic books.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> You made the childish claim "Universes pop into existence."
> 
> That has nothing to do with the formation of planets.
> 
> We have evidence of the formation of planets, there is observable data. Life is a different situation.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they explain how those bodies formed, they have no bearing on "Universes pop into existence."
> 
> 
> 
> There is equal evidence to support both claims - which is to say not a bit for either.
> 
> You've just replaced one god with another equally absurd god.


Again, you're an idiot.  Yes, this universe popped into existence.  Something like 14 billion years ago.  That's at least what scientists think.  Of course you probably don't believe in science you give equal weight to the POOF hypothesis.  Can't even call it a theory because it's not qualified to be a theory.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yes, I don't have faith in your comic book fantasy, hence I must be an idiot.
> 
> Jar Jar Binks died for your sins.
> 
> Fucktard.


Yes, you are an idiot.  Because we know so little yet you assume so much.  You're better off reading the bible and stay away from Science bro.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Of course not, you have your comic books.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> You made the childish claim "Universes pop into existence."
> 
> That has nothing to do with the formation of planets.
> 
> We have evidence of the formation of planets, there is observable data. Life is a different situation.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they explain how those bodies formed, they have no bearing on "Universes pop into existence."
> 
> 
> 
> There is equal evidence to support both claims - which is to say not a bit for either.
> 
> You've just replaced one god with another equally absurd god.


What evidence do you have of the formation of planets?

What evidence do you have for the big bang?

What about before the big bang?  Oh you have no evidence?  Then say you don't know.  Don't decide a god did it and then later, after he let planets evolve naturally, POOFED us into existence.

So you think god POOFED the universe into existence, everything else after that happened naturally, but then he had to POOF land animals onto earth to make his masterpiece?  LOL


----------



## Polishprince

A guest on the tremendous Dan Bongino program yesterday explained how improbable it was that there was intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Again, you're an idiot.



Of course I am. I follow science where you follow science fiction. And reality isn't fun.



sealybobo said:


> Yes, this universe popped into existence.













sealybobo said:


> Something like 14 billion years ago.  That's at least what scientists think.



So you know what scientists think?  

Other than I, have you ever even had a conversation with a real scientist.









						Big Bang Theory Called Into Question by Cosmologists – Now. Powered by Northrop Grumman
					

The Big Bang theory has come under scrutiny by some cosmologists. They call into question not just when the universe started but also how it began.




					now.northropgrumman.com
				







sealybobo said:


> Of course you probably don't believe in science you give equal weight to the POOF hypothesis.  Can't even call it a theory because it's not qualified to be a theory.



Right, not agreeing with your comic book idiocy means I don't follow science...

Oh, and idiot - you JUST claimed a "poof" hypothesis. {Yes, this universe popped into existence. }


You just aren't smart, and you clearly failed 1st grade science.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> That's what cavemen used to say.  No way of telling if there is life on other planets.  Then we invented telescopes and spaceships that can travel to go see if there is or ever was life on places like Europa and Mars.



Spoiler alert, there wasn't...



sealybobo said:


> We still haven't gotten to Europa and we just got to Mars.  We didn't know a few years ago there was water on Mars.  Now we know there is.



More importantly, water on the moon, meaning fuel for deep space exploration. 



sealybobo said:


> So moron, it's too soon for you to decide there is no life and that we will never be able to find out.  You're a fucking idiot based on your position on this subject.  You sound so ignorant.



I've decided nothing. I simply poke holes in your comic book fantasy by pointing out that there is ZERO evidence to support your moronic fantasy.




sealybobo said:


> I'll tell you what we will never find.  A heaven.





You've traded one religion for another and think that should impress others.



sealybobo said:


> Oh, and I don't want to believe there's life on other planets.  It does nothing for me if there is so why would I wish for that?  But you WISH for a place called heaven.



I do?

Prove that.

You are a religious fanatic and the only way you can grasp that I don't follow your comic book faith is if I am a heretic from a competing religion.




sealybobo said:


> You WANT there to be a heaven.  Wishful thinking.  I don't wish there is life in Europa.  I just think that would be pretty cool.





Such a foolish child you are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Yes, you are an idiot.  Because we know so little yet you assume so much.  You're better off reading the bible and stay away from Science bro.








You'd be better off getting a 2nd grade book on what science is, and isn't.

Your comic books are not actually science.

Sorry.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> What evidence do you have of the formation of planets?



quite a bit





__





						The Outer Planets: How Planets Form
					





					lasp.colorado.edu
				






sealybobo said:


> What evidence do you have for the big bang?



For that, really very little.

It is speculation based on the observation that the universe is expanding. Though the hypothesis is less attractive at this point due to contrary evidence that suggests a pulsing universe.



sealybobo said:


> What about before the big bang?  Oh you have no evidence?  Then say you don't know.  Don't decide a god did it and then later, after he let planets evolve naturally, POOFED us into existence.
> 
> So you think god POOFED the universe into existence, everything else after that happened naturally, but then he had to POOF land animals onto earth to make his masterpiece?  LOL



Show where I said some god did anything to the universe?

YOU are the moron who engages in magical thinking.


----------



## braalian

Just because there’s a lot of planets out there, that doesn’t mean extraterrestrial intelligent life is inevitable. Personally, the sheer number of stars, planets, etc. Only serves to make me doubt all the more that there’s intelligent life outside of earth. Fermi Paradox.

We’ve spent tremendous effort to detect intelligent life, and all we have to show for it is deafening silence.

Given the mind-boggling distance just between individual stars, I’ll admit that we can never know for sure. But with all those planets, for all these billions of years intelligent life could have been potentially transmitting radio waves, why hasn’t a single intelligent-made extraterrestrial broadcast of some sort been detected here on earth? Even with these distances, why hasn’t some sort of alien probe or artifact been discovered since a nearly infinite amount of planets have had a nearly infinite amount of time?

At the bare minimum this suggests that if intelligent life *is*out there, it’s so unimaginably far away that we could never possibly contact them within the lifespan of our solar system. Or that interstellar travel is impossible beyond the few nearest stars. Or, most likely, that it simply isn’t out there at all.

There is absolutely zero evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. So until such evidence presents itself the simplest assumption is that such life doesn’t exist. It’s not the most entertaining assumption, but it’s the most logical.

People love to concoct unnecessarily elaborate theories when they find reality and facts boring. That’s why conspiracy theories are popular.


----------



## Unkotare

braalian said:


> ......
> 
> Given the mind-boggling distance just between individual stars, I’ll admit that we can never know for sure. .....


You are correct, of course. Nonetheless, a certain asshole posting on this thread insists he _does_ know for sure.


----------



## sealybobo

Polishprince said:


> A guest on the tremendous Dan Bongino program yesterday explained how improbable it was that there was intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.


We know so little he's an idiot for coming to a conclusion especially one where he says it's improbable.  

The good news: We know vastly more than any previous generation. Our galaxy is crowded with exoplanets – planets around other stars. A healthy percentage of them are small, rocky worlds, of a similar size and likely similar composition to our home planet.

The ingredients in the recipe for earthly life – water, elements associated with life, available sources of energy – appear to be almost everywhere we’ve looked.

Observing signs of possible microbial life in exoplanet atmospheres is currently just out of reach. 

Life on planets around other stars also might be hidden in a subsurface ocean encased in ice, invisible even to our most powerful space telescopes. Moons of Jupiter and Saturn are known to harbor such oceans, some revealing through remote sensing at least a few of the characteristics we expect for habitable worlds.

Some “exo-moons” also might be habitable worlds, as in the film, “Avatar.” But even proposed, future instruments are unlikely to have sufficient power to detect atmospheres of moons around giant exoplanets.

Still, the habitable zone is a good start, a way to zero in on signs of life made familiar by our fellow organisms here on planet Earth.

Although this Oxford study agrees with you









						We’re all alone: Oxford study says chance of intelligent life elsewhere very low
					

Paper uses statistics to examine how long it took life to evolve on Earth and how likely each step was; concludes highly unlikely other intelligent civilizations out there




					www.timesofisrael.com
				




Why?  

Paper uses statistics to examine how long it took life to evolve on Earth and how likely each step was; concludes highly unlikely other intelligent civilizations out there​
What the paper doesn't take into account is billions of years.  And maybe each step isn't necessary.  Is life on earth impossible without the moon?  Would intelligent life be on earth today if dinosaurs never went extinct?  

In the paper, scientists from Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, theorize that as life evolved on earth, in many cases it depended on a series of unlikely “revolutionary transitions.” Given how late intelligent life evolved on this planet, the chances of similar developments happening on other planets, before they are no longer able to sustain life, were highly unlikely, they said.

“It took approximately 4.5 billion years for a series of evolutionary transitions resulting in intelligent life to unfold on Earth,”

SO what?  Maybe it took that long here but maybe it doesn't always take that long. 

“In turn, this suggests that intelligent life is likely to be exceptionally rare.”

I would agree with that.  Intelligent life is rare.  But life is probably not rare.  So there is tons of unintelligent life out there.  To me, I can believe this.  If there was a god, there'd be more intelligent life out there.  God would not create an entire universe with only one planet with life on it.  He would have had other children for sure.  Intelligent children in his image.  But in a natural world, intelligent life yes would be rare.  But life would be everywhere.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> You are correct, of course. Nonetheless, a certain asshole posting on this thread insists he _does_ know for sure.


No one says they know for sure.  I'm just yelling at the people who are so sure there is no other life anywhere else.  Of course there is.  Intelligent life might be very rare though I'll give them that.  What does the Drake Equation say?

probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 planets with civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> If there is, mankind will never know.


Another divine declaration.


----------



## braalian

sealybobo said:


> No one says they know for sure. I'm just yelling at the people who are so sure there is no other life anywhere else. Of course there is


so which is it? You say “no one knows for sure” then say “of course there is” in the very next sentence….


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> No one says they know for sure. .....


You did. You have the memory of a goldfish.


----------



## braalian

sealybobo said:


> No one says they know for sure.  I'm just yelling at the people who are so sure there is no other life anywhere else.  Of course there is.  Intelligent life might be very rare though I'll give them that.  What does the Drake Equation say?
> 
> probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 planets with civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy.


And Fermi’s paradox responds by asking, if there’s such a high probability that they exist, then why is there such a total lack of evidence that they do?


----------



## Colin norris

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


Here we Go again.  If it cant be explained or you don't believe something, out comes the usual god  of gaps.


----------



## braalian

the Fermi Paradox:


*The Fermi paradox is the conflict between the lack of clear, obvious evidence for extraterrestrial life and various high estimates for their existence.

As a 2015 article put it, "If life is so easy, someone from somewhere must have come calling by now”*


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> It's either coincidence or the way it's supposed to be. AKA Natural.


That's my point.  It is natural and not an accident.  Life and intelligence are natural outcomes of consciousness.  This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.


sealybobo said:


> If it happened, it's natural. Oh, and one day the structure and charge of atoms won't be the exact right distance and humans on earth will die. Will that be a coincidence when that happens or did God decide to murder us all that day?


It doesn't work like that.  The fabric of matter doesn't change.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Another divine declaration.


Yea, why is he so sure?


----------



## sealybobo

braalian said:


> so which is it? You say “no one knows for sure” then say “of course there is” in the very next sentence….


No one knows yet but for fuck sakes the numbers and facts suggest life is everywhere.  And just because you don't have the technology to see it, doesn't mean shit.  It must means you are too stupid to know.  Do you agree?  You certainly don't have all the information to come to a conclusion.

But the Drake Equation looks at how many stars are out there and it says there's probably thousands.

I'll admit, intelligent life, especially without divine intervention, is probably rare.  A lot has to happen for intelligent life to come to be.  But even that, there has got to be more than just us.

Just us would be insane.  And I'm sure a lot of you bible thumpers want to believe we are alone because then you can pretend that god put us here to be his favorite pet.  NO, his ONLY pet.


----------



## braalian

sealybobo said:


> No one knows yet but for fuck sakes the numbers and facts suggest life is everywhere.  And just because you don't have the technology to see it, doesn't mean shit.  It must means you are too stupid to know.  Do you agree?  You certainly don't have all the information to come to a conclusion.
> 
> But the Drake Equation looks at how many stars are out there and it says there's probably thousands.
> 
> I'll admit, intelligent life, especially without divine intervention, is probably rare.  A lot has to happen for intelligent life to come to be.  But even that, there has got to be more than just us.
> 
> Just us would be insane.  And I'm sure a lot of you bible thumpers want to believe we are alone because then you can pretend that god put us here to be his favorite pet.  NO, his ONLY pet.


I disagree that the numbers suggest life is everywhere. I do agree we don’t know for sure (though you seem to go back and forth on that point). Until I’m presented with clear evidence of extraterrestrial life, I see no reason to assume it “must” exist.

And what on earth makes you think I’m a Bible Thumper?


----------



## sealybobo

braalian said:


> And Fermi’s paradox responds by asking, if there’s such a high probability that they exist, then why is there such a total lack of evidence that they do?


Why is there a lack of evidence?  

1.  We just invented telescopes that can see that far.
2.  We can only see so much
3.  We don't have the technology

For god sakes.  Is there life in Europa?  That's in our own tiny solar system and we don't even know yet.

Hell, we don't even know if there is a planet 9 in our own solar system.  Many believe it exists but it's so far out in the darkest edge of our solar system, we still haven't seen it yet.

Further surveys of the remaining regions are ongoing using NEOWISE and the 8-meter Subaru Telescope. *Unless Planet Nine is observed, its existence is purely conjectural.

Do you know how far out it is, if it exists?  Pluto takes 248 Earth years to make one revolution around the sun.

So if you don't even know for sure if there is life in Europa or if we have a 9th planet in our own solar system, what makes you think we can know if there are living things on other planets?  

Do you know how far the closest star is?  You think they can look at our solar system and see little planet earth?  They would look at us and only see the big gas planets.  

We know so little, I can't stand idiots who are SURE we are all alone.  They must want to believe that because them maybe it's true a god made us and we are his special chosen children.  LOL*


----------



## braalian

sealybobo said:


> Why is there a lack of evidence?
> 
> 1.  We just invented telescopes that can see that far.
> 2.  We can only see so much
> 3.  We don't have the technology
> 
> For god sakes.  Is there life in Europa?  That's in our own tiny solar system and we don't even know yet.
> 
> Hell, we don't even know if there is a planet 9 in our own solar system.  Many believe it exists but it's so far out in the darkest edge of our solar system, we still haven't seen it yet.
> 
> Further surveys of the remaining regions are ongoing using NEOWISE and the 8-meter Subaru Telescope. *Unless Planet Nine is observed, its existence is purely conjectural.
> 
> Do you know how far out it is, if it exists?  Pluto takes 248 Earth years to make one revolution around the sun.
> 
> So if you don't even know for sure if there is life in Europa or if we have a 9th planet in our own solar system, what makes you think we can know if there are living things on other planets?
> 
> Do you know how far the closest star is?  You think they can look at our solar system and see little planet earth?  They would look at us and only see the big gas planets.
> 
> We know so little, I can't stand idiots who are SURE we are all alone.  They must want to believe that because them maybe it's true a god made us and we are his special chosen children.  LOL*


The paradox is just as much about “them” as us.

If they exist in the numbers the Drake Equation suggests, then why haven’t they contacted us somehow? Or at least left behind some sort of artifact? Why the complete radio silence? Even if they’re “smart enough not to let themselves be seen/heard”, surely they’d had to have gone through a phase in their development, like us, where they were shooting broadcasts out into space willy-nilly. If millions of planets have potentially been transmitting for billions of years (remember billions of planets have been born and died before earth existed) then even all the light years it would take such transmissions to reach us should mean little.

None of that lack of evidence rules out the possibility of intelligent life, but it’s certainly a large hurdle to leap and requires more than “the universe is really, really big so there must be aliens”


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> ... the numbers and facts *suggest* ...


That's not what you said before.


----------



## Unkotare

braalian said:


> ....
> 
> And what on earth makes you think I’m a Bible Thumper?


That's what he does. He just imagines what you are and what you think, then he 'argues' with that. 

He's kinda stupid...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

braalian said:


> And Fermi’s paradox responds by asking, if there’s such a high probability that they exist, then why is there such a total lack of evidence that they do?


But that paradox is bunk. It can be ignored, now that we know how vast the universe is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

braalian said:


> If they exist in the numbers the Drake Equation suggests, then why haven’t they contacted us somehow?


Maybe they have. We might be waiting another billion years for their message.


----------



## braalian

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe they have. We might be waiting another billion years for their message.


if they’re really that far away they might as well not exist for all practical purposes as far as we’re concerned.

It would also suggest that FTL space travel and stuff like ships that can travel via wormholes or hyperspace is truly just fiction.

If those vast distances could somehow be overcome, some civilization somewhere at some point would have.

The idea of there being other intelligent life, but we’re all *so* spread out across different times and across such vast space that we could never, ever possibly contact each other seems more lonely and depressing than the idea that we’re simply alone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

braalian said:


> if they’re really that far away they might as well not exist for all practical purposes as far as we’re concerned.


Well, okay, but that would not mean they don't exist. 

Depressing? Maybe a little.


----------



## sealybobo

braalian said:


> The paradox is just as much about “them” as us.
> 
> If they exist in the numbers the Drake Equation suggests, then why haven’t they contacted us somehow? Or at least left behind some sort of artifact? Why the complete radio silence? Even if they’re “smart enough not to let themselves be seen/heard”, surely they’d had to have gone through a phase in their development, like us, where they were shooting broadcasts out into space willy-nilly. If millions of planets have potentially been transmitting for billions of years (remember billions of planets have been born and died before earth existed) then even all the light years it would take such transmissions to reach us should mean little.
> 
> None of that lack of evidence rules out the possibility of intelligent life, but it’s certainly a large hurdle to leap and requires more than “the universe is really, really big so there must be aliens”


Why?  Because maybe just like here on earth, we're the smartest thing out there.  Maybe.

Or they are just as smart.  So they aren't smart enough to find us yet either.

Do you know the stars are moving father apart as we speak?  So every minute it gets harder and harder to find life on other planets, not easier.  

We have only been smart for like a minute.  Heck, we're still dumb as shit compared to what we will know and be able to do in 1000 years.  We are only 2 steps out of the cave.  Some of us are still living like we did 1000 years ago.  Any farmers only dot com people here?


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> That's what he does. He just imagines what you are and what you think, then he 'argues' with that.
> 
> He's kinda stupid...


Well how come it's usually the bible thumpers who think we are alone?  Could be maybe a small part of this guys thinking is rooted in the same belief that we were/are the center of the universe and everything is revolving around us.  We didn't dream that we were just another rock rolling around too with all the other stars/planets/moons/asteroids/





Where is earth in our galaxy again?

And you think you know we are the only fucking life in the universe?  Then you're a fucking moron.  Everyone here suggesting it is.  Insane.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> Well, how about first giving us any reason whatsoever to believe you are an "expert".


I'm the author:

*Abiogenesis: A Bridge Too Far*

Let me know if you have any questions.


----------



## sealybobo

braalian said:


> if they’re really that far away they might as well not exist for all practical purposes as far as we’re concerned.
> 
> It would also suggest that FTL space travel and stuff like ships that can travel via wormholes or hyperspace is truly just fiction.
> 
> If those vast distances could somehow be overcome, some civilization somewhere at some point would have.
> 
> The idea of there being other intelligent life, but we’re all *so* spread out across different times and across such vast space that we could never, ever possibly contact each other seems more lonely and depressing than the idea that we’re simply alone.


What if one day we can travel close to the speed of light?  Right now, you are correct.  They might as well not exist at all.  There's nothing practical or no way we are going to benefit from life being somewhere else as of right now other than maybe it will wake a lot of people up to the fact we aren't special and this universe wasn't made for us and RELIGION IS BS.  That enlightenment might be beneficial no?

Consider this.  We think we are smart and we really don't know shit.  We may even be destroying our planet and we won't even be here in another 100 years.  Depleting the planets resources, blabla bla.  Right?

Ok, so this other planet may have looked at our solar system long before we evolved and they didn't see anything on this planet.  And before they could look again after we did evolve, they killed themselves off with global warming or war.  So when they looked, nothing was here.  And now we look, nothing is there.  Get it?

And this universe is middle age right?  Things are still swirling.  Imagine the new worlds that haven't even formed yet.  

And what will happen after the last star in our universe burns out?


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe they have. We might be waiting another billion years for their message.


And what if they are really smart but the size of tardigrades?

Tardigrades are mostly *about 1 mm (0.04 inch) or less in size*. They live in a variety of habitats worldwide: in damp moss, on flowering plants, in sand, in fresh water, and in the sea. In adapting to this wide range of external conditions, a large number of genera and species have evolved.

Tardigrades are *nearly translucent* and they average about half a millimeter (500 micrometers) in length, about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. In the right light you can actually see them with the naked eye.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Let me know if you have any questions.


When did you start writing fiction?

Why are you so dishonest? As if abiogenesis was "the bridge too far."fr you.. Please. Surely you don't think that fools anyone.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> ....
> 
> We have only been smart for like a minute....


_You_ have never been.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Well how come it's usually the bible thumpers who think we are alone?  ...



It's not, you brainless bigot.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> I'm the author:
> 
> *Abiogenesis: A Bridge Too Far*
> 
> Let me know if you have any questions.



Wow, you basically self-published a religious tract.  That hardly makes you an "expert".  I am also a self-published author, but I in no way use that to claim I am an "expert", unless I am actually writing things I am an expert in.

And in reading through that, it is indeed little more than a religious tract.  Going on far more about religion and attacking those that do not agree than actually trying to build a case.  Just taking research of others out of context and cherry picking select things to build your "case".



> Atheism is poisoning science.  Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.



Yes, that and other statements that seem to appear at almost every page is mostly what that is about.  And I did notice that you did not even open as such a paper would, or close with qualifications.  Just the completely vague and meaningless "Years of experience..."  Experience in what, exactly?  Thinking about this as you changed the oil on your car and stood in line at the store?

Sorry if I am underwhelmed.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> Wow, you basically self-published a religious tract.  That hardly makes you an "expert".  I am also a self-published author, but I in no way use that to claim I am an "expert", unless I am actually writing things I am an expert in.
> 
> And in reading through that, it is indeed little more than a religious tract.  Going on far more about religion and attacking those that do not agree than actually trying to build a case.  Just taking research of others out of context and cherry picking select things to build your "case".
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that and other statements that seem to appear at almost every page is mostly what that is about.  And I did notice that you did not even open as such a paper would, or close with qualifications.  Just the completely vague and meaningless "Years of experience..."  Experience in what, exactly?  Thinking about this as you changed the oil on your car and stood in line at the store?
> 
> Sorry if I am underwhelmed.


Nonsense.  I didn't cherry-pick anything, and I didn't take anyone's research out of context, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.   That article accurately and objectively discusses the very best evidence for abiogenesis and the findings of the very best experimental research conducted by the leading lights of abiogenesis since Miller-Urey.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> I didn't take anyone's research out of context


Says this, then does EXACTLY THIS in the same post:




Ringtone said:


> Miller-Urey


An old ID'iot talking point, a lie told by lying liars that this has any bearing on denying abiogenesis.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Another divine declaration.



ROFL

Captain Kirk is searching for you...


----------



## Likkmee

fncceo said:


> Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.
> 
> A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.
> 
> Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.


Sounds like Cook county


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Yea, why is he so sure?



Sure about that we will never know?

{
Although Alpha Centauri is the nearest star system to us, it still lies roughly 4.37 light-years away. That is equal to more than 25.6 trillion miles, or more than 276,000 times the distance from Earth to the sun.

Conventional rockets are nowhere near efficient enough to cross the enormous distance to Alpha Centauri within a human lifetime, as science fiction author and NASA physicist Geoffrey Landis once explained. For instance, at the space shuttle’s maximum speed of about 17,600 mph, *it would have taken roughly 165,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri.*}









						So How Exactly Do We Get To Alpha Centauri?
					

How Do We Get To Alpha Centauri?




					www.popsci.com
				




You mindless cretin.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> ROFL
> 
> Captain Kirk is searching for you...


Lies make baby Jesus cry


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> That article accurately and objectively discusses the very best evidence for abiogenesis and the findings of the very best experimental research conducted by the leading lights of abiogenesis since Miller-Urey.









When almost every single page you rant and scream against scientists, atheists, or anybody that refuses to believe how great you are, it is nothing but rubbish.

That is not science, that is a religious tract.  No more "science" than this one is.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> When almost every single page you rant and scream against scientists, atheists, or anybody that refuses to believe how great you are, it is nothing but rubbish.
> 
> That is not science, that is a religious tract.  No more "science" than this one is.


Liar.  You didn't the paper.  Why am I not surprised.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Liar.  You didn't the paper.  Why am I not surprised.


nobody gives a shit about your paper.  Publish your research. This is a science section, not a summer retreat bible camp.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> Liar. You didn't the paper. Why am I not surprised.



As if that would actually make a difference?

As I said, I did read it.  And it is nonsense.  More political and religious tract than actual science.  Self-published on a site where people put up their own works and not vetted or checked at all.

But here, does this make you happy?



> Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.



Oh yes, just the very opening sentence most serious scientific works open with.

It is really nothing more than a long running example of mental masturbation.  Where you applaud and tell some that they got it right, then scream at anybody that you think got it wrong.  Attacking multiple scientific papers with nothing more than "They got it wrong!" and "They do not know what they are doing!" if you are not just attacking them for being atheists.

I think I have flushed papers recently that were of more interest.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> As if that would actually make a difference?
> 
> As I said, I did read it.  And it is nonsense.  More political and religious tract than actual science.  Self-published on a site where people put up their own works and not vetted or checked at all.
> 
> But here, does this make you happy?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, just the very opening sentence most serious scientific works open with.
> 
> It is really nothing more than a long running example of mental masturbation.  Where you applaud and tell some that they got it right, then scream at anybody that you think got it wrong.  Attacking multiple scientific papers with nothing more than "They got it wrong!" and "They do not know what they are doing!" if you are not just attacking them for being atheists.
> 
> I think I have flushed papers recently that were of more interest.


Dude, you best stop talkin' smack.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> Dude, you best stop talkin' smack.



"Talking smack", when I am actually quoting your own writing.



> Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who unwittingly expose their ignorance about the sciences and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma and sneer at theists.



And you accuse me of "Talking smack".  That is clear as day on page 2 of your "report".



> I recently posted a question on Yahoo! Answers and prefaces it with a brief summary of the findings of the Muller-Urey experiment of 1952 in the light of current science.  Of course, the underlying hypothesis on which the experiment was originally based has been falsified.



Oh yes, because all serious researchers go to Yahoo! Answers to get real discussion going about research papers over 50 years old.  And if it is false why you claim, why even bring it up at all?  Of course, that was also on page 2.  Lots of smack there from you.



> For example, it doesn't appear that the author of Lord Fluffy Tail's source knows that the Earth's atmosphere was oxygen-rich much earlier than he supposes, generally more oxidizing than reducing - necessary for life, but not friendly to the formation of amino acids.



Wow, first time in something claiming to be "scientific" that used an online nickname.  Unless there is a Doctor Lord Fluffy Tail OBE running around England somewhere.  And interesting, the planet was "oxygen rich" even before amino acids.  Of course, absolutely no explanation (once again) on how that happened.  I guess, magic?

And FYI, *I am still only on page 2!*

Honest, I do not see how anybody could read through that coprolite.  Even by the end of the second page I was shaking my head.  Accusations and mud slinging at I have no idea who.  Claims with absolutely nothing to say why.  It is nonsense.

But please, I invite anybody else to even try and read through it, and let me know if I am accurate in this assessment.

All I can say is, perplexing.

Perplexing.

Perplexing.

And I leave, with this gem.



> It's all pie-in-the-sky nonsense, of course, but as long as we're already suspending disbelief far above any reasonable altitude, we might as well go along with the tale forever: never mind the threats beyond the synthesizing medium, never mind the ubiquitous cross-reaction contaminants, never mind that water ultimately pushed peptidyl bonding backward, not forward, would disperse the precursors of proteins and condemn them to the whims of a churning and lonely isolation, and never mind most of all that the total amount of organic compounds on Earth today, relative to the overwhelming, abiotic reactions in raw nature, is less than a fraction of the lofty concentrations that would be plausible favorable to the inscrutable processes of abiogenesis.



Holy Run-On-Sentence Batman!  And yes, I edited nothing, that was exactly as written.  Almost 9 full lines, an almost incomprehensible mashup that just goes on and on and on almost endlessly.

And as always absolutely nothing explaining how you come to that "consensus", simply that we apparently must believe you without reason, just because you say so.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Lies make baby Jesus cry



I'll make Jesus cry if he doesn't edge the west side of the lawn. I'm docking his check.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> "Talking smack", when I am actually quoting your own writing.
> 
> 
> 
> And you accuse me of "Talking smack".  That is clear as day on page 2 of your "report".
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, because all serious researchers go to Yahoo! Answers to get real discussion going about research papers over 50 years old.  And if it is false why you claim, why even bring it up at all?  Of course, that was also on page 2.  Lots of smack there from you.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, first time in something claiming to be "scientific" that used an online nickname.  Unless there is a Doctor Lord Fluffy Tail OBE running around England somewhere.  And interesting, the planet was "oxygen rich" even before amino acids.  Of course, absolutely no explanation (once again) on how that happened.  I guess, magic?
> 
> And FYI, *I am still only on page 2!*
> 
> Honest, I do not see how anybody could read through that coprolite.  Even by the end of the second page I was shaking my head.  Accusations and mud slinging at I have no idea who.  Claims with absolutely nothing to say why.  It is nonsense.
> 
> But please, I invite anybody else to even try and read through it, and let me know if I am accurate in this assessment.
> 
> All I can say is, perplexing.
> 
> Perplexing.
> 
> Perplexing.
> 
> And I leave, with this gem.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Run-On-Sentence Batman!  And yes, I edited nothing, that was exactly as written.  Almost 9 full lines, an almost incomprehensible mashup that just goes on and on and on almost endlessly.
> 
> And as always absolutely nothing explaining how you come to that "consensus", simply that we apparently must believe you without reason, just because you say so.


Which affirms that you really didn't read it.

I summarize the naturalist's underlying metaphysical bias in contrast to what the findings of abiogenetic research actually divulge.  I give a few anecdotal examples of how the true believer of popular culture and of little real firsthand knowledge typically reacts to the learned assessments of those who do not presuppose naturalism.  In other words, it's the presentation of the pertinent findings sans the naturalist's underlying bias that irks you.   But, then, you didn't attentively read the bulk of the paper, as you obviously confound "the thematic device of competing metaphysics" with the objectively accurate presentation of the findings. 

Also, there are in fact a number of compound-complex sentences in the paper, which tells me you don't know what a run-on sentence is.  

In the meantime, the bulk of the paper strictly regards the research.


----------



## Unkotare

Uncensored2008 said:


> I'll make Jesus cry if he doesn't edge the west side of the lawn. I'm docking his check.


You're paying by check?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You're paying by check?


It's fantasyland. He's paying with unicorn poo.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> It's not, you brainless bigot.


Got anything to back up your position you little bitch?

A new study finds that atheists think there just might be aliens out there. Evangelicals are not so sure.​
Eighty-five percent of atheists and agnostics say their best guess is that intelligent life does exist beyond Earth. So do 80% of unaffiliated Americans, also known as nones.

By contrast, only 51% of Protestants — and 40% of white evangelicals — are open to the possibility of intelligent aliens. So are about two-thirds of Catholics and mainline Protestants and about half (55%) of Black Protestants.

So fuck off unkotare.  Sometimes I think you argue with me despite the fact it's obvious I'm right.  You argue just to argue.  I could say snow is cold and you'd say it isn't.  Fuck off asshole.  Go troll someone else for a change.









						For atheists, the idea of aliens seems real. Religious people doubt it.
					

(RNS) —  A new study finds that atheists think there just might be aliens out there. Evangelicals are not so sure.




					religionnews.com
				




Do you ever get sick of being wrong?


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> You're paying by check?


You clearly don't go to church.  How do you pay your dues?  You give a wad of money?  He's not talking about when they pass the hat.  He's talking about paying your annual dues.  You know, 10% of your paycheck?

Yea right.  Like you give even 1% of your paycheck to a church.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> "Talking smack", when I am actually quoting your own writing.
> 
> 
> 
> And you accuse me of "Talking smack".  That is clear as day on page 2 of your "report".
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, because all serious researchers go to Yahoo! Answers to get real discussion going about research papers over 50 years old.  And if it is false why you claim, why even bring it up at all?  Of course, that was also on page 2.  Lots of smack there from you.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, first time in something claiming to be "scientific" that used an online nickname.  Unless there is a Doctor Lord Fluffy Tail OBE running around England somewhere.  And interesting, the planet was "oxygen rich" even before amino acids.  Of course, absolutely no explanation (once again) on how that happened.  I guess, magic?
> 
> And FYI, *I am still only on page 2!*
> 
> Honest, I do not see how anybody could read through that coprolite.  Even by the end of the second page I was shaking my head.  Accusations and mud slinging at I have no idea who.  Claims with absolutely nothing to say why.  It is nonsense.
> 
> But please, I invite anybody else to even try and read through it, and let me know if I am accurate in this assessment.
> 
> All I can say is, perplexing.
> 
> Perplexing.
> 
> Perplexing.
> 
> And I leave, with this gem.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Run-On-Sentence Batman!  And yes, I edited nothing, that was exactly as written.  Almost 9 full lines, an almost incomprehensible mashup that just goes on and on and on almost endlessly.
> 
> And as always absolutely nothing explaining how you come to that "consensus", simply that we apparently must believe you without reason, just because you say so.


By all means, let's take a look at that perplexing flourish of observations. 

Trust me. The apparatus of the Miller-Urey experiment did not produce nucleic acids or anything else like them. *1*​​What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased airflow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. *2*​​(See table of amino acids produced and identified in the ‘classic’ 1952 experiment, as published by Miller in 1953, the 2008 re-analysis of vials from the volcanic spark discharge experiment, and the 2010 re-analysis of vials from the H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. —Wikipedia)​​The significance of the recently uncovered results produced by the altered apparatus does not go to the synthesis of proteins as a result of the inherent chemical properties of their molecular precursors within atmospheric conditions that entail a more vaporous, volcanic-gas-like mixture of steam. It goes to the more impressive results that are derived under these simulated conditions _coupled with_ the potentialities of the RNA-world hypothesis and _its_ obligatory molecular precursors. Hence, Senior Correspondent Stephen K Ritter misses the target when he assumes that the team of researchers who analyzed the results of the unpublished experiments “speculate that amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have been polymerized by carbonyl sulfide—volcanic gas—to form peptides leading to proteins” (Stephen K. Ritter; Oct. 16, 2008; “Origin-of-Life Chemistry Revisited”; _Chemical and Engineering News-Prebiotic Chemistry_).​​They could not have sensibly speculated any such thing, as it is well known that amino acids do not form lasting peptide bonds, let alone proteins,  under any natural conditions outside living organisms. And this is true under laboratory conditions as well, whether their mixtures are racemic, as is always the case in nature, or even artificially homochiral.​​The original apparatus of the published experiment simulated a strictly reducing atmosphere consisting of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water.  In the same article, Ritter observes:  “scientists who have analyzed Miller’s experiments doubt that the highly reducing reaction conditions he used existed on early Earth”; however, the apparatus equipped with the aspirating mechanism simulated the more “intense conditions of a lightning-laced volcanic eruption." Hence, the researchers aver that ”[t]he volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective". Precisely! But what the researchers mean by _effective_ goes to the formation of amino acids _only_, and only within the domains of semi-reducing, carbonyl-sulfide-producing atmospheres of "volcanic island systems", as the more generally oxidizing atmosphere beyond would prevent their formation.​​The problem with this scenario is that under natural conditions the newly created precursors could not have stayed inside these atmospheric enclaves for long, for unlike the artificial conditions _calculatedly _arranged within the apparatuses of laboratories, which artificially remove potentially biotic materials from the synthesizing medium once they are formed, nature would have continued to bombard them and thusly would have destroyed them with the very same source of energy it used to create them. Worse, the vastly more copious abiotic materials that would have also been produced would have continued to react with the racemic mixtures of the biotic materials within the synthesizing medium and would have readily incorporated the latter into compounds that would have been utterly useless to life.​​Miller’s experiment did produce … amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature. One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by [Edward] Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars … forming a brown tar around Miller’s apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product. — J. H. John Peet (Oct. 2005), “The Miller-Urey Experiment”, _Truth in Science_​​But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would _not_ have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres (*Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth*; *Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide*).​​Perplexing.​


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> As if that would actually make a difference?
> 
> As I said, I did read it.  And it is nonsense.  More political and religious tract than actual science.  Self-published on a site where people put up their own works and not vetted or checked at all.
> 
> But here, does this make you happy?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, just the very opening sentence most serious scientific works open with.
> 
> It is really nothing more than a long running example of mental masturbation.  Where you applaud and tell some that they got it right, then scream at anybody that you think got it wrong.  Attacking multiple scientific papers with nothing more than "They got it wrong!" and "They do not know what they are doing!" if you are not just attacking them for being atheists.
> 
> I think I have flushed papers recently that were of more interest.


*PERPLEXING     *


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> By all means, let's take a look at that perplexing flourish of observations.
> 
> Trust me. The apparatus of the Miller-Urey experiment did not produce nucleic acids or anything else like them. *1*​​What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased airflow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. *2*​​(See table of amino acids produced and identified in the ‘classic’ 1952 experiment, as published by Miller in 1953, the 2008 re-analysis of vials from the volcanic spark discharge experiment, and the 2010 re-analysis of vials from the H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. —Wikipedia)​​The significance of the recently uncovered results produced by the altered apparatus does not go to the synthesis of proteins as a result of the inherent chemical properties of their molecular precursors within atmospheric conditions that entail a more vaporous, volcanic-gas-like mixture of steam. It goes to the more impressive results that are derived under these simulated conditions _coupled with_ the potentialities of the RNA-world hypothesis and _its_ obligatory molecular precursors. Hence, Senior Correspondent Stephen K Ritter misses the target when he assumes that the team of researchers who analyzed the results of the unpublished experiments “speculate that amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have been polymerized by carbonyl sulfide—volcanic gas—to form peptides leading to proteins” (Stephen K. Ritter; Oct. 16, 2008; “Origin-of-Life Chemistry Revisited”; _Chemical and Engineering News-Prebiotic Chemistry_).​​They could not have sensibly speculated any such thing, as it is well known that amino acids do not form lasting peptide bonds, let alone proteins,  under any natural conditions outside living organisms. And this is true under laboratory conditions as well, whether their mixtures are racemic, as is always the case in nature, or even artificially homochiral.​​The original apparatus of the published experiment simulated a strictly reducing atmosphere consisting of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water.  In the same article, Ritter observes:  “scientists who have analyzed Miller’s experiments doubt that the highly reducing reaction conditions he used existed on early Earth”; however, the apparatus equipped with the aspirating mechanism simulated the more “intense conditions of a lightning-laced volcanic eruption." Hence, the researchers aver that ”[t]he volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective". Precisely! But what the researchers mean by _effective_ goes to the formation of amino acids _only_, and only within the domains of semi-reducing, carbonyl-sulfide-producing atmospheres of "volcanic island systems", as the more generally oxidizing atmosphere beyond would prevent their formation.​​The problem with this scenario is that under natural conditions the newly created precursors could not have stayed inside these atmospheric enclaves for long, for unlike the artificial conditions _calculatedly _arranged within the apparatuses of laboratories, which artificially remove potentially biotic materials from the synthesizing medium once they are formed, nature would have continued to bombard them and thusly would have destroyed them with the very same source of energy it used to create them. Worse, the vastly more copious abiotic materials that would have also been produced would have continued to react with the racemic mixtures of the biotic materials within the synthesizing medium and would have readily incorporated the latter into compounds that would have been utterly useless to life.​​Miller’s experiment did produce … amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature. One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by [Edward] Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars … forming a brown tar around Miller’s apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product. — J. H. John Peet (Oct. 2005), “The Miller-Urey Experiment”, _Truth in Science_​​But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would _not_ have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres (*Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth*; *Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide*).​​Perplexing.​


Still lying about the Miller Urey experiment, I see.

Did you not get the memo that this idiot creationer talking point is a lie for ignorant people?


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> By all means, let's take a look at that perplexing flourish of observations.
> 
> Trust me. The apparatus of the Miller-Urey experiment did not produce nucleic acids or anything else like them. *1*​​What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased airflow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. *2*​​(See table of amino acids produced and identified in the ‘classic’ 1952 experiment, as published by Miller in 1953, the 2008 re-analysis of vials from the volcanic spark discharge experiment, and the 2010 re-analysis of vials from the H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. —Wikipedia)​​The significance of the recently uncovered results produced by the altered apparatus does not go to the synthesis of proteins as a result of the inherent chemical properties of their molecular precursors within atmospheric conditions that entail a more vaporous, volcanic-gas-like mixture of steam. It goes to the more impressive results that are derived under these simulated conditions _coupled with_ the potentialities of the RNA-world hypothesis and _its_ obligatory molecular precursors. Hence, Senior Correspondent Stephen K Ritter misses the target when he assumes that the team of researchers who analyzed the results of the unpublished experiments “speculate that amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have been polymerized by carbonyl sulfide—volcanic gas—to form peptides leading to proteins” (Stephen K. Ritter; Oct. 16, 2008; “Origin-of-Life Chemistry Revisited”; _Chemical and Engineering News-Prebiotic Chemistry_).​​They could not have sensibly speculated any such thing, as it is well known that amino acids do not form lasting peptide bonds, let alone proteins,  under any natural conditions outside living organisms. And this is true under laboratory conditions as well, whether their mixtures are racemic, as is always the case in nature, or even artificially homochiral.​​The original apparatus of the published experiment simulated a strictly reducing atmosphere consisting of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water.  In the same article, Ritter observes:  “scientists who have analyzed Miller’s experiments doubt that the highly reducing reaction conditions he used existed on early Earth”; however, the apparatus equipped with the aspirating mechanism simulated the more “intense conditions of a lightning-laced volcanic eruption." Hence, the researchers aver that ”[t]he volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective". Precisely! But what the researchers mean by _effective_ goes to the formation of amino acids _only_, and only within the domains of semi-reducing, carbonyl-sulfide-producing atmospheres of "volcanic island systems", as the more generally oxidizing atmosphere beyond would prevent their formation.​​The problem with this scenario is that under natural conditions the newly created precursors could not have stayed inside these atmospheric enclaves for long, for unlike the artificial conditions _calculatedly _arranged within the apparatuses of laboratories, which artificially remove potentially biotic materials from the synthesizing medium once they are formed, nature would have continued to bombard them and thusly would have destroyed them with the very same source of energy it used to create them. Worse, the vastly more copious abiotic materials that would have also been produced would have continued to react with the racemic mixtures of the biotic materials within the synthesizing medium and would have readily incorporated the latter into compounds that would have been utterly useless to life.​​Miller’s experiment did produce … amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature. One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by [Edward] Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars … forming a brown tar around Miller’s apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product. — J. H. John Peet (Oct. 2005), “The Miller-Urey Experiment”, _Truth in Science_​​But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would _not_ have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres (*Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth*; *Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide*).​​Perplexing.​


All organisms are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: *carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.

Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. ... They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome.

Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction. A team of scientists stripped a bacterial cell down to a minimum. Their work will help shed light on the genes required for basic cellular functions.









						The idea of creating a new universe in the lab is no joke
					

Today physicists are taking the concept of creating a universe seriously, and have sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it, though this concept has serious theological implications, and moral responsibilities if fallible humans take on the role of cosmic creators.



					www.britannica.com
				




*


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> All organisms are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: *carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.
> 
> Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. ... They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome.
> 
> Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction. A team of scientists stripped a bacterial cell down to a minimum. Their work will help shed light on the genes required for basic cellular functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of creating a new universe in the lab is no joke
> 
> 
> Today physicists are taking the concept of creating a universe seriously, and have sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it, though this concept has serious theological implications, and moral responsibilities if fallible humans take on the role of cosmic creators.
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


I discuss similar achievements in the article, but what does biochemical engineering have to do with abiogenesis?


----------



## Mushroom

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Still lying about the Miller Urey experiment, I see.
> 
> Did you not get the memo that this idiot creationer talking point is a lie for ignorant people?



And even more interestingly, what was discovered after Miller's death in 2007 and 2008 when some went back over his original equipment.  Where inside of the vials used they found over 40 different amino acid compounds.  Most modern researchers speculate that either the equipment that was used then was too primitive to have detected this much larger number than expected, or that they required time to combine into such and it did not happen immediately after the experiment but more slowly over time.

But it is obvious by the constant attacks on that one single experiment and then not looking at any later recreations or examination of the samples from the experiment itself with more modern equipment is a huge failure.  As I stated, not a scientific paper but a religious tract.  And still no evidence on what makes Ringy an "expert" in the subject.

Maybe Lord Fluffy Bunny can answer that.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> All organisms are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: *carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.
> 
> Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. ... They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome.
> 
> Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction. A team of scientists stripped a bacterial cell down to a minimum. Their work will help shed light on the genes required for basic cellular functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of creating a new universe in the lab is no joke
> 
> 
> Today physicists are taking the concept of creating a universe seriously, and have sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it, though this concept has serious theological implications, and moral responsibilities if fallible humans take on the role of cosmic creators.
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins*. * In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evinces an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. *3*

Perplexing.

It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.

Perplexing.

Still, despite the paltry concentrations of the organic materials produced relative to the energy expended, the best bet for amino acids would have been a semi-reducing atmosphere akin to that simulated in the unpublished experiments. At least the pertinent, organic materials produced in those were more voluminous and diverse. Also, it seems reasonable to assume that the dynamics of the altered atmospheric model would have moved the materials away from the lingering dangers inside the synthesizing medium, past the threats beyond, and into the primordial soup of the oceans below more rapidly.

It’s all pie-in-the-sky nonsense, of course, but as long as we’re already suspending disbelief far above any reasonable altitude, we might as well go along with the tale forever*:* never mind the threats beyond the synthesizing medium, never mind the ubiquitous cross-reaction contaminants, never mind that water ultimately pushes peptidyl bonding backward, not forward, would disperse the precursors of proteins and condemn them to the whims of a churning and lonely isolation, and never mind most of all that the total amount of organic compounds on Earth today, relative to the overwhelming, abiotic reactions in raw nature, is less than a fraction of the lofty concentrations that would be plausibly favorable to the inscrutable processes of abiogenesis. After all, the other precursors of life, which improbably braved and overcame the same obstacles, have need of their prebiotic cousins. The long and arduous journey toward self-awareness must go on by way of an even more implausible series of elaborately complex and fortuitous accidents.

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that. But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us? Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.

The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life. And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities that stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.

If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel. If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?

We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall. And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.

Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go.  While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials. And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years. (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> And even more interestingly, what was discovered after Miller's death in 2007 and 2008 when some went back over his original equipment.  Where inside of the vials used they found over 40 different amino acid compounds.  Most modern researchers speculate that either the equipment that was used then was too primitive to have detected this much larger number than expected, or that they required time to combine into such and it did not happen immediately after the experiment but more slowly over time.
> 
> But it is obvious by the constant attacks on that one single experiment and then not looking at any later recreations or examination of the samples from the experiment itself with more modern equipment is a huge failure.  As I stated, not a scientific paper but a religious tract.  And still no evidence on what makes Ringy an "expert" in the subject.
> 
> Maybe Lord Fluffy Bunny can answer that.


And if you had read the bulk of the article you would know that I discuss the later findings of Miller-Urey as well.  They do now impinge on the pertinent facts of peptidyl bonding.  Everybody knows that life up from amino acids is a dead end.


----------



## Ringtone

*PERPLEXING *


----------



## Uncensored2008

Unkotare said:


> You're paying by check?



The gardener is paid by an "e-check" which is automatic...


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Got anything to back up your position you little bitch?
> 
> A new study finds that atheists think there just might be aliens out there. Evangelicals are not so sure.​
> Eighty-five percent of atheists and agnostics say their best guess is that intelligent life does exist beyond Earth. So do 80% of unaffiliated Americans, also known as nones.
> 
> By contrast, only 51% of Protestants — and 40% of white evangelicals — are open to the possibility of intelligent aliens. So are about two-thirds of Catholics and mainline Protestants and about half (55%) of Black Protestants.
> 
> So fuck off unkotare.  Sometimes I think you argue with me despite the fact it's obvious I'm right.  You argue just to argue.  I could say snow is cold and you'd say it isn't.  Fuck off asshole.  Go troll someone else for a change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For atheists, the idea of aliens seems real. Religious people doubt it.
> 
> 
> (RNS) —  A new study finds that atheists think there just might be aliens out there. Evangelicals are not so sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> religionnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever get sick of being wrong?




So Atheists just took the belief in one set of magical beings and transferred to another set of magical beings.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> You clearly don't go to church.  How do you pay your dues?  You give a wad of money?  He's not talking about when they pass the hat.  He's talking about paying your annual dues.  You know, 10% of your paycheck?
> 
> Yea right.  Like you give even 1% of your paycheck to a church.


 Silly Bonobo, a superstitious moron like you has trouble following basic conversations, but we were talking about the gardener.

Also, I don't think most churches have annual dues?

Maybe the Mormons.

Does your church of Gaia and the blessed Anthropogenic  Global Warming have yearly dues? I thought infant sacrifice covered that?


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins*. * In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evinces an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. *3*
> 
> Perplexing.
> 
> It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.
> 
> Perplexing.
> 
> Still, despite the paltry concentrations of the organic materials produced relative to the energy expended, the best bet for amino acids would have been a semi-reducing atmosphere akin to that simulated in the unpublished experiments. At least the pertinent, organic materials produced in those were more voluminous and diverse. Also, it seems reasonable to assume that the dynamics of the altered atmospheric model would have moved the materials away from the lingering dangers inside the synthesizing medium, past the threats beyond, and into the primordial soup of the oceans below more rapidly.
> 
> It’s all pie-in-the-sky nonsense, of course, but as long as we’re already suspending disbelief far above any reasonable altitude, we might as well go along with the tale forever*:* never mind the threats beyond the synthesizing medium, never mind the ubiquitous cross-reaction contaminants, never mind that water ultimately pushes peptidyl bonding backward, not forward, would disperse the precursors of proteins and condemn them to the whims of a churning and lonely isolation, and never mind most of all that the total amount of organic compounds on Earth today, relative to the overwhelming, abiotic reactions in raw nature, is less than a fraction of the lofty concentrations that would be plausibly favorable to the inscrutable processes of abiogenesis. After all, the other precursors of life, which improbably braved and overcame the same obstacles, have need of their prebiotic cousins. The long and arduous journey toward self-awareness must go on by way of an even more implausible series of elaborately complex and fortuitous accidents.
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that. But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us? Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.
> 
> The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life. And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.
> 
> How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities that stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.
> 
> If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel. If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?
> 
> We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall. And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.
> 
> Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go.  While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials. And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years. (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)


What are you trying to say here?  Sum it up.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Silly Bonobo, a superstitious moron like you has trouble following basic conversations, but we were talking about the gardener.
> 
> Also, I don't think most churches have annual dues?
> 
> Maybe the Mormons.
> 
> Does your church of Gaia and the blessed Anthropogenic  Global Warming have yearly dues? I thought infant sacrifice covered that?


The Greek Orthodox Church has dues and I believe most churches do.  You may not be an actual member of the church you go to.  You're just a party crasher.  A free loader.  You're going to hell.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Silly Bonobo, a superstitious moron like you has trouble following basic conversations, but we were talking about the gardener.
> 
> Also, I don't think most churches have annual dues?
> 
> Maybe the Mormons.
> 
> Does your church of Gaia and the blessed Anthropogenic  Global Warming have yearly dues? I thought infant sacrifice covered that?



We know so very little.

Astronomers have shown that the galaxy gives birth to about seven new stars per year. They are now working on an estimate of the second term, the fraction of stars that form planets. All the rest is still guesswork.

Seager's new equation makes no assumption that extraterrestrials are intelligent and using radio technology. Instead, she simply works on the idea that life of any type may be present in sufficient abundance to alter the chemical composition of its planet's atmosphere.

The only way to know if there is truly life on other worlds is to design and build missions that will look for it. Thankfully, Seager is at the forefront of that effort too. Her planet-finding telescope, TESS, will be launched by Nasa around 2017 and could locate hundreds of Earth-sized planets.

NASA's TESS space telescope has found *more than 2,200 exoplanet candidates* so far, including hundred of smaller rocky worlds.

Isn't it way too early to say you don't believe there is life elsewhere?


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> What are you trying to say here?  Sum it up.


My point is that you didn't really read the paper, and your question here underscores that.   There's really no reason for your rancor.  By the way, hit me with some songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'.  Make 'em nicccce, real nicccce, and put some sweet Motha Jane on 'em.    
​




__





						Songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'
					





					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But that paradox is bunk. It can be ignored, now that we know how vast the universe is.


Well, no.  The size of the universe is mostly irrelevant.  The core idea is that any sufficiently advanced civilization should be able to create automatons that self replicate to explore and/or map the galaxy.  Given even a modicum of time, far far far far less than we currently think the galaxy has really had, those automatons will have searched everywhere even if only one was ever sent out as they would grow exponentially.  

The vast universe really tells us nothing as to why we see no signs in our own galaxy.  As for other galaxies, sure, but even the numbers locally suggest a staggering likelihood that life exists elsewhere.  While the label 'paradox' really does not fit the question asked by the Fermi Paradox, it is a very salient question.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> The size of the universe is mostly irrelevant.


To another species visiting us?

Um... gonna have to disagree with that.

We are an intelligent species. Why haven't we visited the Andromeda galaxy?

When will we, do you think?

How do you suppose the automatons would have surveyed the entire universe? You think they can travel faster? Why?

And how do you know ow these automatons have NOT visited Earth?

There is very good reason to believe billions of intelligent species have existed in our universe. And also good reason to believe it very possible that not one has been able to contact the human race.

Thus, the paradox vanishes.


----------



## FA_Q2

Ringtone said:


> Which affirms that you really didn't read it.
> 
> I summarize the naturalist's underlying metaphysical bias in contrast to what the findings of abiogenetic research actually divulge.  I give a few anecdotal examples of how the true believer of popular culture and of little real firsthand knowledge typically reacts to the learned assessments of those who do not presuppose naturalism.  In other words, it's the presentation of the pertinent findings sans the naturalist's underlying bias that irks you.   But, then, you didn't attentively read the bulk of the paper, as you obviously confound "the thematic device of competing metaphysics" with the objectively accurate presentation of the findings.
> 
> Also, there are in fact a number of compound-complex sentences in the paper, which tells me you don't know what a run-on sentence is.
> 
> In the meantime, the bulk of the paper strictly regards the research.



Lets say that ALL experiments and ALL conjectures about how abiogenesis occurred are totally and utterly false.  None of them make any sense or are even remotely plausible.

That leaves you with one simple fact: there was no life on earth and then there was simple life that evolved into the state of affairs we see today.  That fact strongly supports abiogenesis.

Present a coherent theory that is more explanatory than current abiogenesis theories and what sort of predictions can come of that theory.  Otherwise, the statements that abiogenesis are a 'bridge to far' are irrelevant appeals to incredulity.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> To another species visiting us?
> 
> Um... gonna have to disagree with that.
> 
> We are an intelligent species. Why haven't we visited the Andromeda galaxy?
> 
> When will we, do you think?
> 
> How do you suppose the automatons would have surveyed the entire universe? You think they can travel faster? Why?
> 
> And how do you know ow these automatons have NOT visited Earth?
> 
> There is very good reason to believe billions of intelligent species have existed in our universe. And also good reason to believe it very possible that not one has been able to contact the human race.
> 
> Thus, the paradox vanishes.


Because we do not have anywhere near the technology.  And 'faster' is not the point.  You can accomplish this on fairly short timescales in a cosmological sense.

And as I said, it is NOT a paradox, the label does not fit.  A paradox requires at least two things that are not compatible.  There are various answers to the question posed by Fermi ergo the ideas are compatible but the particular answer to the question is a salient one.

I happen to think the most likely answer is that interstellar travel is nigh impossible to actually achieve in any consistent way which is sad IMHO (there will be no Star Trek explorations for the human race) but seems to be the best explanation.  That intelligent life simply did not evolve elsewhere reminds me far to much of the earth is the center of the universe, the sun is the center of the universe, nothing can escape the earths gravitational pull and other examples of narrow thinking.


----------



## FA_Q2

Mushroom said:


> Oh, it is much more than even that.  Because most models only have the cores of a "standard planet" lasting from 2-3 billion years before it solidifies.  And once the core dies, the planet dies.


This is a rather large assumption though, is it not?  We have VERY few examples to go off of, only 2 really, as there really is only 2 stellar bodies that we have been able to extensively study: Earth and its moon.  The rest of the solar system is still pretty much unexplored.  We have ruled out 'advanced' civilizations for the most part but that certainly does not give us any real understanding of the boundaries around the existence of life.  This is one of the reasons newer forms of cosmological arguments are rather bullshit IMHO, they focus very much on the idea that everything here is just perfect for us and if anything was changed there would be no life at all.  I think it is clear that we are in utter ignorance about the various forms that life can take by the simple fact we cannot even define life properly.  Not really, every time we do we find that there are examples that simply do not fit and/or poor examples that are clearly outside of what we view as life.  

  It seems to me that every single time we engage in this kind of narrow thinking, that what we see and understand represents anything close to the real boundaries of nature, we find that we were sorely mistaken.  Even here, with a fairly good understanding of the structure of life that exists around us we are piss poor at predicting how prevalent life is.  Every time we think there are areas of the planet that are devoid of life entirely, we find extremophiles when we look really close.  Life can, it seems, adapt to almost any environment given just a little time.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> The Greek Orthodox Church has dues and I believe most churches do.  You may not be an actual member of the church you go to.  You're just a party crasher.  A free loader.  You're going to hell.



There is no hell, moron.

There are no angels and no ET's either.

It's all make believe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> And 'faster' is not the point.


Of course it is. At light speed, it would take 4 years to receive a reply to a message to the nearest galaxy.




FA_Q2 said:


> Because we do not have anywhere near the technology.


Then who does? How long until we get it? Easy to say they don't have the tech either, then. And went extinct without acquiring it. Or have not yet acquired it. Or acquired it, but haven't managed to yet make their way to the little blue dot. Or acquired it and went extinct  before making  their way to earth. Lots of possibilties. 




FA_Q2 said:


> I happen to think the most likely answer is that interstellar travel is nigh impossible to actually achieve in any consistent way


Well there you go. Add that to the litany of reasons why it may be possible that billions of intelligent species have evolved in the universe, yet none have visited Earth.

And that is all that is needed for the paradox to vanish. And so it has.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> There is no hell, moron.
> 
> There are no angels and no ET's either.
> 
> It's all make believe.


Oh look, Shaman Uncensored has graced us with another divine declaration.


----------



## FA_Q2

braalian said:


> Just because there’s a lot of planets out there, that doesn’t mean extraterrestrial intelligent life is inevitable. Personally, the sheer number of stars, planets, etc. Only serves to make me doubt all the more that there’s intelligent life outside of earth. Fermi Paradox.
> 
> We’ve spent tremendous effort to detect intelligent life, and all we have to show for it is deafening silence.
> 
> Given the mind-boggling distance just between individual stars, I’ll admit that we can never know for sure. But with all those planets, for all these billions of years intelligent life could have been potentially transmitting radio waves, why hasn’t a single intelligent-made extraterrestrial broadcast of some sort been detected here on earth? Even with these distances, why hasn’t some sort of alien probe or artifact been discovered since a nearly infinite amount of planets have had a nearly infinite amount of time?
> 
> At the bare minimum this suggests that if intelligent life *is*out there, it’s so unimaginably far away that we could never possibly contact them within the lifespan of our solar system. Or that interstellar travel is impossible beyond the few nearest stars. Or, most likely, that it simply isn’t out there at all.
> 
> There is absolutely zero evidence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. So until such evidence presents itself the simplest assumption is that such life doesn’t exist. It’s not the most entertaining assumption, but it’s the most logical.
> 
> People love to concoct unnecessarily elaborate theories when they find reality and facts boring. That’s why conspiracy theories are popular.


There is not 'zero' evidence.  Just not much.  Life formed here and there are enough planets out there that to think our situation is wholly unique is a pretty massive assumption.  To assume we are unique really does have no evidence for it whatsoever, every time we try and single out why our particular species is so 'special' and 'smart' we find that our assumptions are bullshit.  We really are not all the different from our closest relatives on this planet, it is just that tiny difference makes a rather massive one in outcome over time.

That we cannot find any signals from them is not much of a surprise.  How far do you think that we could be detected from our signals?  What timeframe are you looking in.

The search using things like radio waves are pretty silly concepts, not only does the detection range just not cut it but the use of such technologies seem to be in a very tight window.  The most unlikely realities IMHO is actually we are the only ones.  That requires to much hubris considering the staggering numbers we are dealing with.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh look, Shaman Uncensored has graced us with another divine declaration.



Reality is such a strain on you...


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course it is. At light speed, it would take 4 ion years to receive a reply to a message to the nearest galaxy.


Which is, again, not relevent.  The Fermi Paradox has nothing to do with communication whatsoever.  Noting. Nada.  Zilch.

That is your injection.


> Then who does? How long until we get it? Easy to say they don't have the tech either, then. And went extinct without acquiring it. Or have not yet acquired it. Or acquired it, but haven't managed to yet make their way to the little blue dot.


No its not 'easy to say' unless you think we are the first advanced civilization.  Given what we know about the formation of the galaxy and the formation of our solar system, the window where a civilization could form on a planet like ours spans hundreds of millions of years if not billions.  And this operates under a false assumption that life or intelligent life requires the things we require.

Ergo, if other intelligent life exists, it is extremely unlikely we are the most advanced.


> Well there you go. Add that to the litany of reasons why it may be possible that billions of intelligent species have evolved in the universe, yet none have visited Earth.
> 
> And that is all that is needed for the paradox to vanish. And so it has.


Sigh, I could repeat it again but it seems like you want to ignore the point that it never really was a paradox or that I have not explicitly stated that it is a salient question and not a paradox.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> Which is, again, not relevent. The Fermi Paradox has nothing to do with communication whatsoever. Noting. Nada. Zilch.


100% wrong. If 1000 alien civilizations were sending us messages, we would not be talking about the Fermi paradox. And the point was that that communication travels at the speed of light, anyway.




FA_Q2 said:


> No its not 'easy to say' unless you think we are the first advanced civilization.


Of course it is. Just as you say we might get the tech someday, which is to say we might not. So yes, it is very easy and correct  to assume the same would be true of many of those species. 

Keep adding these things up, and it becomes easly possible that billions of I telligent species have evolved, yet none have contacted us.

Thus, the paradox vanishes. This is all that needs to be shown, to render it useless hot garbage.


----------



## Dadoalex

shockedcanadian said:


> This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure.  A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.
> 
> So, this number again, *1000000000000000000000 planets!  *According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge.  How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy
> 
> Putting the exact estimation aside.  We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, *that there aren't many far more advanced than us*.
> 
> Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens.  Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other.  Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.
> 
> What would be the end result?  Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)?  It really is a daunting concept.  We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation.  It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.


There is most likely life out there somewhere.
But, if we're discussing sentient beings capable of building complex civilizations then they would be few, if any, and far between.
If they exist they are most likely long extinct or in pre-civilization states.
This capability has been evident on this planet for less than 150k years out of the 5 billion years this planet has existed.
There is evidence showing that we may drive all large mammal, aquatic, avian and reptilian life to extinction within 200 years.
If we use earth as the model then.  if there is life out there, and if that life ever reached our level of technology, then, in all likelyhood, they are long extinct or millions of years from achieving sentience.

Also
There is little reason to believe that a species could become the dominant species on its planet without some level of aggression.  Without that instinct those critters would have been eaten into extinction or be used a chattel by whatever species is dominant.  There are few sentient species on this planet that do not fight for sex or food and those that don't are in no way dominant.


----------



## Mushroom

FA_Q2 said:


> This is a rather large assumption though, is it not? We have VERY few examples to go off of, only 2 really, as there really is only 2 stellar bodies that we have been able to extensively study: Earth and its moon. The rest of the solar system is still pretty much unexplored.



Not at all.  What, you think we actually have to land on a planet to detect if it has a magnetic field?

We know that Venus has a very weak one, and Mars basically has none.  The gas giants have huge ones that makes that of the Earth pale by comparison.  Jupiter by far has the largest magnetic field in the solar system next to the Sun.  We also know that Earth has an unusually large core because it is essentially the core of two planets that have been combined into a single planet.  Exactly how often do people think that has actually happened?

But we have also extensively studied Mars, and landed probes on Venus also.  And at least visited each of the others with probes.

But some things can just be assumed by examination of what we do know and can observe.  In an "average Earth sized body", outside of things like tidal forces the core will only stay molten for 3-5 billion years.  That is the entire window available for most planets to cool, evolve life, and have it progress to the point where it can start to travel outwards before the core dies and the solar winds from its star start to scour away the atmosphere and leave it largely a dead rock (like Mars).

And there are also many other beliefs that are commonly accepted before beings could take those steps.  Now remember, this is for space a space fairing race, not just life itself.

First of all, it could not be eternally covered in clouds.  Any "intelligence" that evolved there would likely evolve the belief that what they are is the entirety of the "Universe", as they would not even see stars, other planets, or even their sun.  That would be a huge mental issue to even start to explore above the lower atmosphere alone as most would believe there literally is nothing else "out there".

Also, that it must have at least one moderate sized satellite.  Much as our Moon, to give them something to aim for in exploration.  A place to go to in order to improve their technologies, and to act as a "stopping off point" for future explorations of the rest of their solar system.  Without our moon, can anybody really imagine humans deciding "OK, great, we are now going to jump straight to trying to reach Mars"?  

Also, there are other things like they would most likely be omnivores, and evolve to maturity in a gaseous atmosphere and not aquatic.


----------



## FA_Q2

Mushroom said:


> Not at all.  What, you think we actually have to land on a planet to detect if it has a magnetic field?


That was not the assumption that I was talking about.

The assumption that is a rather large one is the idea that life requires something like we have here or even a magnetic core at all.


Mushroom said:


> We know that Venus has a very weak one, and Mars basically has none.  The gas giants have huge ones that makes that of the Earth pale by comparison.  Jupiter by far has the largest magnetic field in the solar system next to the Sun.  We also know that Earth has an unusually large core because it is essentially the core of two planets that have been combined into a single planet.  Exactly how often do people think that has actually happened?


We do not know.  It may be VERY common.  It may be almost unheard of.  Because we havd zero examples to go off of other than the end result here we have little idea what those conditions would normally pose.

But the idea that it is even necessary is my contention.  Not to mention that the timescale involved may not need to be nearly as long as it took us considering life here had to start over many times,  


Mushroom said:


> But we have also extensively studied Mars, and landed probes on Venus also.  And at least visited each of the others with probes.
> 
> But some things can just be assumed by examination of what we do know and can observe.  In an "average Earth sized body", outside of things like tidal forces the core will only stay molten for 3-5 billion years.  That is the entire window available for most planets to cool, evolve life, and have it progress to the point where it can start to travel outwards before the core dies and the solar winds from its star start to scour away the atmosphere and leave it largely a dead rock (like Mars).
> 
> And there are also many other beliefs that are commonly accepted before beings could take those steps.  Now remember, this is for space a space fairing race, not just life itself.
> 
> First of all, it could not be eternally covered in clouds.  Any "intelligence" that evolved there would likely evolve the belief that what they are is the entirety of the "Universe", as they would not even see stars, other planets, or even their sun.  That would be a huge mental issue to even start to explore above the lower atmosphere alone as most would believe there literally is nothing else "out there".


This is conjecture and nothing more.  We cannot understand the minds of living things on this planet, trying to decipher what an intelligent species would think on any other is just pure conjecture.  Hell, we do not properly understand our own minds.


Mushroom said:


> Also, that it must have at least one moderate sized satellite.  Much as our Moon, to give them something to aim for in exploration.  A place to go to in order to improve their technologies, and to act as a "stopping off point" for future explorations of the rest of their solar system.  Without our moon, can anybody really imagine humans deciding "OK, great, we are now going to jump straight to trying to reach Mars"?
> 
> Also, there are other things like they would most likely be omnivores, and evolve to maturity in a gaseous atmosphere and not aquatic.


Again, all just conjecture.


----------



## Mushroom

FA_Q2 said:


> The assumption that is a rather large one is the idea that life requires something like we have here or even a magnetic core at all.



No magnetic core, no atmosphere.  No atmosphere, no life.

That part is not exactly "rocket science".  We have planets and moons with a magnetosphere, and those without.  None without have an atmosphere.  And the density of the atmosphere is in comparison to their magnetosphere.  This is not "conjecture", it is an observable fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> The assumption that is a rather large one is the idea that life requires something like we have here or even a magnetic core at all.


Scientists don't really make that assumption. But given that there may be 100 million+ explanets in range of our instruments, it makes sense to narrow down the search to what we know about life. So we look for biomarkers and conditions that match the organics we know about.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> What are you trying to say here?  Sum it up.


It's perplexing how you don't seem to grasp that the excerpts from the article directly address your observation and subsequent questions.

How did you miss that the first time and then miss that again?

It's almost as if you're not really reading things.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> What are you trying to say here?  Sum it up.


*Perplexing.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> *Perplexing.*


Only because you are delusional. Nobody is going to read your magical manifesto.


----------



## Ringtone

FA_Q2 said:


> Lets say that ALL experiments and ALL conjectures about how abiogenesis occurred are totally and utterly false.  None of them make any sense or are even remotely plausible.
> 
> That leaves you with one simple fact: there was no life on earth and then there was simple life that evolved into the state of affairs we see today.  That fact strongly supports abiogenesis.
> 
> Present a coherent theory that is more explanatory than current abiogenesis theories and what sort of predictions can come of that theory.  Otherwise, the statements that abiogenesis are a 'bridge to far' are irrelevant appeals to incredulity.


If abiogenesis is impossible, God didn't program nature to produce life via a process of chemical evolution.  Rather, He created life directly via a feat of biochemical engineering.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> If abiogenesis is impossible, God didn't program nature to produce life via a process of chemical evolution.  Rather, He created life directly via a feat of biochemical engineering.


So you don't think your God is capable of abiogenesis.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> It's perplexing how you don't seem to grasp that the excerpts from the article



It is not an "article".  It is your personal ramblings.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> It is not an "article".  It is your personal ramblings.


The only ramblings going on around here are questions and comments about things you didn't read.   Now drop and give me twenty, as well as a groovin' melody for this thread:  Songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'.

Make sure it has a smooth, slow-hand vibe, baby.  Lay some daddy snap on it.


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> The only ramblings going on around here are questions and comments about things you didn't read.



Here is the thing.  I did read through it.  The entire thing was all the same.  YOU rambling about how you do not accept the findings of anything, screaming at atheists, and how they got it all wrong.

Tell you what, submit it for a peer review.  Or even publishing in an actual journal.

I did read it, it is the same nonsense for the entire thing that I pointed out in the first three pages.

I could not care less, and my having read it was an hour or so I wish I had back as it was a complete waste of my time.  I had not read so much coprolite since I read the Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and Its Future"  I think I got more out of "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" by Dr. Asimov than I did out of your drivel.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> Here is the thing.  I did read through it.  The entire thing was all the same.  YOU rambling about how you do not accept the findings of anything, screaming at atheists, and how they got it all wrong.
> 
> Tell you what, submit it for a peer review.  Or even publishing in an actual journal.
> 
> I did read it, it is the same nonsense for the entire thing that I pointed out in the first three pages.
> 
> I could not care less, and my having read it was an hour or so I wish I had back as it was a complete waste of my time.  I had not read so much coprolite since I read the Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and Its Future"  I think I got more out of "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" by Dr. Asimov than I did out of your drivel.


And yet you imply that I didn't address things that I indubitably did and continue to imply that I dismissed the findings of the very best research _because_ the findings and my account of them are incongruent.  

False!

The leading lights and I wholeheartedly agree on what the research divulges.  We don't agree that naturalism is necessarily true.  Similarly, researchers generally agree on the findings but disagree over the plausibility of any given experient's underlying hypothesis. 

Also, anyone can say "that's stupid" or "that's rubbish" san specifics and direct arguments.  

It's quite another to cite specific instances.

All we've gotten from you is generic ad hominem.  

Perplexing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> And yet you imply that I didn't address things that I indubitably did and continue to imply that I dismissed the findings of the very best research _because_ the findings and my account of them are incongruent.
> 
> False!
> 
> The leading lights and I wholeheartedly agree on what the research divulges.  We don't agree that naturalism is necessarily true.  Similarly, researchers generally agree on the findings but disagree over the plausibility of any given experient's underlying hypothesis.
> 
> Also, anyone can say "that's stupid" or "that's rubbish" san specifics and direct arguments.
> 
> It's quite another to cite specific instances.
> 
> All we've gotten from you is generic ad hominem.
> 
> Perplexing.


That's a lot of self soothing psychobabble, when you could have just said,

"I know my paper would get laughed off the planet, if I tried to publish it in a scientific journal."


----------



## Mushroom

Ringtone said:


> And yet you imply that I didn't address things that I indubitably did



Yes, your "addressing".  Saying that they were rubbish, without any reason other than your "beliefs".

Look, it is garbage.  I do not care what you think.  You give no evidence other than your outright rejection.  You self-published and it has gone through absolutely no peer review of any kind (not even the most sloppy in "pay per article" type of journals), it is simply you saying over and over again that everybody is wrong.

Your "paper" and "expert" opinions are drivel.  But please tell me, how many accept your writings?  But please, continue to self-flagellate as much as you want.  But don't go around demanding that others believe or respect you for it.  That is arrogance.

Kind of like your proclaiming that having self-published that you are an "expert".  Self-flagellation.


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> Here is the thing.  I did read through it.  The entire thing was all the same.  YOU rambling about how you do not accept the findings of anything, screaming at atheists, and how they got it all wrong.
> 
> Tell you what, submit it for a peer review.  Or even publishing in an actual journal.
> 
> I did read it, it is the same nonsense for the entire thing that I pointed out in the first three pages.
> 
> I could not care less, and my having read it was an hour or so I wish I had back as it was a complete waste of my time.  I had not read so much coprolite since I read the Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and Its Future"  I think I got more out of "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" by Dr. Asimov than I did out of your drivel.


Also, lay some cool breeze on me here, bone daddy:  Songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'.   Make is nice, real niiiice, and put some _you're mama good looky funk on it, with a dash of easy livin' and fish be a-jumpin'._


----------



## Ringtone

Mushroom said:


> Yes, your "addressing".  Saying that they were rubbish, without any reason other than your "beliefs".
> 
> Look, it is garbage.  I do not care what you think.  You give no evidence other than your outright rejection.  You self-published and it has gone through absolutely no peer review of any kind (not even the most sloppy in "pay per article" type of journals), it is simply you saying over and over again that everybody is wrong.
> 
> Your "paper" and "expert" opinions are drivel.  But please tell me, how many accept your writings?  But please, continue to self-flagellate as much as you want.  But don't go around demanding that others believe or respect you for it.  That is arrogance.
> 
> Kind of like your proclaiming that having self-published that you are an "expert".  Self-flagellation.


You don't care?  Then why did you inquire about the impetus of my opinion in the first place?

I'm sniffin', but all I can smell is ad hominem and bad faith.  Ooh-ooh, that stank.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> You don't care?  Then why did you inquire about the impetus of my opinion in the first place?
> 
> I'm sniffin', but all I can smell is ad hominem and bad faith.  Ooh-ooh, that stank.


Well, look up at the scoreboard, then. That's you losing eleventy trillion to zero


----------



## FA_Q2

Ringtone said:


> If abiogenesis is impossible, God didn't program nature to produce life via a process of chemical evolution.  Rather, He created life directly via a feat of biochemical engineering.


If abiogenesis is impossible is a pretty massive if.  

And you have not presented a coherent theory, just a conjecture.  You need more than a bland statement.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> There is no hell, moron.
> 
> There are no angels and no ET's either.
> 
> It's all make believe.


Dude, I was kidding about going to hell. Lol


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> It's perplexing how you don't seem to grasp that the excerpts from the article directly address your observation and subsequent questions.
> 
> How did you miss that the first time and then miss that again?
> 
> It's almost as if you're not really reading things.


I think you’re a rambling bullshitter.


----------



## sealybobo

FA_Q2 said:


> If abiogenesis is impossible is a pretty massive if.
> 
> And you have not presented a coherent theory, just a conjecture.  You need more than a bland statement.


His fatal flaw in his argument is him saying god did or didn’t do something, assuming god is real and a given. It is not. So this guy is having an argument you can only have with another person who also believes god is real. Otherwise, back the fuck up.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Only because you are delusional. Nobody is going to read your magical manifesto.


It’s lik which flaw in his argument do I start with first. Or, if any of what he’s saying is even true, does it prove what he thinks it proves? And to insert a god into your story as a way something came to be, is lazy and ignorant.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> My point is that you didn't really read the paper, and your question here underscores that.   There's really no reason for your rancor.  By the way, hit me with some songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'.  Make 'em nicccce, real nicccce, and put some sweet Motha Jane on 'em.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


You started out by saying

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins

You lost me right away. You’re not good communicator.


----------



## Ringtone

FA_Q2 said:


> If abiogenesis is impossible is a pretty massive if.
> 
> And you have not presented a coherent theory, just a conjecture.  You need more than a bland statement.


You are not to be taken seriously.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> You are not to be taken seriously.


We think the same about you. Fos.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Science is gambling, it's relying on odds there's life out there. Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> It’s lik which flaw in his argument do I start with first.


But that's the point. He pinches of a specious, steaming turd full of lies and misrepresentations and half truths, and either you have to do all the work of sifting through his pile and debunking it point by point, or he "wins". 

In his eyes, of course. In the real world his paper is getting the attention it deserves: none.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.


 We.dont have to know where life "came from" (spoiler alert: it was abiogenesis) to find it elsewhere.


----------



## Colin norris

Captain Caveman said:


> Science is gambling, it's relying on odds there's life out there. Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.



We know where life came from and it's  a fact through DNA. The problem is godbotherers won't accept it because it goes against their filthy lying bible.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Colin norris said:


> We know where life came from and it's  a fact through DNA. The problem is godbotherers won't accept it because it goes against their filthy lying bible.


So where did DNA come from? I don't follow the Bible either.


----------



## Colin norris

Captain Caveman said:


> So where did DNA come from? I don't follow the Bible either.



DNA came with the first life.  Do some bloody research


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> So where did DNA come from? I don't follow the Bible either.


Where do any chemicals "come from"?


----------



## Ringtone

Captain Caveman said:


> Science is gambling, it's relying on odds there's life out there. Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.


Science is not gambling on anything in the sense that you mean.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Where do any chemicals "come from"?


Precisely, where did chemicals, minerals, DNA, energy and matter come from. Science doesn't know, the Bible makes a claim. That's where we are at.

I was told there's a billion galaxies, each with a billion planets orbiting billions of stars. So it's purely an odds game if life is out there. But what's life? Apparently a foetus to a certain age is not life, so I don't know what scientists are looking for.  And until we can develop something to get us across space in a meaningful timeframe, it's all irrelevant.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> You started out by saying
> 
> That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins
> 
> You lost me right away. You’re not good communicator.


You need to carefully regard the pertinent studies altogether at once, hence, the links and footnotes.  Full context:

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would _not_ have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres (*Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth*; *Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide*).​​Perplexing.​​That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the atmospheric problem.* 3* In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evinces an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth.​​Perplexing.​​It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.​​. . .​​*3  Tony Fitzpatrick (Sep. 8, 2005). “Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for early Earth: Was Miller-Urey experiment correct?”. Washington University in St. Louis: Newsroom.*​


----------



## Ringtone

Colin norris said:


> We know where life came from and it's  a fact through DNA. The problem is godbotherers won't accept it because it goes against their filthy lying bible.


What?!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> Precisely, where did chemicals, minerals, DNA, energy and matter come from.


So what you are really asking is, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Do you think anyone has the answer? I don't.
Anyone who says they know the answer is lying or delusional.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> Apparently a foetus to a certain age is not life,


Please keep this trolling horseshit out of the science section. Thanks.


----------



## ding

Captain Caveman said:


> Precisely, where did chemicals, minerals, DNA, energy and matter come from.


Predestined by the laws of nature which are finely tuned to create a universe where beings that know and create will arise.


----------



## ding

Captain Caveman said:


> Apparently a foetus to a certain age is not life


Some are selective in their acceptance of science.


----------



## Colin norris

Ringtone said:


> What?!



Why would you ask me to repeat my statement when it is written in front of you? 

If you believe it to be wrong, give me your definitive  evidence of shut  your  ignorant mouth.


----------



## Ringtone

Colin norris said:


> Why would you ask me to repeat my statement when it is written in front of you?
> 
> If you believe it to be wrong, give me your definitive  evidence of shut  your  ignorant mouth.


All I said was _what?!_ relative to your assertion that "[w]e know where life came from and it's a fact through DNA."

Your statement hardly alludes to anything definitively manifest, and your rudeness is "straight out of Compton" bizarre.

Again, what you be talkin' about, Willis?


----------



## Mushroom

Colin norris said:


> The problem is godbotherers won't accept it because it goes against their filthy lying bible.



And once again, as I often say is that one should not lump in the fanatical fundamentalists with the rest.

I myself am religious, but am not a fundamentalist and have no problem with my faith contradicting science.  As over 65% of Americans consider themselves "Religious", that is not a problem for the vast majority.  The radical fundamentalists are a small minority, that even we have no problem openly mocking.  You will not find many "Christians" for example stating their support of the Westboro Baptist Church.


----------



## Mushroom

Captain Caveman said:


> Precisely, where did chemicals, minerals, DNA, energy and matter come from. Science doesn't know



Sure it does, stars.

You are welcome.


----------



## FA_Q2

Ringtone said:


> You are not to be taken seriously.


And there we are.

You are unable to even attempt to articulate a coherent theory.  And you think we should take you seriously.  Why should any of us if you refuse even to even get to the most basic of starting points?


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what you are really asking is, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
> 
> Do you think anyone has the answer? I don't.
> Anyone who says they know the answer is lying or delusional.


While we do not have the answer, Brian Greene has a lot of good content on the subject.

One of his takes is that we may be asking the wrong question, nothing may actually be impossible.  The question would then be reversed, why is nothing not possible rather than why is there something.  Something is the default.


----------



## Colin norris

Mushroom said:


> And once again, as I often say is that one should not lump in the fanatical fundamentalists with the rest.
> 
> I myself am religious, but am not a fundamentalist and have no problem with my faith contradicting science.  As over 65% of Americans consider themselves "Religious", that is not a problem for the vast majority.  The radical fundamentalists are a small minority, that even we have no problem openly mocking.  You will not find many "Christians" for example stating their support of the Westboro Baptist Church.



There is no difference between fundamentalists and you're ordinary garden variety God botherer. 
The fact is it's  all bullshit.  You have no evidence if anything but a 2000 book of lies that changes every few years to suit the conditions. It won't be long before religion claims Jesus invented the internet. Thats how ridiculous it is. 

Faith does  not equate to fact.  You have been conned son. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's that simple.


----------



## Ringtone

FA_Q2 said:


> And there we are.
> 
> You are unable to even attempt to articulate a coherent theory.  And you think we should take you seriously.  Why should any of us if you refuse even to even get to the most basic of starting points?


A coherent theory?  I had no idea what you were talking about in the first place, not before and not now.


----------



## FA_Q2

Ringtone said:


> A coherent theory?  I had no idea what you were talking about in the first place, not before and not now.


What is confusing about 'coherent theory?'

Do you have something more than a basic proclamation that 'God did it?'


----------



## Mushroom

Colin norris said:


> There is no difference between fundamentalists and you're ordinary garden variety God botherer.



OK, you are a bigot, got it.


----------



## Colin norris

Mushroom said:


> OK, you are a bigot, got it.



No. You're problem is you have  been conned by religion and too stupid to see it.  You have no evidence of anything not ever will. You worship a ghost and expect some eternal life shit as a reward. 
I might be a bigot for explaining the truth to you but you are delusional.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Dude, I was kidding about going to hell. Lol



You are a fascist.

You exist in an "us vs. them" dichotomy. Anyone who isn't a good Woke democrat is the caricature of a Bible thumping redneck from the 1940's for you.

If I fail to recite the mantras of belief in your replacement angels, why  then I must be a Bible thumper - because there are only the two possibilities.

You think you're all sciency and shit because you've rejected Jesus. Because Jar Jar Binks died to wash away your sins.....

You, and those like you crack me up, you've just traded one religion for another.

If you left today, it would take you 165,000 years to get to the nearest star using our fastest rocket.

Oh, and the radiation in space is going to cook you like an ant in a microwave.

But go ahead and demand that there are little green men who are going to show us all how Communism is the way...


----------



## sealybobo

Captain Caveman said:


> Science is gambling, it's relying on odds there's life out there. Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.


There is so much evidence though.

Cumulative evidence suggests that during the ancient Noachian time period, the surface environment of Mars had liquid water and may have been habitable for microorganisms

There are six main elements that are the fundamental building blocks of life. They are, in order of least to most common: *sulfur, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen*. 

Do you know where these 6 basic elements are in the universe?  Everywhere!!!!

If we look at all of the organisms on Earth, from the microbes living in hot springs to Orchids to Blue Whales, we see that the fundamental building blocks of life are all the same: all living things contain primarily *carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur*.

Scientists have recently discovered that these molecules are present throughout the galaxy, said Bakes. Observations have turned up nitrogenated aromatics in the interstellar medium, in comets, in protoplanetary disks around stars, in planetary atmospheres, and in objects in the outer solar system.

We just recently discovered this!!!  So the more we learn, the more it looks like there's probably life elsewhere.  We just haven't found it yet because we aren't that advanced.  It'd be like a monkey concluding we are all alone when the monkey doesn't have enough information to make such a conclusion.  So you're acting like a monkey.

Why else would you conclude we are all alone when so many scientists think we aren't?  









						Life's Building Blocks Are Found All Over Galaxy
					

Researchers find abundance of the molecule on which all known life depends: nitrogenated aromatics.



					www.aps.org


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You are a fascist.
> 
> You exist in an "us vs. them" dichotomy. Anyone who isn't a good Woke democrat is the caricature of a Bible thumping redneck from the 1940's for you.
> 
> If I fail to recite the mantras of belief in your replacement angels, why  then I must be a Bible thumper - because there are only the two possibilities.
> 
> You think you're all sciency and shit because you've rejected Jesus. Because Jar Jar Binks died to wash away your sins.....
> 
> You, and those like you crack me up, you've just traded one religion for another.
> 
> If you left today, it would take you 165,000 years to get to the nearest star using our fastest rocket.
> 
> Oh, and the radiation in space is going to cook you like an ant in a microwave.
> 
> But go ahead and demand that there are little green men who are going to show us all how Communism is the way...


All this when I agreed with you?  All I did was make a joke about going to hell.  

I think what bugs you, and it is clear from your political reply, is you hate it that on this subject, you happen to agree with us liberals/atheists.  

You are clearly at war with science.  I wonder who got you to be this way?  Could it be the Republican party?  Deny science because of global warming.  Then deny science over covid.  

It must be harder for you to reject science being that you aren't a bible thumping idiot.  You're just an idiot.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You are a fascist.
> 
> You exist in an "us vs. them" dichotomy. Anyone who isn't a good Woke democrat is the caricature of a Bible thumping redneck from the 1940's for you.
> 
> If I fail to recite the mantras of belief in your replacement angels, why  then I must be a Bible thumper - because there are only the two possibilities.
> 
> You think you're all sciency and shit because you've rejected Jesus. Because Jar Jar Binks died to wash away your sins.....
> 
> You, and those like you crack me up, you've just traded one religion for another.
> 
> If you left today, it would take you 165,000 years to get to the nearest star using our fastest rocket.
> 
> Oh, and the radiation in space is going to cook you like an ant in a microwave.
> 
> But go ahead and demand that there are little green men who are going to show us all how Communism is the way...


I'm just floored by this reply.  What a political joke you are.  Here we are talking about life on other planets and you call me a fascist?  LOL.  So fucking funny.  Are you sure you know what the word means?  I don't think you do honey.  

And by the way, it would only take 73,000 years to arrive to closest star.  You more than doubled the time.  So stop being so negative.  They say we might come up with a technology that will cut that time down to 80 years.  If we do that we can freeze people and wake them up in 79 years.  

And that leads me to my last point.  Look at our solar system.  If you had a telescope and you were on Proxima Centauri looking at us.  You might not even see earth in your pathetic telescope.  So you would determine there is no life in our solar system.






You wouldn't even see earth.  

P.S.  We don't even know if there is life in Europa.  Seems like there might be life in that moon.  But we don't know.  If there is, will you shut the fuck up?  Probably not.


----------



## sealybobo

Beginning next year, the James Webb Space Telescope will scan a sampling of the nearly 5,000 alien worlds already discovered around other stars to help astronomers identify which of the rocky planets might have atmospheres that could sustain life.

The new telescope is 100 times more powerful than Hubble. 

“It’s got so many modes, and so many filters, and so many gratings, and spectroscopy mixed with imaging, that it’s a perfect machine for the next step in studying planets around other stars and measuring their atmospheres.”

“We know, basically, that if you look up at the night sky, every star has a solar system around it,” Grunsfeld said.

“You will be able to detect stuff like water, carbon dioxide, ozone in these planets,” Espinoza said.

Water, in particular, could be detectable in the atmospheres of exoplanets with a huge infrared telescope like Webb. If they don’t have atmospheres, Webb might be able to tell scientists about the composition of the planets’ rocky surfaces.

Webb also has the sensitivity to directly image planets the size of Neptune around other stars, according to Espinoza. Current observatories can only image planets the size of Jupiter.

The transit observation method only catches a small fraction of exoplanets that happen to orbit their star in a path that lines up with our solar system. But the method allows scientists to use starlight to tease out details about planetary atmospheres.

“Until recently, the only planetary system known was our own solar system,” said Antonella Nota, ESA’s Webb project scientist.

“Are we alone? Is Earth unique? Do we have other planets out there that can host life? (These are) very ambitions questions that speak to all of us. So Webb study in detail the atmospheres of these exoplanets.”

Closer to home, Webb will point toward Jupiter’s moon Europa, which has a global ocean of liquid water buried beneath an icy crust. Webb could confirm a tentative detection made by Hubble of water plumes erupting through Europa’s ice shell.

The remote observations with Webb will help scientists prepare for the arrival of NASA’s Europa Clipper mission at Jupiter. That robot probe is set for launch in 2024 and will repeatedly fly by Europa with a sophisticated instrument suite to study the moon’s geology and environment.

Webb will also gather data on the climate of Mars, the structure and moons of Uranus and Neptune, and the population of frozen miniature worlds in the Kuiper Belt at the outer frontier of our solar system.

“It’s been a long road to get where we are,” said Heidi Hammel, a Webb interdisciplinary scientist at the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy. “Even so, we planned such a revolutionary telescope that it has stood the test of this time.”





__





						Webb will take next leap in search for habitable worlds – Spaceflight Now
					





					spaceflightnow.com
				




So we still know very little.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> While we do not have the answer, Brian Greene has a lot of good content on the subject.
> 
> One of his takes is that we may be asking the wrong question, nothing may actually be impossible.  The question would then be reversed, why is nothing not possible rather than why is there something.  Something is the default.


A different approach to the argument, but a MUCH harder idea to demonstrate.

His idea amounts to a "universal statement", which is very hard to "prove". Impossible, even, maybe.

Demonstrating the truth of the essentially "existential statement" that "the universe COULD come from nothing" is a smaller ask, I would think.

Showing it DID, or -- Greene's idea -- that it has "always been" is an even tougher ask. Showing the alternative (perennial existence of nothingness) is impossible would be a big step.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> You are a fascist.
> 
> You exist in an "us vs. them" dichotomy. Anyone who isn't a good Woke democrat is the caricature of a Bible thumping redneck from the 1940's for you.
> 
> If I fail to recite the mantras of belief in your replacement angels, why  then I must be a Bible thumper - because there are only the two possibilities.
> 
> You think you're all sciency and shit because you've rejected Jesus. Because Jar Jar Binks died to wash away your sins.....
> 
> You, and those like you crack me up, you've just traded one religion for another.
> 
> If you left today, it would take you 165,000 years to get to the nearest star using our fastest rocket.
> 
> Oh, and the radiation in space is going to cook you like an ant in a microwave.
> 
> But go ahead and demand that there are little green men who are going to show us all how Communism is the way...


You seem to freely insult your own faith, which is no different than the strawman you have propped up for others.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You seem to freely insult your own faith, which is no different than the strawman you have propped up for others.


He’s like Jeffrey dahmer. Killed those men for being gay.


----------



## Mushroom

Colin norris said:


> No. You're problem is you have been conned by religion and too stupid to see it. You have no evidence of anything not ever will. You worship a ghost and expect some eternal life shit as a reward.
> I might be a bigot for explaining the truth to you but you are delusional.



How come those that claim to be the most "enlightened" are the most arrogant turds I meet?

Let me guess, you are a "Progressive", right?  You do not know me, or my beliefs.  Yet you insist on things without any evidence, and belittle anything that is not in compliance with your beliefs.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You seem to freely insult your own faith, which is no different than the strawman you have propped up for others.


I think he’s mad because I showed most people who tend to believe we are alone are religious people and people open to the idea of life elsewhere tend to be non religious.

Religious people should realize they still believe we are the center of the universe even though that’s been proven to not be true.

And we don’t know shit yet. Seriously, it would almost be like a monkey saying with all the evidence it has, we are alone. Us humans barely have more knowledge and information than the monkey.

And ask any of the people who look through those telescopes if they think we are alone, they say no.

The people here who don’t believe are monkeys. The monkey never looked through these telescopes either.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> What is confusing about 'coherent theory?'
> 
> Do you have something more than a basic proclamation that 'God did it?'


"God did it" isn't a theory or explanation anyway.

We are trying  to figure out HOW it worked (or, if one prefers, "How God did it"). Saying God did it explains nothing. 
Like pointing at relativistic jets emanating from a black hole and saying "Gravity did it!". Only a fool would think they have explained anything, or that their work is done.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Religious people should realize they still believe we are the center of the universe even though that’s been proven to not be true.


Well let me throw them a bone, like distracting an attack dog:

Every person is, indeed, the center of their own universe. 

Think that will help?


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well let me throw them a bone, like distracting an attack dog:
> 
> Every person is, indeed, the center of their own universe.
> 
> Think that will help?


Every point in the universe is the center of the universe. Don't expect bobobrainless to grasp the concept.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> And ask any of the people who look through those telescopes if they think we are alone, they say no.


Then, ask them why. Three points will be stated:

1) we know abiogenesis happened at least once (on Earth)

2) The universe has existed for 13.7 billion years

3) there are trillions of trillions of planets in the universe


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Every point in the universe is the center of the universe. Don't expect bobobrainless to grasp the concept.


Just introduced my kids to this concept. I was explaining to them the significance of the Webb telescope and what we think about the geometry of the universe.


----------



## Ringtone

FA_Q2 said:


> What is confusing about 'coherent theory?'
> 
> Do you have something more than a basic proclamation that 'God did it?'


Dude be askin' me how God created life, talkin' about theories and such.


----------



## Colin norris

Mushroom said:


> How come those that claim to be the most "enlightened" are the most arrogant turds I meet?
> 
> Let me guess, you are a "Progressive", right?  You do not know me, or my beliefs.  Yet you insist on things without any evidence, and belittle anything that is not in compliance with your beliefs.



The fact remains  idiots like you  believe in immaculate conception and virgin births etc yet you criticise those who give you enlightment about the truth. 

There is no God and never has been. You have no evidence of anything other than your delusional faith. You have bern conned and you're a blight on the human race to believe that shit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Dude be askin' me how God created life, talkin' about theories and such.


Yes, welcome to the world of adulting. Scie tests have to try to answer that question.

You Bible thumpers think you get a pass, because hey, magic is magic, you don't have to explain.

That is why you are ushered to the door and asked to leave, in any serious company.

That is why you are a laughingstock, in the science section.


----------



## Unkotare

Colin norris said:


> The fact remains  idiots like you  believe in immaculate conception and virgin births etc yet you criticise those who give you enlightment about the truth.
> 
> There is no God and never has been. You have no evidence of anything other than your delusional faith. You have bern conned and you're a blight on the human race to believe that shit.


This is the Science and Technology Forum. Take your anti-religion bigotry to the Religion Forum, or the Flame Zone, or better yet shove it up your ass.


----------



## Colin norris

Unkotare said:


> This is the Science and Technology Forum. Take your anti-religion bigotry to the Religion Forum, or the Flame Zone, or better yet shove it up your ass.



I won't be taking advice from you. Stick to your filthy lying bible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare go ahead and say, "God did it". There is no conflict, there. Just know that you have explained nothing and please stay out of the way of people working to explain the "how". Unless you aim to help them, I guess.

The idea that "God did it" does not conflict with trying to understand the "how".


----------



## Ringtone

Colin norris said:


> The fact remains  idiots like you  believe in immaculate conception and virgin births etc yet you criticise those who give you enlightment about the truth.
> 
> There is no God and never has been. You have no evidence of anything other than your delusional faith. You have bern conned and you're a blight on the human race to believe that shit.


Dude said "blight on the human race," talkin' beaucoup trash about God and such.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Dude said "blight on the human race," talkin' beaucoup trash about God and such.


*"gods"

To atheists, agnostic or otherwise, your god goes on the same shelf with all the others.


----------



## Colin norris

Ringtone said:


> Dude said "blight on the human race," talkin' beaucoup trash about God and such.


There is  no God and never has been. You gave no evidence to the contrary.  You have never seen heard or interacted with it. 
Next you will be threatening I will go to hell  while you arrogant pricks believe you will go to some silly heaven shit. 
You're going no where like all of us. 

You and half of America have been  conned and you will not accept it.


----------



## Unkotare

Colin norris said:


> I won't be taking advice from you. ....


Of course not, because you are a bigoted douche bag.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...go ahead and say, .....


I'll go ahead and say what I mean to say when I mean to say it. I don't need a script-writer, and if I did I could find a much better one than you.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *"gods"
> 
> To atheists, agnostic or otherwise, your god goes on the same shelf with all the others.


Ignorant.


----------



## Colin norris

Unkotare said:


> Of course not, because you are a bigoted douche bag.



No. That's not the reason. Its the fact I know more than you.

You stick with your silly bible and virgin births shit. It's good enough for you brain dead fools.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> I'll go ahead and say what I mean to say when I mean to say it.


Well of course, I am just stating that it does not conflict with science. A scientist would not and should not object, because it is a waste of time to do so. It affects nothing, really.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Ignorant.


How so? This is the science section, you should explain yourself without having to be asked.

To atheists, agonstic or otherwise, your god goes on the same shelf with all the others. Zeus, Shiva, Zoroaster, you name it.

What is your problem with this factual idea? You can't wish it away.


----------



## Unkotare

Colin norris said:


> No. That's not the reason. ......


Yes, that is the reason.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How so? ...


It's not a matter of science or religion. It is a matter of the proper use of the English language.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> It's not a matter of science or religion. It is a matter of the proper use of the English language.


Well thank goodness you are about to explain that to all of us dummies.

And... go


----------



## Ringtone

Colin norris said:


> There is  no God and never has been. You gave no evidence to the contrary.  You have never seen heard or interacted with it.
> Next you will be threatening I will go to hell  while you arrogant pricks believe you will go to some silly heaven shit.
> You're going no where like all of us.
> 
> You and half of America have been  conned and you will not accept it.


Dude be talkin' about arrogant pricks and such, loads of smack talk.  It's a real rumble up in this bitch--furniture flyin', bees a-stingin', dandelions a-dingin'.  We even got folks talkin' theories of God and life and such.  It's a real brouhaha of a slugfest.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well thank goodness you are about to explain that to all of us dummies.
> 
> And... go


Have you ever heard of something called a “proper noun “?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Have you ever heard of something called a “proper noun “?


I am not your assistant. Nor am I interested in grammar or semantic trifling. Sorry.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am not your assistant. Nor am I interested in grammar or semantic trifling. Sorry.


Why did you ask if you were not interested in the answer?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Why did you ask if you were not interested in the answer?


Whenever you plan to make your point is fine by me. Take all the time you want.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Whenever you plan to make your point is fine by me. Take all the time you want.


I gave you the answer. What the heck do you want now?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> I gave you the answer. What the heck do you want now?


Cool!

Moving on, I guess...


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cool!
> 
> Moving on, I guess...


Don’t waste my time with questions when you are not “interested in “the answer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> Don’t waste my time with questions when you are not “interested in “the answer.


Got it!

But the fact remains...to atheists, agnostic or otherwise, your god(s) go on the same shelf as all of the others.

Interestingly enough, you have the same shelf. And it looks exactly the same as the atheists' shelf, with the exception of your preferred god(s) not being on it.


----------



## Unkotare

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Got it!
> 
> But the fact remains...to atheists, agnostic or otherwise, your god(s) go on the same shelf as all of the others.
> 
> Interestingly enough, you have the same shelf. And it looks exactly the same as the atheists' shelf, with the exception of your preferred god(s) not being on it.


You’re still missing the point.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Unkotare said:


> You’re still missing the point.



As it turns out, I am making my own point, not addressing yours.


----------



## sealybobo

Colin norris said:


> There is  no God and never has been. You gave no evidence to the contrary.  You have never seen heard or interacted with it.
> Next you will be threatening I will go to hell  while you arrogant pricks believe you will go to some silly heaven shit.
> You're going no where like all of us.
> 
> You and half of America have been  conned and you will not accept it.


Europe is less religious. They don’t have red neck Bible belters. So they believe science, global warming, evolution and they are more open to the idea we are not alone.

We have a Bible Belt problem here.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Whenever you plan to make your point is fine by me. Take all the time you want.


He won’t


----------



## braalian

sealybobo said:


> Europe is less religious. They don’t have red neck Bible belters. So they believe science, global warming, evolution and they are more open to the idea we are not alone.
> 
> We have a Bible Belt problem here.


There’s no connection between being religious and being skeptical about intelligent extraterrestrial life and UFOs. Many atheists and agnostics are just as skeptical.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> Europe is less religious. They don’t have red neck Bible belters. So they believe science, global warming, evolution and they are more open to the idea we are not alone.
> 
> We have a Bible Belt problem here.


Your religion is the superstitious la-la of naturalism.  Evolution is a myth.  Catastrophic climate change is chicken-little talk.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Your religion is the superstitious la-la of naturalism.  Evolution is a myth.  Catastrophic climate change is chicken-little talk.


Shaman Ringtone  should take his goofy spells and incantations to the religion section or the rubber room.


----------



## sealybobo

braalian said:


> There’s no connection between being religious and being skeptical about intelligent extraterrestrial life and UFOs. Many atheists and agnostics are just as skeptical.


Not true.  Fewer agnostics are skeptical.  So there is a connection.  Must be









						Religious Americans less likely to believe intelligent life exists on other planets
					

In the U.S., highly religious adults are much more skeptical about the possibility of extraterrestrial life than those who are less religious.




					www.pewresearch.org
				




You'd have to be stupid to stick to your wrong conclusion.

In the United States, highly religious adults are much more skeptical about the possibility of extraterrestrial life compared with those who are less religious, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

57% vs 80%.

So MANY would be 43%.  43% of theists believe we are all alone.  MUST be a connection.

But if you believe in religion and gods, maybe I'm expecting too much for you to see facts logic and reason.


----------

