# Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...



## Blackrook (Jul 1, 2017)

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.


----------



## shimon (Jul 1, 2017)

If you must know it is another way that the authorities can put a lien (alien) on us that way they can collect money off us like global warming, religion, taxes etc...It is just a form of control and as the old ways of control fail they must come up with others like threatening us with aliens and we need to keep them in charge so that they can ( Save) us from them


----------



## Blackrook (Jul 1, 2017)

The alien thing is a religious issue for the atheists.  They think if we are contacted by aliens, the entire Christian religion will have a faith crisis and collapse in ruin.  This is the reason atheists run around insisting that aliens are real, when they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.


----------



## shimon (Jul 1, 2017)

Governments or people in authority need to create an outside boogie man in order to rule ..If they don't have a legit outside threat they create one to scare Johnny public...


----------



## S.J. (Jul 1, 2017)

We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God.  God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy?  He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.


----------



## Blackrook (Jul 1, 2017)

S.J. said:


> We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God.  God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy?  He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.


But it might cause a crisis in Christianity, especially Catholicism.

Catholicism is a very humanocentric religion.  We believe that God sent his only Son to be Man, and it is through the Son of God's death, as a man, that we are saved.

We consume the Body and Blood of Christ during the Mass, and the reason that works is because we share humanity with Christ.

The introduction of an alien life form that was intelligent but not human might throw the entire equation out of whack for Catholics.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 1, 2017)

The chances for Aliens are probably 1,000,000 times more likely compared to your chances of some mythical man coming out of the clouds.

This is a fact.

Hell, there's probably a better chance of westwall flying drunk over your house tonight then that too. hahaha

My point is there's 300-500 billion galaxies in the universe and 300-500 billion stars within our own...Every star probably has on avg one planet and probably more and 1 out of every 3 or 4 probably has a habitable zone rocky planet. Think about it.


----------



## Blackrook (Jul 1, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> The chances for Aliens are probably 1,000,000 times more likely compared to your chances of some mythical man coming out of the clouds.
> 
> This is a fact.
> 
> ...


I can think about it, but I'm not overly impressed with large numbers.

What does impress me is that in this very large universe, not one alien civilization, NOT ONE, has contacted our planet or left any evidence here that they ever came to visit.

What that tells me is that the most probable conclusion is that there are NO alien civilizations out there, because if there were only one in a trillion chance of there being an alien civilization around a star, we would have gobs of visitors by now.


----------



## Boss (Jul 1, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



I've always wondered what would happen if we made contact with a distant civilization and they had virtually the same beliefs in God? Would that silence Atheists? Probably not.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 1, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God.  God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy?  He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.
> ...


I guess it could have an effect on specific religious beliefs but the fact that they exist would prompt the obvious question of how they got there.  I would think most people of faith would conclude that God created them too.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 1, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > The chances for Aliens are probably 1,000,000 times more likely compared to your chances of some mythical man coming out of the clouds.
> ...


Maybe God doesn't want us contacting each other so he put us far enough apart that we can't.


----------



## Blackrook (Jul 1, 2017)

S.J. said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Right, they were created by God, but the salvation event is unique to humans, because the Son of God became human and died a human death to save humans from our sins.  Any alien being could not be an inheritor of that salvation, so the Christian religion would not be relevant to them.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 1, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...


I agree with that, but we might be the only civilization he created that was in need of salvation.


----------



## Blackrook (Jul 1, 2017)

S.J. said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Out of the Silent Planet, by C.S. Lewis, postulated that situation.  Mars and Venus also had intelligent life, but only Earth had a race that had fallen to sin.  So Earth was the "Silent Planet" because our sin has somehow made our planet silent to the others.


----------



## Boss (Jul 1, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> What that tells me is that the most probable conclusion is that there are NO alien civilizations out there, because if there were only one in a trillion chance of there being an alien civilization around a star, we would have gobs of visitors by now.



I don't really agree with this because of the vast space between stars. It's not physically possible to travel faster than speed of light and even at such an incredible rate it would take many years to reach the nearest star. Think about the technology required to travel that long in space? 

We're all familiar with the term "life as we know it" ....so much so, we kind of take it for granted. When you stop to consider all the thousands and millions of circumstances inherent in "life as we know it" you have to presume that such life would be incredibly rare if it exists at all. For instance, if some cataclysm hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs, mammals such as humans would've never evolved. Without a moon, seasons and tides, millions of life forms wouldn't exist. All kinds of deadly cosmic rays are averted because we have a molten iron and nickle core which enables an electromagnetic "force field" around our planet, protecting the life on it.  Then, there is the abundance of water in liquid form.

If life does exist elsewhere, it is probably nothing like life as we know it. That said, it's inherently impossible for us to imagine something we don't know. Our imaginations are prejudiced by objective reality. Oh, we can conjure up some really cool science fiction, but we have no means of ever confirming our speculations. Anything we dream up is a product of our own rationale and life elsewhere doesn't need to conform to any human rationalization. Life could exist in a state we don't even understand how to comprehend.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 1, 2017)

Why would the visit of aliens negate a belief in G-d?  Such visiting aliens would undoubtedly be Jewish.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 1, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> The chances for Aliens are probably 1,000,000 times more likely compared to your chances of some mythical man coming out of the clouds.
> 
> This is a fact.
> 
> ...



And all of that created itself.  Amazing!


----------



## Skieler (Jul 1, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Hmm religious people believe in God but not aliens, right?  Because if so that in itself is a contradiction of terms. If there is a God and he created Earth and the heavens as it was written, wouldn't that mean that since he was not originally from Earth nor ever resided on the planet that by definition he himself is an alien?


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 1, 2017)

Skieler said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...



God is the creator of the universe and he is everywhere, aka, omnipresent.


----------



## RWS (Jul 1, 2017)

Actually, people with common sense should hope that aliens will arrive, and provide an intervention.

Because the paths that OT religions are leading us to, are not looking very promising...


----------



## RWS (Jul 1, 2017)

Religion was "cute" while it was just dangling and digging daggers and swords...

 But now they hold the power to destroy the world on a supernatural whim. And present a common threat to humanity. No matter what your religion or lack of...

Stupid people should not play these games. The end-result is mutual extermination. And then you take out the atheists with you...


----------



## RWS (Jul 1, 2017)

We're just trying to tell you to wake up and stop! Before you kill us all... goshdangit!

And if it helps, I'll repeat the Sumerian stories that the OT is based on. Because they said something else than what OT religions say today.

And if you then want to consider the Anunnaki as "aliens" or mythological "rulers", that's up to you to decide for yourself.

The fact remains that their stories are the origins of the OT, and all religions that stem from that. Any religion that rewrote these stories to their benefit, are plagiarists and hoaxers. And thus the followers are following human-created fiction.

Whether the Sumerian stories are based on ancient aliens really doesn't matter anymore, because religious followers will never accept that, even after an alien intervention... They'll continue to deny, and worship their false god(s) as they were trained to do.


----------



## Boss (Jul 1, 2017)

RWS said:


> We're just trying to tell you to wake up and stop! Before you kill us all... goshdangit!
> 
> And if it helps, I'll repeat the Sumerian stories that the OT is based on. Because they said something else than what OT religions say today.



You're trying to tell us this but you're all a bunch of idiots. 

There is no "OT religions" ..there is an "Old Testament" which is part of The Bible. There is also a "New Testament" which is also part of The Bible. You can repeat Sumerian stories or Hebrew stories from a different time in history, it doesn't mean a damn thing today. Humans conveyed philosophy through storytelling back then and their stories were often allegorical. To discern if a particular story was allegorical or literal, you really need to do some deep research into the conditions, context, circumstances of the time, etc. You've not done ANY of that, you just take things and parse them out of context to bash religion. Like the fucking brain-dead moron that you are... it's all you're capable of. 

In your fucked-up little mind, humans would've been far better off without any sort of religious beliefs...  devoid of any spirituality whatsoever. There have been over 1,700 wars and only 127 were over religion. 

Noted psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud said, _"if mankind didn't believe in God he'd have to create him."_   We are spiritual creatures, hard-wired to believe in something greater than self. It is this human spirituality which enables inspiration. We've had this attribute since we've walked upright. To simply toss it aside as superfluous is just abject idiocy of the highest order. It's not only a denial of science and biology, it's a denial of basic common reasoning. Ergo: You're an idiot.


----------



## Blackrook (Jul 1, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > We're just trying to tell you to wake up and stop! Before you kill us all... goshdangit!
> ...


I would agree that things don't improve when people abandon God.  The French Revolution and Communism are just two examples.  The millions of people murdered by atheistic governments is just astounding, far exceeding all religions combined.


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > We're just trying to tell you to wake up and stop! Before you kill us all... goshdangit!
> ...



Here you go again Boss... Your previous post was something I could agree with. But once someone posts that can truly debate you, you switch sides. To debate me, again. 

We went through this before, and it didn't end up well for you, so don't know why you're trying it again. 

You cannot be a switch-hitter when it comes to truth. 

Almost all wars are due to religion. And wars based on Socialism count. Where you got your numbers, is highly suspect. 

We actually think the same, except that you have to defend religion for some reason. 

I have no problems with a faith in a higher power. My problems start when people think their religion allows them to kill and subjugate others. Which is what OT-based religions have done for 4000 years, and continue to this day.


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Communism has never existed, you ignorant twat. What is it that you call Communist?  And the millions and millions of people murdered by Socialist dictators, were done by people simply following their religious leader's orders. They killed and sacrificed their lives based on their religion, in the hopes it would lead the State to Utopia. ie Communism... Which it never did... and has never existed.

So understand the huge difference between Communism and Socialism, before you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

"Communism" is a utopia equivalent to "Heaven". There are no "heaven" countries, therefore there are no "communist" countries. Got it?

Socialists use the idea of Communism, and threat, to get the people to do what they want, and make them devote themselves both financially and militarily.

Religions do the same exact thing with "heaven and hell", and martyrdom. And especially donations.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Well, I haven't switched "sides" and I don't have any reason to. I am consistent in my views and the articulation of them. 

Again... point of fact... there have been over 1,700 recorded wars in human history, only 127 were caused by or attributable to religion. So it's quite the opposite of your claim, very few wars were due to religion. What you want to do is dishonestly draw  some transient connection with a religious view and blame that for any war. This is just as silly and ridiculous as claiming most wars are caused by testosterone. 

I don't agree with exploitation of religion to justify killing and subjugating others. I just don't hold the religion itself responsible. These are the actions of men. It doesn't have anything to do with the religion, it's simply the vehicle of exploit for these individuals. 

And again... there is no such thing as "OT-based religions" ....I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about? Christianity? That's based on THE BIBLE, not half of The Bible. You have to go back about 1,500 years to find an example of Christians starting a religious-based war and THEN it was a response to brutal Islamic aggression and persecution.


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No you aren't. Stop lying.

And men do the actions based on what they're told by their religion. Stop trying to excuse that.


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

Are you saying that Christianity is based on the Bible, not half of the Bible? Are you serious?

You switch hit so much that you don't even know what you're saying anymore...

The Bible is the OT and the NT. And subsequent texts.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> No you aren't. Stop lying.
> 
> And men do the actions based on what they're told by their religion. Stop trying to excuse that.



That's just not true. Religion doesn't take over someone's mind and make them do things they have no control over, that's ridiculous. Do you really believe that's what happens?  

I've not excused a damn thing, I'm simply pointing out the difference between a religion and the willful actions of individuals who exploit their religions. To blame the religion is to excuse the behavior of the individual.


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

The OT part is plagiarism from much more ancient Sumerian and Babylonian texts. And that leads to the NT.


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > No you aren't. Stop lying.
> ...


Of course it does. That's why people kill themselves for their religion. They think they're gonna get to an utopia.


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

Here's what you're not getting... 

If the religion didn't exist, would people follow their leader and kill others?


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

Name one ancient society that fought a war that was not due to religion. Since they didn't have long-range weapons and had to fight hand-to-hand. Which means likely death. 

The only way they will do that, is because they believe they will be richer afterwards when they die.

Only religion offers that lie.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> Are you saying that Christianity is based on the Bible, not half of the Bible? Are you serious?
> 
> You switch hit so much that you don't even know what you're saying anymore...
> 
> The Bible is the OT and the NT. And subsequent texts.



Yes, Christianity is based on the entire Bible, not half of it. In fact, John states in the book of Revelations that nothing should be added or taken away. So if you believe in Christianity, you believe in the whole Bible, not just half of it. 

Now, I understand that you don't like the OT. If we completely disregard the NT and the teachings of Jesus, the Reformation and how the NT "modifies" Christianity, then you may have a valid point.... the OT is brutal. That's why Jesus had to come die for man's sins. But the fact remains, you can't just take the OT and disregard everything else and claim that's somehow Christianity. It's not. 

The OT is presented as historic reference for Christians to understand the origins of Christianity. You're viewing it as part of the doctrine in practice but that has been replaced by the New Testament. Christians don't sacrifice goats over the fires anymore. They no longer have to do these things because their sins have been paid for by the blood of Christ.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> The OT part is plagiarism from much more ancient Sumerian and Babylonian texts. And that leads to the NT.



It's not plagiarized, that's your opinion. There are similarities found in both OT and NT with more ancient texts. That might be coincidence or it might not be... you can't prove it either way. Just because you find similarity doesn't mean it was copied.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Of course it does, what? Takes over their minds and makes them do things they don't really want to do? Nonsense.  

You seem to be referring to Islamic Jihadists here, and they make a *willing choice* to do what they do. It's not so they can get some reward in the afterlife, it's because they feel they are called upon to do this in the name of Allah. The afterlife promised is simply a reward for obeying their religion.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> Name one ancient society that fought a war that was not due to religion. Since they didn't have long-range weapons and had to fight hand-to-hand. Which means likely death.
> 
> The only way they will do that, is because they believe they will be richer afterwards when they die.
> 
> Only religion offers that lie.



Again, historians have documented over 1,700 wars and only 127 were "religious" wars. Most of the time, it's not about religion, it's about power and control of resources. 

And I am going to go out on a limb and say it's extremely RARE for a human being to willingly give their life for the belief they will be richer afterwards when they die. Certainly, there have been some... suicide bombers, the 9/11 terrorists, kamikaze pilots... but by-and-large, it's a rare anomaly in humans.  They might be willing to RISK their lives for a noble religious cause but it's not for the purpose of securing tangible assets in an afterlife. That's just basic psychology.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 2, 2017)

Religions and Religious beliefs are ubiquitous across times, and countries and cultures. From the perspective of Evolution it signals that it has Evolutionary survival value.  It seems to me that human beings by virtue of simply being alive experience Existential anxiety at the awareness that  our personal death and that of our family friends and loved one  loom ahead and that we Exist in a boundlessly Mysterious universe....Organized Religion seems to offer an answer to that background anxiety all folks  experience and answers to the Questions that surge in human minds about being alive in this Universe.

Humans are predator class organisms so what happens  is that Religion is used by advanced predators to yes provide that soothing cosmic  explanation  to the Faithful while at the same time enriching themselves and violating rules of behavior laid down for others as being what "God" wants .  Its used by self same predators as "control mechanisms" to keep the Faithful from challenging anything that is going on that benefit a narrow group of people while keeping the majority in thrall to unfair conditions .

Gadzook is a Religion without a God figure or a leader...Gadzookies know that there is an Energy that suffuses and controls all things and that makes up everything...that Energy I liken to the Central Light source in a Fiber optic lamp whereas we are the points of Lights connected to the Central source always through fiber optics line ...no one needs a priest class or a clergy to connect...we are always connected ...we have direct line to source... It is the concerns of everyday life and survival plus a "foreign conceptual installation" in our awareness that keeps us from experiencing fully this direct connection to source..

"Every one of us human beings has two minds.

One is totally ours,

it is like a faint voice that* always brings us order, directness, purpose. *

The other is a *foreign installation. *

It brings us conflict, self-assertion, doubts, hopelessness:

it's ourselves as the 'me-me' center of the world."


*"Infinity is everything that surrounds us: the spirit, the dark sea of awareness. It is something that exists out there and rules our lives. My steps and yours are ruled by infinity. "*






 <----we are those points of light propelled out from source into the Time Space continuum we occupy ...


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

You're switching again. You can't help yourself, can you?

I think you may be being torn up by two different ideologies that exist within you.

One is of a person following science and logic and truth. And the other is a person who is still tied to his birth religion and hates to hear it being insulted.

So you bat both ways, and which way depends on the person you're arguing with. I get it. It's cool. I did the same thing for a long time in my childhood, until I realized which one could be dropped from consideration.

Again, I'm a very spiritual person, and I hold morality and virtue and ethics to the highest degree.

My reason for these debates, is to make people aware that they should never kill or die for their religion again.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> Christians don't sacrifice goats over the fires anymore.




Nonsense.

I have seen many christians roasting hashev, a he-goat without blemish,  over the flames. I have seen many christians put to the fire by atheists like fatted calves... Either way, a soothing and fragrant offering that is pleasing to the Lord.

What a person sees or doesn't see depends on what they understand or don't.


Obviously the subject and purpose of ritual sacrifice remains hidden from most, even from the ones claim to comply with divine law, the ones who proclaim the law is obsolete, and the ones who insist it is some archaic  superstitious relic of the past......


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

And this is directed to people who still argue about Communists....

If you believe in "Heaven", then that would be a Communist society. The idea of Heaven is that there is equality, everyone lives peacefully and shares, and nobody has more access to God than you do. Nobody should be better off or worse than you in "Heaven". You should all be equal and there should be no "classes" in "heaven" based on how much money you had when you died. Everything should be cool and equal in "Heaven".

That is what Communism is. So if you hate Communism, I wonder what you then expect in Heaven?


----------



## hobelim (Jul 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> And this is directed to people who still argue about Communists....
> 
> If you believe in "Heaven", then that would be a Communist society. The idea of Heaven is that there is equality, everyone lives peacefully and shares, and nobody has more access to God than you do. Nobody should be better off or worse than you in "Heaven". You should all be equal and there should be no "classes" in "heaven" based on how much money you had when you died. Everything should be cool and equal in "Heaven".
> 
> That is what Communism is. So if you hate Communism, I wonder what you then expect in Heaven?


  Jesus spoke of there being people who are called great or least in the kingdom of heaven. Everyone is accountable for and receives the fruit of their labor according to the measure of their actions, great or small,  in doing either good or evil....


Its just the opposite of what people believe and value in others on earth...

Here many people to this day still think that religious deceivers are holy men and that honesty is a flaw...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 2, 2017)

I was born on this rock
And I've been travelin' through space
Since the moment I first realized
What all you fast talkin' cats would do if you could
You know, I'm ready for the final surprise
There ain't no way around it
Ain't nothing to say
That's gonna satisfy my soul deep inside
All the prayers and surveyors
Keep the whole place uptight


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Religions and Religious beliefs are ubiquitous across times, and countries and cultures. From the perspective of Evolution it signals that it has Evolutionary survival value. It seems to me that human beings by virtue of simply being alive experience Existential anxiety at the awareness that our personal death and that of our family friends and loved one loom ahead and that we Exist in a boundlessly Mysterious universe....Organized Religion seems to offer an answer to that background anxiety all folks experience and answers to the Questions that surge in human minds about being alive in this Universe.



I can appreciate what you're saying here and I agree with certain aspects. Human spirituality does indicate evolutionary survival value, that's hard to deny. The question is, why? So we can surmise as you have, that it's because humans realize their own mortality and experience existential anxiety. That's an easy enough explanation until you start to ponder how the hell did we contemplate existentialism or immortality to begin with? It's kind of like the chicken or egg dilemma. Other species of life don't seem to have this problem grappling with their own mortality. So this tells me that it's possibly the other way around, we didn't invent spirituality to cope with our anxiety, the anxiety was created by our spirituality which already existed. 

Religion is simply a manifestation of our inherent spirituality. We are creatures who are hard-wired with an inherent "sense" of something beyond ourselves. We don't know what it is, we can't really define it, but we are spiritually aware and connected to it.  Religions serve as a placeholder for those senses and we obtain a semblance of solitude through religious connection with others.

I prefer to view The Church (organized religion) as sort of a "health club" for human spirituality. Now, lots of people believe in maintaining good physical health but they don't necessarily believe they need to join a health club. They have the inner discipline to exercise and maintain their health without the need for a place to go. Others might find it beneficial and that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't go around bashing religion because I think it's an important aspect for a lot of people. It's how they feel they can spiritually connect the best.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> I can appreciate what you're saying here and I agree with certain aspects. Human spirituality does indicate evolutionary survival value, that's hard to deny. The question is, why? So we can surmise as you have, that it's because humans realize their own mortality and experience existential anxiety. That's an easy enough explanation until you start to ponder how the hell did we contemplate existentialism or immortality to begin with? It's kind of like the chicken or egg dilemma. Other species of life don't seem to have this problem grappling with their own mortality. So this tells me that it's possibly the other way around, we didn't invent spirituality to cope with our anxiety, the anxiety was created by our spirituality which already existed.


As long as we were survivalist hunter gatherers with no margin of survival reserves [IE surplus food stocks] we simply did not have time or energy to ponder much about what was going on we had to be in survival mode all the time ... we also lived in direct contact with the natural world and thus there was not as much a  sense of separation from source ...It is unclear if other sentient animals experience anxiety and angst....  I simply do not know ...hearing the howling sound of a train in the distance sometimes made me think that even the Iron Horse was feeling it...
*Can other animals experience existential dread? *

"- _Your car_ is an extension of you, just like everything and everyone are extensions of you, so put some _love_ into _your car_, and then _send love_ out ..."
"The next time something happens to your car, make a note as to what you feel the broken part represents and see if you can connect it to how you are feeling at that particular moment. You may be surprised at the results."


----------



## Mudda (Jul 2, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Aliens are already here.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> As long as we were survivalist hunter gatherers with no margin of survival reserves [IE surplus food stocks] we simply did not have time or energy to ponder much about what was going on we had to be in survival mode all the time...



We have evidence from the oldest remains of human civilization showing that our most ancient ancestors had spiritual beliefs and practiced spiritual rituals. So you have to go back to before we were civilized creatures. Even then, I would have to say that man, at some point, became spiritually aware of something greater than self because you really need a source of inspiration for mankind to make the next leap. 

Now you may be right in that we didn't have time to ponder "religions" and that would make sense because religions didn't transpire until thousands of years later.


----------



## Mudda (Jul 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > As long as we were survivalist hunter gatherers with no margin of survival reserves [IE surplus food stocks] we simply did not have time or energy to ponder much about what was going on we had to be in survival mode all the time...
> ...


Our ancestors had the belief in gods because they thought the aliens were gods. These kinds of stories are in pretty much every culture.


----------



## RWS (Jul 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Religions and Religious beliefs are ubiquitous across times, and countries and cultures. From the perspective of Evolution it signals that it has Evolutionary survival value. It seems to me that human beings by virtue of simply being alive experience Existential anxiety at the awareness that our personal death and that of our family friends and loved one loom ahead and that we Exist in a boundlessly Mysterious universe....Organized Religion seems to offer an answer to that background anxiety all folks experience and answers to the Questions that surge in human minds about being alive in this Universe.
> ...


There you go again, but this time, you're squaring around and bunting...

You're just waiting to see which side takes a lead, so you can team up with them.

It's ok for you to want to get a group to circle-jerk each other.

But it's not how I roll...

We all have to understand our place in this world. And what we can do to make it better. It can be by maintaining the status quo, or wanting something better.

And in the case of institutionalized religions, we should want something better. Because what they give us, are the reasons we have most of the major problems in this world.

Now, how can that get better?

Certainly not with us fools debating with each other on a forum.

It can only happen with enlightenment. Which brings us back to the OP... It's the only way it can happen, where people will start opening their eyes and drop their birth religions and fundamentalist views.

It's suggested that we should find conclusive evidence of ET-life in the next 10 years. It may not be intelligent, but it will show that life is not exclusive to Earth. Which can set the foundation for a new reality, and hope.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jul 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > As long as we were survivalist hunter gatherers with no margin of survival reserves [IE surplus food stocks] we simply did not have time or energy to ponder much about what was going on we had to be in survival mode all the time...
> ...


awareness of "something greater than self"  is awareness of separation between self and that "something greater" or Higher self ... it is that sense of separation that is illusion 

That sense of separation marks "getting kicked out of Paradise"...Paradise was not a physical place it was a "State of Being" with no sense of separation but of oneness with All  ..some sort of Spiritual Big Bang may have occurred separating the Zero from the One and launching us as Free will agents into Space Time continuum;  a hostile and difficult terrain that the sentient through Life must cross before reclaiming an Awareness of Self  ...or not reclaiming ...


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> There you go again, but this time, you're squaring around and bunting...
> 
> You're just waiting to see which side takes a lead, so you can team up with them.
> 
> ...



Well no, I'm not bunting or switch-hitting or whatever dumb analogy you'd like to make. I am speaking philosophically over your head, which isn't very hard to do, to be perfectly honest. 

Now... let's discuss this concept you've presented about "better" and what that means exactly? Better than what? Better in what sense? By what measure are you determining what is or isn't "better" for all of mankind? Is this from some sense of "good" that you are ordained with which none of the rest of us have? And what IS "good"? And what IS "evil"? 

To me, these are all arbitrary criteria which are essentially rooted in our spiritual foundations. Your ideas of what constitutes "good" or "better" or "best" may be completely different from mine. Your ideas aren't validated simply because you believe they are true and neither are mine. 

Hitler thought it was "better" and "good" to exterminate 7 million Jews. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 thought it was "better" and "good" to fly airplanes into the WTC buildings. Their ideas weren't validated because they believed them to be true.


----------



## Boss (Jul 2, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> awareness of "something greater than self" is awareness of separation between self and that "something greater" or Higher self ... it is that sense of separation that is illusion
> 
> That sense of separation marks "getting kicked out of Paradise"...Paradise was not a physical place it was a "State of Being" with no sense of separation but of oneness with All ..some sort of Spiritual Big Bang may have occurred separating the Zero from the One and launching us as Free will agents into Space Time continuum; a hostile and difficult terrain that the sentient through Life must cross before reclaiming an Awareness of Self ...or not reclaiming ...



Perhaps. 

But I have to say, this sounds an awful lot like the makings of a religious viewpoint. In any respect, it is synonymous with the type of rationalizations found in organized religions. That's not to say it's not true or I disagree. It could very well be... could be that we're all spiritual souls who are being punished by having to endure a physical existence because our souls are inferior? Or perhaps this physical existence is a sort of "training ground" for our spirits to grow?


----------



## Skieler (Jul 2, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Skieler said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...


So you're admitting he is an alien, right?


----------



## Doc1 (Jul 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God.  God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy?  He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.
> ...



Man you need to pay closer attention to what's going on in your own church. Pope Francis has come out and said that he would "baptize" aliens. He has come out and said that all religions lead to god. The Catholics have one of the most powerful telescopes ever made on top of Mt Graham in Az. Man you are out of the loop.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



Which atheists are you speaking of? 

And why do you care?

There are lots of fascinating possibilities- but of course you don't quote anyone, or provide any link, its just your personal babbling.

For actual discussion- start here
Stephen Hawking: Intelligent Aliens Could Destroy Humanity, But Let's Search Anyway


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> The alien thing is a religious issue for the atheists.  They think if we are contacted by aliens, the entire Christian religion will have a faith crisis and collapse in ruin.  This is the reason atheists run around insisting that aliens are real, when they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.



Do you really spend time and thought to pull this crap wholesale out of your ass?

I am an atheist. Whether or not we ever encounter alien life form doesn't change my 'atheism' either way. 

And why would i want the 'entire Christian religion to collapse in ruin? 

And who other than the bizarre wingnuts on the internet are running around claiming aliens are real?

Why are you spending time attacking me- for my non-belief in your God- rather than tending to your own soul?


----------



## Boss (Jul 3, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> I am an atheist. Whether or not we ever encounter alien life form doesn't change my 'atheism' either way.



Hypothetical question: What if we make contact with an alien civilization much different than our own in many ways but the one obvious commonality is they also have the propensity to worship a higher power? 

Would that cause you to reconsider your viewpoint or would you find a way to explain this most incredible similarity?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


How would aliens know? Either they believe too or they don't. But like us they don't know either.

Now if they told us the same Jesus story that would be interesting.

But my guess is if they are religious they believe they are his chosen one.

You have no idea how big the universe is or how many stars are out there.

But you are correct they are like us. Not intelligent enough to see or travel that far.

I believe there either was, is, or will be life around every star eventually.

If there is life on other planets what will that prove to you? Will it prove your religion is a lie? What's at stake here? My guess is nothing. Even if we found life everywhere you would still believe in God.

So why do you believe we are alone? Is your religion riding on it?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> The alien thing is a religious issue for the atheists.  They think if we are contacted by aliens, the entire Christian religion will have a faith crisis and collapse in ruin.  This is the reason atheists run around insisting that aliens are real, when they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.


Why do you think we are alone? Does your religion say we are alone?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2017)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I am an atheist. Whether or not we ever encounter alien life form doesn't change my 'atheism' either way.
> ...



Well that is an interesting question isn't it? 

Not only for me- but for every Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist out there.

Why would i believe their worship any more than any American religion? 
Now- if they had some evidence that
a) there was some sort of higher power and 
b) that worshipping that higher power made sense
- of course I would reconsider my point of view. 

I am curious how those people who believe in a particular faith would take up that challenge. 

(On a related note, if there was some sort of cosmic event here on Earth- where 'God' directly communicated with us- certainly I would reconsider my position)


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God.  God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy?  He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.
> ...


Might? That word alone tells me Catholicism will easily explain away aliens when they are discovered


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 3, 2017)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I am an atheist. Whether or not we ever encounter alien life form doesn't change my 'atheism' either way.
> ...


If they have the ability to wish and hope and wonder what happens after they die. If they are social creatures


----------



## TNHarley (Jul 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > The chances for Aliens are probably 1,000,000 times more likely compared to your chances of some mythical man coming out of the clouds.
> ...


How do you know? You dedicate your life to faith but have none outside of your little box?


----------



## Boss (Jul 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Why do you think we are alone?



I can explain why I think we're alone... or virtually alone, in the sense there is probably no other "life as we know it" out there. 

It's because our unique set of circumstances resulted in what we have. There are hundreds, if not thousands of variables which culminate in bringing about "life as we know it" on this planet. 

What are the mathematical odds or probability that you could be sitting in Las Vegas and I could be in Atlantic City at poker tables and we would both be drawing the same exact hands at the same time, and this would repeat through thousands of hands? I would say that's a remarkably slim possibility... nearly impossible. Even if you had thousands or millions of people sitting at poker tables around the world, the probability that any two would be consistently drawing the same exact hands repeatedly is near impossible. 

In order to have "life as we know it" anywhere else, there are so many circumstantial conditions that have to be met in precise order it makes it a near mathematical impossibility. It takes much more than simply having a rock in the Goldilocks Zone. 

Now... microbial life? Plant life? Primitive forms of life? Yeah, that's possible.... but actual intelligent beings such as humans? That's a whole different ball of wax. For instance, you have to realize something.... Had there never been a mass extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs, large mammals such as humans would've never existed here. We could have never evolved. So just that one circumstantial event changed the course of evolution and helped create "life as we know it" on  Earth. 

All land-based life emerged from our oceans... But life doesn't exist in a stagnant ocean. What enabled life in our oceans was the presence of a moon which caused tides and a wobbly rotation of the planet which created "seasons" on our planet and oceanic convection. So you're going to need to find another "water world" in the Goldilocks Zone, with a substantial moon close enough to create tides and the planet needs a wobbly rotation to cause seasons. That's just for the basic starter conditions of life to form. The course of that life's evolution will depend on thousands of other circumstances and variables, some of which are very delicate and important.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think we are alone?
> ...



All very good points- but you leave out the vastness of our universe. In our galaxy alone there might be 100 billion stars. 

Of course the vastness of our galaxy- and the difficulty of evolution- also explains why we are unlikely to encounter alien life. Even if it exists- it is likely so far away as to be meaningless.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 3, 2017)

Once upon a time there was no universe.  In fact, there was nothing at all.  Then, the universe created itself and then mankind appeared from out of the blue.  Anyone who thinks differently is insane.


----------



## Skieler (Jul 3, 2017)

I believe in alien existence..only question is in what form and where are they in the evolutionary process. I mean no way are we the only living organisms in this vast universe. 

What I do hope though is that if they do ever make it here, they're kinder and nothing like humankind.  I mean just think if they are just a bunch of psychopathic murderers like Muslims who after landing here would take offense and start lopping off heads just because we don't worship their God?


----------



## RWS (Jul 4, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > There you go again, but this time, you're squaring around and bunting...
> ...


Dude, what you have done, from the beginning of our discussions, is to pick a side to debate.

You told me that you do that, even when you don't agree with that position. You just want to debate.

And that's cool. But you can't do it to me over and over again, because I see how you switch. And being a baseball fan, I like to use baseball analogies on your posting style.

Now, I never change. Nor do most of the people here. However, you post what would seem to be most rosier to your agenda. Which is getting likes and happy faces.

You are not smarter than anyone here, you need to learn from people here... 

And when I speak of "better", I mean a place that doesn't fear other religions. A place without zealots, that will let you be as you are and grow as you should. 

Not a place where fear-mongers tell you what you must believe in, and are damned if you don't... Those people are the problems. And you defend them. To continue your debate with me and/or others. You keep changing sides, so I don't know what you truly think.


----------



## Boss (Jul 4, 2017)

RWS said:


> And when I speak of "better", I mean a place that doesn't fear other religions. A place without zealots, that will let you be as you are and grow as you should.



That's totally subjective and not a very realistic expectation. You can't have 7 billion people all content to accept the same "better" ...that's a Utopian fantasy. What's "better" for you may not be "better" for me and visa versa. 

Sounds like you want to be dictator of the world and tell everyone what they're to believe in and how they are to think. 



RWS said:


> Dude, what you have done, from the beginning of our discussions, is to pick a side to debate.
> 
> You told me that you do that, even when you don't agree with that position. You just want to debate.



No, I don't think I've ever told you that. I won't debate things I don't agree with. I may play "devil's advocate" sometimes, for the sake of conversation... that's not a debate. I honestly don't see where you think I've changed my positions. My views are consistent... I'm not a Christian... I am a Spiritualist. I don't believe in a Christian God... I believe in Spiritual Energy as God. I don't have disdain for religion unless it's radical Islam which I don't consider a religion. I will defend religion when it's under attack by anti-religious zealots.


----------



## RWS (Jul 4, 2017)

To Part One... Utopian fantasy is our ultimate goal, is it not? 

Or is your goal division? 

I don't want to be a dictator in any world. That's totally against my way of thinking about things....


To Part Two:
You said it to me, and I can find the post and quote it if necessary. You just want to debate. And that's cool. You definitely like to play "devil's advocate". And I have shown you wrong before, and is why I ask why you are trying again. 

2 outta 3? Is that your game? 

If I handed you a knife, would you kill me because of my thoughts?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think we are alone?
> ...


If humans never evolved this planet would still have life on it.

I'm sure their evolutionary path is different from ours


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Once upon a time there was no universe.  In fact, there was nothing at all.  Then, the universe created itself and then mankind appeared from out of the blue.  Anyone who thinks differently is insane.


What did god do 20 billion years ago? How about 50? There was nothing? I doubt that.

And you can't tell us anything about the days before our universe started


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yea, we evolved from a primordial soup after lightning struck and, somehow, life began.  We were once a single cell amoeba and evolved into what we are now.  In time we'll grow wings to fly!


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Once upon a time there was no universe.  In fact, there was nothing at all.  Then, the universe created itself and then mankind appeared from out of the blue.  Anyone who thinks differently is insane.
> ...



God?  No.  I told you, everything came from nothing. Why is that so hard to believe?  Don't you believe in science?


----------



## Mudda (Jul 4, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Science doesn't say that. Please try again.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


I think there is life on other planets, but most is of the order of magnitude of slime or single cell organisms

Intelligent life takes precise climatic conditions that don't exist through most of the universe.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Feel free to present your theory.  I could use a good laugh.


----------



## Mudda (Jul 4, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Science is still looking for the answers, and doesn't PRETEND to know like you do.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 4, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...



  The earth is teeming with life with many intelligent life forms flourishing in environments that would kill you.

Chances are the universe is also teeming with intelligent life, not necessarily in a form that we could recognize even if it was already here  like a mysterious virus of unknown origin, for instance,  that was somehow spliced whole into the human genome, our own DNA,  around 750,000 years ago...


----------



## Skieler (Jul 4, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


A name has been given to describe people who always like to take the opposing view on the internet for the sake of argument and it's called trolling...so they are TROLLS.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Compare that theory with your ridiculous hypothesis that a god poofed fully grown land animals into existence


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


You clearly don't get science.

And it's funny that you have all the answers. You say you know! God did it! And then you have the balls to mock? We don't claim to know you do. And how do you know? Your 2000 year old religion told you? What a fucking retard


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

Why can theists accept god made man out of dirt or sand but "something from nothing" is stumping them?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


But he's been taught to hate science and to mock it because it calls bullshit on their creation story


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


That's what I said! This guy is mocking theories but his story that he says is fact is ridiculous.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Go fukc your dad a$$hole.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 4, 2017)

From the Arizona desert
To the Salisbury plain
Lights on the horizon
Patterns on the grain
Anxious eyes turned upward
Clutching souvenirs
Carrying our highest hopes and our darkest fears

They swear there was an accident back in '47
Little man with a great big head
Splattered down from heaven
Government conspiracy; cover-ups and lies
Hidden in the desert under endless skies

Well, it's a cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold
Post, postmodern world
No time for heroes, no place for good guys
No room for rocky the flying squirrel

They're not here, they're not coming
Not in a million years
Turn your weary eyes back homeward
Stop your trembling, dry your tears
You may see the heavens flashing
You may hear the cosmos humming
But I promise you, my brother
They're not here, they're not coming

Would they pile into the saucer
Find Orlando's rat and hug it? 
Go screaming through the universe
Just to get Mcnuggets? 
Well, I don't think so, I don't think so
It's much too dangerous, it's much too strange
Here in a world that won't give Oprah no home on the range

Well, it's a cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold
Post, postmodern world
No authenticity, no sign of soul
The radio won't play George and Merle

They're not here, they're not coming
Not in a million years
'Til we put away our hatred
'Til we lay aside our fears
You may see the heavens flashing
You may hear the cosmos humming
But I promise you, my sister
They're not here, they're not coming

To this garden we were given
And always took for granted
It's like my daddy told me, 'you just bloom where you're planted'
Now you long to be delivered
From this world of pain and strife
That's a sorry substitution for a spiritual life

Well, it's a cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold, cold
Post, postmodern world
No place for sentiment, no room for romance
Bring back the duke of earl

They're not here, they're not coming
Not in a million years
Turn your hopes back homeward
Hold your children, dry their tears
You may see the heavens flashing
You may hear the cosmos humming
But I promise you, my brother
They're not here, they're not coming

They're not here, they're not coming
Not in a million years
'Til we put away our hatred
And lay aside our fears
You may see the heavens flashing
You may hear the cosmos humming
But I promise you, my brother
They're not here, they're not coming

By Don Henley


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



What did I say was a fact, kunt?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



That god poofed fully formed adult animals into existence. That the first land animals weren't born they were poofed.

If you disagree then you admit all land creatures all eventually evolved into the land animals they are today but originally their ancestors crawled out from the water.

I'm just assuming if you subscribe to the creation story then you also deny evolution


----------



## Skieler (Jul 4, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


ooh guess that romance is over huh?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 4, 2017)

Skieler said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What verse and chapter does it say go fuck your dad? No biggy. Jesus already forgave him. He doesn't even have to be sorry. Is he? No he's not sorry.


----------



## Boss (Jul 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It may have life but it likely wouldn't be intelligent life. Certainly their evolutionary path would be different. Again, my argument remains *"life as we know it"* is extremely rare and may be non existent elsewhere. Life capable of technology and science is only present here because something wiped out the dinosaurs.


----------



## Boss (Jul 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Why can theists accept god made man out of dirt or sand but "something from nothing" is stumping them?



I find it fascinating that the leading theory of "abiogenesis" posits that minerals in the moisture of early earth clay became electrically charged and this activated the initial process of life. Juxtapose this with the Biblical explanation... "God spat in the dust".... (moisture in the dust, i.e., clay.)


----------



## RWS (Jul 6, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Actually, we have. Just took science.


----------



## RWS (Jul 6, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...


Possibly, but that's still a very human-centric view of the universe. We have no idea what the universe is capable of yet in terms of life and intelligence. Just our own little observations in a microscopic solar system, when compared to the rest.

Most life is probably microbial and slimy. But given the amount of time intelligent life-forms have to learn science and tech, there is no reason to say that aliens will never visit us. Because once we figure it out, we'll be doing the same.

Our human limitations at this time, cannot be used as the rule for the universe.


----------



## RWS (Jul 6, 2017)

So here's my thing with ETUFO's. We'll eventually learn the tech necessary to visit other solar systems. It may take a long time to develop that technology, but I don't think anyone can disagree that we will eventually figure something out. 

The universe is 9 billion years older than our solar system. Considering that we went from being grounded on earth, to having spacecraft exiting our solar system, in 130 years, is an amazing thing. Especially when we've been killing each other and destroying knowledge for our first 6000 years of civilization over religion. We always have to start anew. And we're at this point of technology, after about 130 years of development without destruction. 

Give another planet with similar intelligent evolution, but no religious flushing of information, a 1000 year head start on us, and consider what they could do. They would be Gods to us. Geez, give a planet a million year head start on us...  Or a billion... Point is that we have no idea what science is capable of. 

So saying that aliens visiting Earth is impossible, because we humans cannot yet visit other solar systems, assumes we are the pinnacle of the universe. And I really disagree with that.


----------



## K9Buck (Jul 6, 2017)

RWS said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You're absolutely right!  On another note, I've got a GREAT deal on a bridge for you.  Interested?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 6, 2017)

RWS said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The funny thing is if the Bible told him we evolved from a primordial soup after lightening struck, he'd believe it.

Instead he believes god made man from sand and later mede Eve from Adams rib. Because his ancient primitive elders told him so


----------



## Skieler (Jul 6, 2017)

RWS said:


> So here's my thing with ETUFO's. We'll eventually learn the tech necessary to visit other solar systems. It may take a long time to develop that technology, but I don't think anyone can disagree that we will eventually figure something out.
> 
> The universe is 9 billion years older than our solar system. Considering that we went from being grounded on earth, to having spacecraft exiting our solar system, in 130 years, is an amazing thing. Especially when we've been killing each other and destroying knowledge for our first 6000 years of civilization over religion. We always have to start anew. And we're at this point of technology, after about 130 years of development without destruction.
> 
> ...


Yeah given the size of the universe, undoubtedly there are aliens out there and in different phases of evolution but that said, humankind will probably never know because long before that happens they'll have blown each other up.  Therefore, it's doubtful they'll ever find out.


----------



## RWS (Jul 8, 2017)

Skieler said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > So here's my thing with ETUFO's. We'll eventually learn the tech necessary to visit other solar systems. It may take a long time to develop that technology, but I don't think anyone can disagree that we will eventually figure something out.
> ...


That's what makes it sad.... 

The fundies will make their religions come true, by wiping out anybody who disagrees. 

So we have to hope that before they kill us all, that ET's will make an intervention. I really see no other way out of this. Because science and logic doesn't work with them. 

It's gonna take something to really put them on tilt...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 8, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


There are neither ‘aliens’ nor a ‘god’ as perceived by theists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 8, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> The alien thing is a religious issue for the atheists.  They think if we are contacted by aliens, the entire Christian religion will have a faith crisis and collapse in ruin.  This is the reason atheists run around insisting that aliens are real, when they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.


This is of course a lie – that you post lies in a ‘Religion and Ethics’ forum is as sad as it is amusing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2017)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > The alien thing is a religious issue for the atheists.  They think if we are contacted by aliens, the entire Christian religion will have a faith crisis and collapse in ruin.  This is the reason atheists run around insisting that aliens are real, when they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.
> ...


Yes he is in fact lying.  What blackroot is doing is he is admitting finally after hundreds of years that it is indeed more likely we are not alone. They don't want to be completely caught off guard in case other life is found. Now it has to be as intelligent as us or it doesn't count for example.

Answer one question. Would life somewhere else debunk the old testament? Because if thats man-made sos the new.

But we all know Christians will just move the goalpost, find a verse that explains this away or just cognitive dissonance


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Yes he is in fact lying. What blackroot is doing is he is admitting finally after hundreds of years that it is indeed more likely we are not alone. They don't want to be completely caught off guard in case other life is found. Now it has to be as intelligent as us or it doesn't count for example.
> 
> Answer one question. Would life somewhere else debunk the old testament? Because if thats man-made sos the new.
> 
> But we all know Christians will just move the goalpost, find a verse that explains this away or just cognitive dissonance



Here's the thing... We can't even see most of our universe. What little we can see is very vague. You know how NASA will now and then post something about an "earth-like planet" and there's a colorful pretty picture...or a newly-discovered black hole and there's that same beautiful hi-rez photo? Well, those are not actual photographs. They are artist renderings based on speculation alone. Our most powerful telescope (Hubble) simply can't render an image of any kind of detail when it comes to something that far away. Black holes amount to about 5 pixels, if that. 

What we know from the limited exploration we've had is that life isn't abundant. In fact, it's never been discovered elsewhere. If it exists, it's very far away and we'll never reach it with conventional travel. You can speculate about the future but the future won't be able to defy physics... it's impossible to travel faster than light. There are theories about wormholes and such, but those are simply theories that haven't been proven or tried. 

I personally believe, before we ever discover life on another planet in our universe, we will discover intelligence in another dimension. Quantum mechanics predicts as many as 11 dimensions and we're only interactive with 4 of them. Perhaps one day we will unlock the secrets to allow us to "peek" into another dimension? The fascinating thing about dimensions is they don't really require space travel, they could be present right here on Earth. At the very space you occupy at your computer desk, there could be something else happening in one of the other dimensions. I wonder if this will ultimately explain UFO phenomenon... something from another dimension has discovered a way to transport back and forth.


----------



## Mudda (Jul 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes he is in fact lying. What blackroot is doing is he is admitting finally after hundreds of years that it is indeed more likely we are not alone. They don't want to be completely caught off guard in case other life is found. Now it has to be as intelligent as us or it doesn't count for example.
> ...


We've barely looked anywhere for life, there is probably some thoughout the universe.
As well, we were ape-like for 5 million years, then about 100,000 years ago, we changed radically... Aliens were most likely involved.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 8, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Is it unreasonable to expect any pathfinders for any reconnaissance?


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2017)

Mudda said:


> We've barely looked anywhere for life, there is probably some thoughout the universe.
> As well, we were ape-like for 5 million years, then about 100,000 years ago, we changed radically... Aliens were most likely involved.



We can't look for life, it's too far away. From what we understand of life, it requires liquid water, oxygen and sunlight. So it's not in our solar system except here on Earth. There's a possibility of some strange microbial life on one of Saturn or Jupiter's moons, but that's about it for our solar system. Anything beyond is too far for us to properly examine. That's not likely to change because of physics and human lifespans. 

Long before we were "ape like creatures" massive dinosaurs roamed the Earth and the largest mammal was no bigger than a groundhog. Hominids would've never evolved without something wiping out the dinosaurs. So it's a mere fluke of luck that we're even here. Even further... without the moon causing tides in the ocean and a wobbly rotation causing seasons and oceanic convection, there might not be much of any life here. Life itself is really a miracle. 

Aliens? How did they get here? Physics is still physics, even for an alien. Try this one on for size... what if "Our Creator" resides in another dimension? A form of intelligence we can't even comprehend, much older and more advanced, able to cross over into our 4-dimensional universe? One day it pops in, bestows primitive man with what we now call "spiritual understanding" then pops out, back into it's own dimension. Every now and then, we spot visitors from the other dimension... we call them UFOs. 

To me, that's much more plausible than carbon-based life forms from a distant star system in our galaxy. Because, physics.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes he is in fact lying. What blackroot is doing is he is admitting finally after hundreds of years that it is indeed more likely we are not alone. They don't want to be completely caught off guard in case other life is found. Now it has to be as intelligent as us or it doesn't count for example.
> ...


Today I was listening to a guy who explores our oceans. He was explaining how 70% of our own planet is virtually unexplored. Too deep and it takes too long to get down there and you can't stay long. He said soon they're going to send robots who can stay down there for days and we can look from our smart phones.

Anyways, they discovered 6 foot worms so deep they don't get photosynthesis. How they survive is amazing. Anyways, we just discovered them. Now we know there's water on Europa. That's in our solar system and again, we don't know.

So I don't think we know anything about what's circling another star. The elements for life are everywhere.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 8, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


A lot of people believe that. People have believed that since men were men. We see it in their drawings. So must be true otherwise we wouldn't still believe that.

I think the dinosaurs leaving gave us the freedom and safety to think imagine and band together. Strength in numbers


----------



## RWS (Jul 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > We've barely looked anywhere for life, there is probably some thoughout the universe.
> ...


He's bunting again, trolling...


----------



## RWS (Jul 9, 2017)

Being that the purpose of the OP is to say that Atheists rely on ETUFO's to change the world for the better.... which is true...

I ask what will your religion do to change the world? Which one is right? And how will it change the world, when there are so many people dedicated to opposing religions?

Are you relying on Jesus coming back to Earth and saying that a certain sect of the believers will get saved? Or as long as they're Christian they will be saved?

Good people go to hell, because they don't believe?

How exactly does that work?


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 9, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



Explain how the evidence of aliens would disprove God....


----------



## RWS (Jul 9, 2017)

Evidence of aliens would not disprove God, but if we could communicate with them and they would tell us the answers to our burning questions about our existence, it may disprove religions. And the need to fight for and donate to those religions. And maybe we can find some peace.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 9, 2017)

What makes you think they will be smarter than us?  Technologically, that's likely, but otherwise, maybe not.  Maybe they would PROVE there is only one God.  Then what?  Would there still be no peace?


----------



## Mudda (Jul 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > We've barely looked anywhere for life, there is probably some thoughout the universe.
> ...


We can't find life in our own solar system because "it's too far away"? Just because we can't currently find it doesn't mean that it's not there. Ex: gravity existed before we discovered it.

As for your Creator that resides in another dimension and "pops" in and out, well, it's a theory, and it's based on absolutely nothing. I could go on and on about what we've learned from history about aliens (the US government knows all about them), but you can google all that by yourself if you're interested...


----------



## RWS (Jul 9, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> What makes you think they will be smarter than us?  Technologically, that's likely, but otherwise, maybe not.  Maybe they would PROVE there is only one God.  Then what?  Would there still be no peace?


Well, definitely the fact that they can get here, means they're more technologically smarter than us.

But I'm sure they faced the same existential questions early on that we face here, what intelligent being would not? And they made it through without killing each other. And they made it far enough in their development to actually traverse the universe and get here, so I would definitely like to hear their story of how things work.

And I will go all-in on a bet that it has nothing to do with the religions we believe here on Earth.

Should the scenario arise, of course...


----------



## RWS (Jul 9, 2017)

If aliens came to earth, and we tried to tell them about "God", it's likely they would have the Inigo Montoya response:


----------



## Boss (Jul 9, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Now wait a minute... my theory is based on the fact that we know other dimensions exist. Or at least, that's what quantum physics indicates. I'm simply saying, why isn't it just as likely that UFOs as well as spiritual entities are the result of transient contact with another dimension? 

I admit, the UFO stuff is fascinating and intriguing, but to me, it's kind of like the Bigfoot phenomenon... if there really were something, we'd have found indisputable evidence by now. So we have to consider other alternatives of explanation.


----------



## Mudda (Jul 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is indisputable evidence for aliens, why you don't acknowledge it is up to you.

As for popping in and out of another dimension, whether it be aliens or god is a figment of your imagination. Nothing at all points to a god, in any dimension.


----------



## RWS (Jul 9, 2017)

Of which I discussed at length here:

Debate Now - ETUFO's


----------



## Boss (Jul 9, 2017)

Mudda said:


> There is indisputable evidence for aliens, why you don't acknowledge it is up to you.
> 
> As for popping in and out of another dimension, whether it be aliens or god is a figment of your imagination. Nothing at all points to a god, in any dimension.



There's not indisputable evidence that aliens are visiting from other planets in our galaxy.... sorry, that evidence doesn't exist. In fact, it contradicts basic physics on it's face. There is no way for a carbon-based life form to travel here from hundreds of light years away. Technology is still limited to physics. 

On other dimensions... We have demonstrated, through quantum mechanics, that there are as many as 11 dimensions. We're only capable of interacting with 4 of them. The other 7 are out of our realm of exploration at this time. If those dimensions exist, as QM predicts, then it's entirely possible a whole separate realm of reality exists simultaneously with our own. God could reside there, UFOs could reside there, ghosts and spirits... all these unexplained mysterious phenomenon could be the result of transient interaction with another dimension. 

To me personally, I find that easier to accept than the idea that physical beings from hundreds of light years away are defying physics, coming here, observing us, but electing not to make some tangible contact and attempt to communicate. That would seem like a huge waste of a trip if true. 

Isn't it interesting, our Hubble telescope hasn't seen any of these alien spacecraft out in space flying around? None of our many space probes have recorded any such spaceship out there around Saturn or Mars... we only see these mysterious UFOs here on Earth. I'm not saying they aren't real... I'm only explaining them by offering the possibility they are aberrations from another dimension.


----------



## Mudda (Jul 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > There is indisputable evidence for aliens, why you don't acknowledge it is up to you.
> ...


The US government has aliens and their spacecraft, so do the Russians. That you want to close your eyes and mind to that is exactly how the governments want you. And aliens wouldn't be defying physics, as we humans don't even have a unifying theory or equation, so there's a lot we don't know about. 

There's is so far no proof of other dimensions, just theories, so the jury is still out on that.

Btw, you don't consider jumping in and out of dimensions as going against physics?


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 9, 2017)

RWS said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you think they will be smarter than us?  Technologically, that's likely, but otherwise, maybe not.  Maybe they would PROVE there is only one God.  Then what?  Would there still be no peace?
> ...



Obviously, not ALL religions are correct.  So either one of the existing ones IS correct, or, none of them are....


----------



## Boss (Jul 9, 2017)

Mudda said:


> The US government has aliens and their spacecraft, so do the Russians.






> That you want to close your eyes and mind to that is exactly how the governments want you.



My eyes are wide open... show me the fucking PROOF! My mind is wide open... convince me using physics and science! You, spewing some half-baked conspiracy theory like a lunatic nutbag, isn't doing it for me! Sorry! 



> And aliens wouldn't be defying physics, as we humans don't even have a unifying theory or equation, so there's a lot we don't know about.



Yes, they WOULD be defying physics because it's impossible to travel the distance they would need to travel in any sort of reasonable time frame. It has nothing to do with what we don't know about... it's basic laws of physics, which we DO know about. 



> There's is so far no proof of other dimensions, just theories, so the jury is still out on that.
> 
> Btw, you don't consider jumping in and out of dimensions as going against physics?



Is mathematics "proof"? Quantum physics (math) predicts 11 dimensions. Is math wrong? Sure... until it is testable, measurable and observable, it remains a theory. But there IS a basis for the theory... MATH.  Now math can be wrong... Newton's math was wrong when it predicted time was linear and not relative... Einstein eventually proved this.


----------



## Boss (Jul 9, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> Obviously, not ALL religions are correct.  So either one of the existing ones IS correct, or, none of them are....



Or all of them are! 

Yes, as weird as that sounds, it's also a possibility.


----------



## Penelope (Jul 9, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



If aliens did invade our planet, they would be known as Gods.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> The alien thing is a religious issue for the atheists.  They think if we are contacted by aliens, the entire Christian religion will have a faith crisis and collapse in ruin.  This is the reason atheists run around insisting that aliens are real, when they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.


And you have some evidence to back up this claim that Atheists more than others are pushing the alien thing? If true, do you have evidence to suggest that the motive  is to destroy Christianity?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2017)

*What Price Peace and Prosperity for All...........
*
Scenario: We are contacted by an alien life form-far more wise and advanced than we- and offered the chance to achieve universal peace and prosperity, if we agree to a few conditions. This is not in the form of a threat. If we decline, they will go on their way and we will be left as we are and they will not give us another chance for 10,000 years. At the same time, if we accept, we will be bound by their conditions for 10,000 years, enough time for us to evolve into a peaceful species. If asked to, they would leave sooner but there would be consequences- much of which will be of our own making-such as when the US left Iraq.

The conditions:

1.All religious expression and thought of religion-yes thought- will be abolished. They have developed a drug to cleanse the mind of all such primitive thought patterns which, they know, causes so much strife in our world. Houses of worship will become centers for performing arts, or museums funded by the government. Some will be converted to housing.

2.All weapons of all kind must be destroyed. Militaries will be for use in natural disaster types of emergencies only.

3.Hording of wealth is strictly prohibited. Everyone need not be equal in this respect and there will still be private property, but disparity will be very limited

4.Capitalism will be allowed, but business will be strictly regulated to ensure that people are put before profit, and that the environment is protected.

5.All forms of discrimination against any group will be strictly prohibited. They don’t have a pill for that, we’ll just have to get over it.

6.Necessities of life-food, shelter, medicine and clothing-will be recognized as universal human rights and will not be rationed based on a person’s ability to pay.

7.Nations will retain their autonomy, culture and language but be must be organized into a federation of cooperative states who share all natural resources. National leaders will be selected by direct elections in all countries but the *Supreme Council of Extra Planetary Rulers* will have the power to impeach and remove from office, anyone who violates or undermines any of these conditions. Strict term limits will be established and two members of the same family cannot hold high office within 20 years of one another.

8.All creatures of the earth and the earth herself will be treated with respect and care. The systematic destruction of the planet and it’s life forms in the name of profit, power or sport will end.

9.Capital punishment and most prison terms will be abolished worldwide. Minor offenses will be treated as behavioral health and educational issues with the emphasis on rehabilitation. Serious crimes such as violent offenses and white collar theft will be dealt with as described in # 10 below.

10.While these aliens will be inconspicuous in our daily lives-they may even live among us in human form- they will be vigilant, and take action when needed. Anyone not complying with these conditions-or who commits a serious crime- will be banished to a distant war like planet where many live under Spartan conditions and subject to a small wealthy ruling class( which they will not be part of) and the rule is survival of the fittest-in other words, much like earth is now, but much, much worse


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 9, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



No advanced civilization is going to waste its time coming here.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 9, 2017)

Papageorgio said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Imagine we figure out how to travel to other stars. If we saw a planet like earth wouldn't we want to come?

From what we know there aren't a lot of earth like planets so why wouldn't they want to come here?


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 9, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You are here, that should scare the hell out of them.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 9, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


*As far as the God thing, could it be he has other hobby's in other places....hummm I never have felt "special" in any way.  *


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 9, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > The chances for Aliens are probably 1,000,000 times more likely compared to your chances of some mythical man coming out of the clouds.
> ...


*We could be to primitive for their interest.*


----------



## Mudda (Jul 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > The US government has aliens and their spacecraft, so do the Russians.
> ...


I guess you never heard of the Roswell UFO crash. Russia has had similar events. You should inform yourself.

You have NO idea what it takes to travel long distances in space, maybe aliens have figured it out, and you simply don't know all the physics out there.

Quantum physics "PREDICTS", which is not proof. Please try again.


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > The chances for Aliens are probably 1,000,000 times more likely compared to your chances of some mythical man coming out of the clouds.
> ...


 NOT ONE has contacted us? Why haven't we contacted them? Perhaps we don't know how. Perhaps they don't speak radio waves. Perhaps they did come out here and what they saw repulsed them and they want nothing to do with us. Perhaps there is nothing, but the size of the galaxy alone says that we can't know for sure.

I do know there is some funny things up in the sky. Saw it myself one morning. What appeared to be a satellite in orbit making its way across my sky suddenly went the other way.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes he is in fact lying. What blackroot is doing is he is admitting finally after hundreds of years that it is indeed more likely we are not alone. They don't want to be completely caught off guard in case other life is found. Now it has to be as intelligent as us or it doesn't count for example.
> ...



When we discover life elsewhere, it'll probably be more like this than us:  

In 1977, a small crew of oceanographers traveled to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and stumbled across a brand new form of life. The discovery was so unusual, it turned biology on its head and brought into question much of what scientists thought they knew about where life can form and what it needs in order to survive.

At up to 7 feet in length, he says, "these are enormous beasts compared to normal worms." And they were thriving in large numbers without any obvious source of food or light.

They'd found not just clamshells, but living, breathing clams that were a good foot-and-a-half long living alongside the hydrothermal vents. There were also mussels, anemones and brilliantly colored red-tipped worms — up to 7 feet long and anchored by slender white tubes swaying like a field of flowers.

"Absolutely stunningly beautiful," Corliss says. "The worms had white tubes and these beautiful red plumes, sort of like a three-dimensional feather. These feathers are sort of oscillating, undulating as they're pumping fluid into their body. It was amazing!"

The key, he says, is that the worms don't use light but a "completely different energy source" in a process called chemosynthesis. The worm uses its red plume to absorb hydrogen sulfide — that nasty stuff that smells like rotten eggs — from the vent water. A colony of bacteria living inside the worm's gut gobbles up the hydrogen sulfide and uses it to create carbon compounds that feed the worm. Voila — chemosynthesis!

Corliss says the discovery inspired him to change the focus of his work as he wondered whether these curious creatures, from such an inhospitable environment, might help explain how life started on Earth.

The Deep-Sea Find That Changed Biology


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2017)

To date, we have explored less than *five percent* of the ocean.

We don't even know our own planet and yet people think they know there is no other life in the universe?  How ignorant.


----------



## Boss (Jul 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> To date, we have explored less than *five percent* of the ocean.
> 
> We don't even know our own planet and yet people think they know there is no other life in the universe?  How ignorant.



I've never said there is no other life in the universe. I believe intelligent life, as we know it, is extremely rare, if it exists at all. I base my belief on what we know of life here... which is still the only life we know of. 

Consider the billions of life forms here and the billions more that have been here. Yet humans are the ONLY life form to have achieved technological advancement. Consider, if not for circumstantial events which randomly happened, humans simply wouldn't have evolved. We're the products of extreme luck and circumstance. 

Are there planets out there with oceans teaming with 7-foot peculiar worms? Perhaps.... but they're probably not building space ships and visiting Earth.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 10, 2017)

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” 
― Arthur C. Clarke


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > To date, we have explored less than *five percent* of the ocean.
> ...


Yea because we ate and murdered everything that was slightly intelligent.  They're all extinct.  LOL.  There may have been a more intelligent species but it didn't breed like rabbits so up popped us.

Based on the tiny amount of evidence you have, if I were you I'd admit there isn't enough evidence yet to decide.  
I agree probably only 1 in 100,000 stars have intelligent life.  The rest have worms and microbes.


----------



## Boss (Jul 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



And I still say it's a miracle if there is any intelligent life out there, just like it's a miracle it's here.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2017)

Mr Clean said:


> “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
> ― Arthur C. Clarke



It is amazing to me if there is life around most stars and there are billions of stars in the universe.  If it's true this universe is probably the most amazing zoo.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Since it can be explained scientifically it doesn't qualify as a miracle. Same way a baby being the only survivor of a plane crash isn't.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's amazing and lucky for us. Just like it was for martians billions of years ago until global warming.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 10, 2017)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...


not even illegal ones?  the right wing has a pretty "active imagination."


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What do you mean?

1.  a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

2.  a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.?  I'll agree to this one.


----------



## RWS (Jul 11, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Very true, and given the amount of religions in this world, based on the same subject matter, I would lean towards none of them being true. 

I mean, primitive tribes that still exist may be closer to reality than OT-based religions. They may hold the secret, that nobody wants to listen to...


----------



## RWS (Jul 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > The US government has aliens and their spacecraft, so do the Russians.
> ...



You're being very human-centric... We humans have not figured out how to traverse the universe, yet. But we've only had unobstructed technological advancement for 150 years or so. And in that time, we have put men on the moon, sent spacecraft outside of our solar system, and buzzed and/or orbited every planet in our system. That's pretty remarkable for 150 years of tech... 

Limiting other civilizations to our achievements is a typical religious ploy, to argue that there is no possible way they can get here.

To think they can't get here, is to think we can never get there.

And we all hold the hope and desire to get there, it just takes the scientific advancements necessary to do so. An alien society, given more time than our miserable 150 years, may have found out how to do it... 

Humans are not the pinnacle of the universe.


----------



## RWS (Jul 11, 2017)

Another thing to keep in mind, is that supernatural religions defy physics and quantum theory, a heckuva lot more than aliens.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 11, 2017)

RWS said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



It's funny how as humans we all want reasons, explanations and answers.  Maybe we would be a lot happier if we just existed and thrived enjoying life, instead of questioning how we got here and whether or not we were going anywhere after we die....


----------



## SeaGal (Jul 11, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> It's funny how as humans we all want reasons, explanations and answers.  Maybe we would be a lot happier if we just existed and thrived enjoying life, instead of questioning how we got here and whether or not we were going anywhere after we die....



Disclaimer - I did not read all the preceding posts - but want to respond to what I think is a profound truth. 

We all do want answers to the why and how of our being...and pretty much don't want to believe, for some, that a) we are alone in the universe, or, for others, that  b) we 'developed' accidentally.  So we have theories that require faith.  Faith is a characteristic of the human condition...and we have the need to convince the rest of humanity that our particular 'faith', or lack of, is the answer.  Unfortunately we too often try to 'force' others to adopt our faith, or lack of - be it scientific theory or religion, or atheism.  Some just more violently, and/or 'expensive' than others. 

I'm rambling.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 11, 2017)

RWS said:


> Another thing to keep in mind, is that supernatural religions defy physics and quantum theory, a heckuva lot more than aliens.




Many 'supernatural' events recorded in scripture are eyewitness accounts of what was seen and heard in dreams or visions, altered states of consciousness, where quantum theory does not apply. Examples would be Abraham having lunch with three angels, Ezekiel flying from Babylon to Jerusalem and then digging through 13 feet of solid stone with his bare hands,  the Transfiguration, and even the reports of Jesus being seen after the crucifixion.....

Many other supernatural events recorded in scripture are deliberately exaggerated fantastical accounts of very unspectacular things that occur all the time.... i.e. raising the dead,giving sight to the blind, healing the sick etc.

If any one of those things happened literally no one in all of Judea, Jew or Gentile,would have doubted Jesus...


To even know what literally happened one must decipher the figurative language used- metaphors,allegories, hyperbole, homonyms, etc.-  to discover the deeper meaning of the words that reveal the hidden subjects.



Citing scientific facts or physics to disprove scripture is as foolish as citing science or physics to disprove the story of the three pigs.

Obviously "in the beginning" is like "once upon a time"...just like any story written to educate children begins.

It is extremely depressing to think that so many otherwise intelligent people, believer or unbeliever,  can't figure out what ancient nomadic shepherds (as dumb as everyone seems to think they were),  expected children to learn.

Try a little harder.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



*To think they can't get here, is to think we can never get there.*

Unless we find a way to circumvent physics, we can't ever get there. It's really like trying to claim that one day we'll have the technology to control when the sun rises and sets. Sorry, but physics trumps technology. 

I appreciate that you have a vivid imagination. I enjoy the hell out of science fiction. It's wonderful that humans can imagine all kinds of possibilities regarding alien life elsewhere. But the fact remains, life on Earth is the only life we know of in the whole universe. Nothing says it must be elsewhere, and certainly nothing says it has to be intelligent. 

So humans certainly are the pinnacle of the universe as far as we know right now and humans only exist because something wiped out dinosaurs millions of years ago.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 11, 2017)

Dinosaurs were around for about one hundred fifty million years.  We have only been around for about five million.

What if, a Civilization had "secrets" even more Ancient, than even Ancient Chinese secrets?


----------



## RWS (Jul 13, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I agree! But when I bring that up, I'm labeled a "Communist". Though they don't know what that means. All I want is where the world can continue to thrive, peacefully and harmoniously, without religious wars erasing our knowledge every few hundred years.

If we can achieve that without aliens, that's great! I just think that the religious fanatics do need an alien intervention, if they're ever going to stop waging war on science and common sense. That's what the OP is about...

Only the "true God" appearing, or alien intervention, is going to stop the fanatics from doing what they're doing. And even that may not stop them... But it's our only hope.


----------



## RWS (Jul 13, 2017)




----------



## RWS (Jul 13, 2017)

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing to keep in mind, is that supernatural religions defy physics and quantum theory, a heckuva lot more than aliens.
> ...


But much of your scripture is based on older texts, and they clearly are plagiarism, to convert multiple previous stories about different "gods" into one monotheistic, omnipotent, and highly schizophrenic/bipolar "God" story.


----------



## RWS (Jul 13, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Skeptics said the same about crossing the oceans, flying in the sky, and travelling to the moon. Just because we haven't figured it out yet, does not mean it will never happen. Very few scientists would agree that we will NEVER travel and inhabit another solar system.

As far as we know, we are the pinnacle of greatness, but someone would be highly ignorant to actually believe that based on the vastness of this universe. Or, they're trying to create an argument over the obvious. And I know how you roll...


----------



## RWS (Jul 13, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Dinosaurs were around for about one hundred fifty million years.  We have only been around for about five million.
> 
> What if, a Civilization had "secrets" even more Ancient, than even Ancient Chinese secrets?


Dinosaurs never wore clothes, and thus were denied those ancient secrets.

The Chinese tried to tell them, but they still stubbornly refused to wear clothing, and thus died due to exposure.


----------



## Tuatara (Jul 13, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> The alien thing is a religious issue for the atheists.  They think if we are contacted by aliens, the entire Christian religion will have a faith crisis and collapse in ruin.  This is the reason atheists run around insisting that aliens are real, when they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.


Please name one atheist that claims aliens are real. I know some believe they exist but I never heard any claim insisting they are real. There are many individuals that claim to have seen or had contact with aliens but in all these stories the person's religion or lack of religion was not disclosed.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2017)

RWS said:


> Skeptics said the same about crossing the oceans and travelling to the moon. Just because we haven't figured it out yet, does not mean it will never happen. Very few scientists would agree that we will NEVER travel and inhabit another solar system.
> 
> As far as we know, we are the pinnacle of greatness, but someone would be highly ignorant to actually believe that based on the vastness of this universe. Or trying to create an argument over the obvious.



But crossing the ocean and traveling to the moon doesn't circumvent physics. Theoretically, traveling to the nearest star system doesn't actually circumvent physics but it circumvents practicality. Using the best propulsion system we've ever developed for manned flight, we're looking at around 81,000 years. That's if we could figure out a way to create the fuel and oxygen as we go. The fastest speeds we've ever achieved in any sort of space probe put us at around 50,000 years. Even with the best and most ambitious theories out there, we can't get better than about 1,000 years. So... no... we won't be doing this, probably ever. 

You can call me ignorant all you like, it doesn't bother me. I base my opinion on what we know about life here on Earth. Billions of years... billions of life forms... only ONE has achieved advanced technological ability. And that was luck of having the dinosaurs wiped out which enabled our species to evolve. So even on the perfect planet for life, with all the right conditions, all the necessary elements, it's still a crap shoot. Intelligent life is still a one-in-a-billion chance. Now there are trillions of stars, so the possibility exists that intelligent life is somewhere... but what are the chances of it being at the nearest star, 81,000 years away?  Sorry... I am skeptical. 

Now let's go back to Quantum Physics and the mathematical predictions of other dimensions. I can't "prove" it but it seems more acceptable to believe that UFOs and maybe even spiritual things, can be rationally explained by this. Every now and then, we're catching a glimpse of something from another dimension of space-time. Are you stubbornly rejecting this because it might explain God?


----------



## RWS (Jul 13, 2017)

First of all, I don't appreciate you editing my post in your quote. Quote the whole thing, or don't quote it at all.  I know this is how you roll, and this would be your exact response. Again, you're trolling dude. You're arguing against your own logic, just to argue. You have to learn to stop that, because it's kinda like crying wolf. We eventually stop listening.

I'd like to hear about quantum physics and other dimensions, and how UFO's and spirituality can be explained by them. I'm open to new ideas. But it should probably be in it's own thread, as it has nothing to do with this one and would be lost in meaning and input from people who would otherwise avoid this type of thread, and disrespectful to the OP. Make your own thread, post the link here, and I'll check it out and go from there... If you're serious about it, I mean. I know my fair share of science too.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 13, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily alone bet more likely that ET life wouldn't find us interesting enough to bother studying. Especially since we are an extremely violent species.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 13, 2017)

RWS said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



There's something about the human mind that desperately wants affirmation.  Others agreeing with your opinion/point of view/belief gives you that affirmation.  Also, when you are entrenched in a belief it becomes emotional, and, you take it personally when others don't see things the way you do.  So, whether you are passionate about your religion or any other belief .... if you run into a contrarian ... it's on!


----------



## hobelim (Jul 13, 2017)

RWS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...




Agreed.

Even so,  what I have found is that those plagiarized stories conceal esoteric teaching derived from hard learned lessons of their dark and distant past that are buried and hidden through a deliberate use of figurative language designed to divert the superstitious and preserve these ancient treasures of the Jewish nation, knowledge of the mind and nature of man that surpasses even our own,  in a secret and safe place out of reach and above the grasp of all those who do not think very deeply.

It is no mistake that much of what Jesus said according to NT authors would have been misunderstood as a validation of Mithraic beliefs and any number of pagan practices that insured the preservation of his  teachings and revelation from God by the enemy.....

For as long as Roman subjugation of the nations persists through the church, the the hidden treasures of the kingdom of heaven, its undoing,  has been quietly waiting to be rediscovered.


"The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again."


So he drove the man out and to the east of Eden he placed the cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword* that turns in every direction*,* to guard the way to the tree of life*."


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2017)

RWS said:


> First of all, I don't appreciate you editing my post in your quote. Quote the whole thing, or don't quote it at all.  I know this is how you roll, and this would be your exact response. Again, you're trolling dude. You're arguing against your own logic, just to argue. You have to learn to stop that, because it's kinda like crying wolf. We eventually stop listening.
> 
> I'd like to hear about quantum physics and other dimensions, and how UFO's and spirituality can be explained by them. I'm open to new ideas. But it should probably be in it's own thread, as it has nothing to do with this one and would be lost in meaning and input from people who would otherwise avoid this type of thread, and disrespectful to the OP. Make your own thread, post the link here, and I'll check it out and go from there... If you're serious about it, I mean. I know my fair share of science too.



I did not edit your post. I'm also not trolling or arguing against my own logic. You're not a fucking moderator so stop acting like Barney Fife. I think my viewpoint with regard to an explanation based on quantum physics is appropriate here. What I'm seeing is that you want to immediately reject that idea because... oh... that might also explain God, and we simply can't have that, can we?


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> There's something about the human mind that desperately wants affirmation. Others agreeing with your opinion/point of view/belief gives you that affirmation. Also, when you are entrenched in a belief it becomes emotional, and, you take it personally when others don't see things the way you do. So, whether you are passionate about your religion or any other belief .... if you run into a contrarian ... it's on!



True... and there is also something of an arrogant hubris humans have. We assume that we know everything there is to know... we assume other-worldly life forms must be intelligent... we assume they may think and act like we do. We figure since we're so curious about the universe, they must be as well. We tend to transfer our own fears and thoughts onto completely fictional beings as if that's how they would be. You can watch some of the old sci-fi movies and see this more clearly. Human emotions transferred to the aliens and the humans wearing the "white hats" to overcome the threat.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 13, 2017)

If aliens exist, republicans will be the first to run them for president.

Why the hell not? They have tried everything else


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 13, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



Bubba, is that you and Billy Bob messing around with the computer down in the mail room again? I've told you to cut that crap out. if I get down there and find you trolling on message boards again on company time, you are going to find yourselves painting stripes on the asphalt parking lot next week in 110 degree sunshine!


----------



## RWS (Jul 15, 2017)

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




It's funny because I was trying to reply and your post was changing. So you messed me up multiple times. It's cool. I'm glad you got the "Jewish" part out of there. 
They should not be blamed for anything.


----------



## RWS (Jul 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, I don't appreciate you editing my post in your quote. Quote the whole thing, or don't quote it at all.  I know this is how you roll, and this would be your exact response. Again, you're trolling dude. You're arguing against your own logic, just to argue. You have to learn to stop that, because it's kinda like crying wolf. We eventually stop listening.
> ...



I said you should make your own thread about the idea, if you want feedback. It does not pertain to this one, so you're wasting your time. I'll be willing to contribute because it sounds interesting. Just post a link here, so we can find you.

Because otherwise, you're just trolling.


----------



## Boss (Jul 15, 2017)

RWS said:


> I said you should make your own thread about the idea, if you want feedback. It does not pertain to this one, so you're wasting your time. I'll be willing to contribute because it sounds interesting. Just post a link here, so we can find you.
> 
> Because otherwise, you're just trolling.



Sorry, not gonna let you boss me around that way. Go fuck yourself.

My idea does pertain to this thread. I don't care if I get feedback or not. I post to inform, not because I need something. You've already contributed and I know it's interesting. 

It's even more interesting to me that we both agree on alien visitors, you believe they've somehow traveled an impossible distance only to observe then mysteriously disappear without a trace... and I believe they are always present in another dimension, we just can't always see them. The reason you have to tear down my theory is because it might explain God and you don't believe in God.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 15, 2017)

RWS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Sorry about that...


Who said anything about blaming anyone? I suppose everyone has a right to keep a secret....however...

If someone discovered that the true subject of Kosher law and the intent and will of God was for people to distinguish between what teaching was clean or unclean and not about what to make for dinner but still taught their children to mess around with food then they would be guilty of perpetuating deception in the name of God which amounts to murder, infanticide,  in the sight of God.

No one lights a candle and then hides it under a bushel, right?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 15, 2017)

*Atheists Religionists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...*

*You forget God is an ET?*


----------



## RWS (Jul 16, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I said you should make your own thread about the idea, if you want feedback. It does not pertain to this one, so you're wasting your time. I'll be willing to contribute because it sounds interesting. Just post a link here, so we can find you.
> ...



Whoa, I'm not gonna boss around the Boss... That's too skeery.... Just suggesting that if you have a good idea, make a thread about it. Otherwise, it will be lost in 2 pages. I have not seen you flesh out your idea besides a general reference to other dimensions, yet.

Aliens visiting Earth may be from another planet, from our future, from another dimension, or may not exist at all.

I don't believe in aliens. I do, however, argue for the possibility, because it does make sense given ancient texts and witnesses throughout history. I also argue that if they are real, they are the basis of most of the major religions on Earth. I don't believe in "God", though I am open to a meaning of life beyond the obvious.

Like I said before, it's highly more likely that aliens are our "Gods", than some supernatural explanation for God, if God exists.

Now, I've always considered that they can eventually develop the technology to travel long distances and visit us, since I think we will eventually figure it out too, and our growth has been stunted by stupidity over and over again. However, crossing dimensions takes at least an equal amount of technology than faster-than-light travel in our dimension. Maybe it is a mixture of the two. Going into another dimension and coming back to our dimension in a different place of space-time. Breaking the light-speed barrier. A wormhole. I don't know...

There could be 11 (or less or more) different dimensions based on string theory. Question is whether those other dimensions are suitable for life, or just for quantum particles.

There's a lot to talk about here. And it has nothing to do with this thread.

So if you just want to sound like a smart-ass on a one-off post, then do it. But if you want to discuss, start a thread, I'd be into it...


----------



## RWS (Jul 16, 2017)

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Sorry, I was kidding. Judaism is equal to the problems of other OT-based religions. Same thing, different name, and original texts changed to suit their benefit of power and greed. Kill, dominate, enslave, and grab all the wealth for the rulers.

We need to let go of that, and learn to live peacefully with everyone, regardless of their faiths.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 16, 2017)

RWS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



I believe thats what the 666 mark of the beast warning in the NT is all about, 666 talents of gold, 25 tons, that Solomon took from the temple treasury every year, not to mention tolls taxes and tributes stolen from the people under the guise of a benevolent theocracy... ..........


I'm afraid everyone living peacefully together regardless of their faiths is impossible for as long as those different faiths of many nations each teach their adherents that they will one day rule the world....even atheist nations.


Fundamentalism in any such faith or belief system is bound to arise which prohibits compromise and makes it seem inevitable that there's going to be a showdown...


People on all sides who have maintained irrational beliefs and degrading practices for decades if not their entire lives are not likely to suddenly become reasonable even if when faced with complete destruction.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Jul 16, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


 

Luke 17:26
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.

The Disciples of Evolution that they are being deceived. That they believed that Martians has came down and taught us everything that we know. Jesus has made a statement about his return or the coming of the children of God. He said that it will be like in the days of Noah, carrying on as if there is no God. In the Book of Jasher, that it says that the people were genetically modifying life on earth and women were drinking an elixirs that keeps them from being pregnant, so that they will not lose their girlish figure in those days.That it shows that they were advanced in knowledge. Then after the flood, that the people were going back to their old wicked ways. And so God has wiped out their memories. And so they did not know nothing. Not even knowing how to communicate with one another by the use of words. And so they And so they have communicated just like infants.. And so they roamed around, looking for a place to live. And the Hebrew word is never found in any history book. But there's a word that they have found. The word is Habiru  (Heb-Be-roo) which means wanderers.. And which the Hebrews were known as wanderers until God made them become a nation, the Israelites.
 Even Plato mentions about these pre-flood people. That they were an advanced civilization.And he also mentioned that the plant-life were different in those days.


----------



## RWS (Jul 17, 2017)

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Exactly how I feel...

Which means it probably takes an intervention if we're not going to destroy the planet. And that's why I hope aliens are true, or even God for that matter. Something to make people stop, and listen, and then work towards mutual benefit and survival. 

I don't see our future being very good, until we can get over these fundamentalist ideas.


----------



## Boss (Jul 17, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Sorry, I like discussing my idea in this thread. I think it fits nicely. And now that I know that it ruffles your feathers, I'm enjoying it even more.

*I have not seen you flesh out your idea besides a general reference to other dimensions, yet.*

Well, there's really nothing to flesh out, it's simply a thought to consider. What we are perceiving or assuming are visitors from another planet could be aberrations from other dimensions.

*Aliens visiting Earth may be from another planet, from our future, from another dimension, or may not exist at all.
*
Agreed! 

*Like I said before, it's highly more likely that aliens are our "Gods", than some supernatural explanation for God, if God exists.
*
Are other dimensions "supernatural" or just not fully understandable through physical sciences? I have always had a problem with the word "supernatural" because I think it often serves as a catch-all for that which we don't understand. My dimension-crossing idea offers a simple explanation for aliens, UFOs, god, spiritualism, ghosts, black magic, etc. But if you want to reject what quantum physics predicts and believe aliens are defying known physics, that's up to you.

*Now, I've always considered that they can eventually develop the technology to travel long distances and visit us, since I think we will eventually figure it out too, and our growth has been stunted by stupidity over and over again. However, crossing dimensions takes at least an equal amount of technology than faster-than-light travel in our dimension. Maybe it is a mixture of the two. Going into another dimension and coming back to our dimension in a different place of space-time. Breaking the light-speed barrier. A wormhole. I don't know...*

Your last three words was all you needed to say. You don't know, and neither do I. We're simply speculating based on our opinions here. I think you want to try to shoot down my idea because it could rationally explain God and that frightens you.


----------



## RWS (Jul 19, 2017)

But you stated no tangible idea. You threw out the word "dimension" and are sitting back and waiting. You have not fleshed it out. You're merely here to argue.


----------



## RWS (Jul 19, 2017)

I fleshed it out more for you, way more than you ever did...


----------



## RWS (Jul 19, 2017)

We're not stupid. We have already thought about that a long time ago. You're not as smart as you think you are. 

Which is probably why you avoid creating your own thread. You don't want to be the center of attention. You just want to shoot arrows at other people's ideas. 

That's called a "troll", or a "hater". And that's ok, you're probably young and angry, and how you roll online. But that's not the way to roll in real life...


----------



## RWS (Jul 19, 2017)

jus sayin


----------



## Boss (Jul 19, 2017)

I really do wish you'd get over whatever your problem is with me. I'm not here to argue or shoot arrows at your ideas. I'm merely interjecting my opinions and observations as they relate to the OP topic. I appreciate you advising me to start a new thread but I've told you I don't want to and you need to respect that. This isn't your thread, it's not your message board and you're not even a moderator.

You don't seem to have much of an argument against what I presented and you apparently acknowledged it's at least possible. That's good enough for me. I don't have any further point to make.

*But you stated no tangible idea. You threw out the word "dimension" and are sitting back and waiting. *

And anyone can read my posts and see that's not what I did. So the question becomes, why do you want to lie about something so easy to prove? I very clearly outlined how quantum physics (math) predicts many dimensions we can't interact with in our 4-dimensional physical universe. Then, I introduced the possibility these "aliens" as well as other strange phenomenon, might be explained by something passing in and out from another dimension.

*We're not stupid. We have already thought about that a long time ago. You're not as smart as you think you are.*

I never said my idea was new or original. 
*
I fleshed it out more for you, way more than you ever did...
*
Well, no... actually, you didn't. Rather than explain how "aliens" traveled here from many light years away, only to briefly visit then disappear without a trace... you simply insist that just because we can't explain it with physics doesn't mean they couldn't have figured it out. That's fine but you can make the exact same argument for God. That is to say, you just have faith.  And hey... nothing wrong with faith. It's the cornerstone of human spirituality.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 19, 2017)

RWS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...




I think a good start would be for rational people to stop promoting the bullshit that all beliefs however ridiculous are equally valid as if all truth was unknown.

I don't think any superior intelligence would intervene if we can't even do that much for ourselves.


Does a doctor try to heal a body that has no detectable signs of life?

Does anybody bother to water a dead tree?


----------



## RWS (Jul 20, 2017)

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



You're may be right. They may get so frustrated that they just say "fuck it, let 'em die".


----------



## RWS (Jul 20, 2017)

Boss said:


> ...



But shoot arrows in this thread and others, is what you have done. You stated your purpose was to argue the point. Whether true or not. Whether you believe it or not. You want to pick the opposite side and "debate" it. Pick it apart and choose which sentences you want to argue, remove the others, just for the sole purpose of argument. That's how you have rolled. And then you change the topic when it's getting too tough for you. So you better believe I'm gonna have a problem with you when you pull those tactics.

The idea of other dimensions has been around for a long time. I've always thought of the "energy field" of the universe being in a separate dimension. That's where the big bang came from (as quantum particles), and where other quantum particles continue to pop in and out of existence from. Energy would be the other dimensions.

But only quantum particles can pop in and out of this dimension and into the (possibly various) energy dimensions. An entire spaceship, cannot go back and forth at will. Each time it is dissolved into energy, and would need to be reconstructed to its original form, from the quantum structure up. Like "Beam me up Scotty" stuff. And though it may be possible, the technology required to do so, probably surpasses other ways to travel the vastness of space.

So what you offered, is a different method of space-travel, based on Star Trek teleportation. And if true, then what is the need for spacecraft flying around (ie ETUFO's)? They can just teleport anywhere they want without need for a flying vehicle.

Regardless, either way, we need those beings to give us an intervention. Because religion is only going to lead us to self-destruction. And that's where we're headed...

All these ideas and hopes we have for future technology are worthless, once religions erase it all, again.


----------



## Boss (Jul 20, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I have NEVER stated any such purpose and you will need to provide a link to a direct quote from me if you want to continue lobbing this accusation. I think you may have grossly misinterpreted me. I do often parse out a sentence or paragraph in a post to comment on but that is for clarity sake. It's specifically what I'm addressing. I don't change topics when things get too tough for me because things don't get too tough for me. 

You have a bee in your bonnet when it comes to me personally. I don't know why, maybe I embarrassed you or hurt your feelings at some point? Maybe my resilience and persistence intimidates you? I don't really care, i just wish you could get over it and move on because it makes you look childish to character attack me and lie about things I've said. 



> The idea of other dimensions has been around for a long time. I've always thought of the "energy field" of the universe being in a separate dimension. That's where the big bang came from (as quantum particles), and where other quantum particles continue to pop in and out of existence from. Energy would be the other dimensions.
> 
> But only quantum particles can pop in and out of this dimension and into the (possibly various) energy dimensions. An entire spaceship, cannot go back and forth at will. Each time it is dissolved into energy, and would need to be reconstructed to its original form, from the quantum structure up. Like "Beam me up Scotty" stuff. And though it may be possible, the technology required to do so, probably surpasses other ways to travel the vastness of space.



Well, the theory has been around since about 1968 but wasn't really taken very seriously until the 1990s. Yes, the "science" support is evidenced in quantum particles and energy, that's the evidence for the prediction. You don't know what can pop into and out of our dimensions. You don't know that what you're seeing as a "spaceship" is actually a spaceship. And yes, it would appear obvious this would be technology more advanced than we understand. However, it doesn't defy quantum physics.



> So what you offered, is a different method of space-travel, based on Star Trek teleportation. And if true, then what is the need for spacecraft flying around (ie ETUFO's)? They can just teleport anywhere they want without need for a flying vehicle.
> 
> Regardless, either way, we need those beings to give us an intervention. Because religion is only going to lead us to self-destruction. And that's where we're headed...
> 
> All these ideas and hopes we have for future technology are worthless, once religions erase it all, again.



Well I hate to point this out but didn't Star Trek have a spaceship? And again, how do you know that's a spaceship and not merely an extradimensional transport pod? You're making a lot of assumptions for someone who doesn't know all the answers.

Finally, I want to challenge your opinion on religion. I believe you're wrong because religion has been around a long time and technology is still advancing. Obviously, it didn't erase it. As much as you may not like religion, history shows civilizations do far worse without it. In fact, there's never been one to survive very long without it. Some of the greatest and most powerful empires fell because they lost their religious foundation. Last but not least, the father of science, the man who is thought to be the greatest scientific mind of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, was the product of a religious background, upbringing and education. He is personally responsible for writing much of the modern protestant doctrine.

The very nature of science itself, stems from an inspired human spirit in search of meaning and answers.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 20, 2017)

RWS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Does a doctor try to heal a body that has no detectable signs of life?
> ...




In one month I got rid of the three shepherds,for I had lost patience with them and they had come to abhor me. Then I said to the flock I will not fatten you anymore. Any that are to die,let them die; any that are to stray, let them stray; and the rest can devour one another.....

Then the Lord said to me, Equip yourself again as a shepherd. a worthless one; for I am about to install a shepherd in the land who will neither miss any that are lost, nor search for those who have gone astray nor heal the injured nor nurse the sickly, but will eat the flesh of fat beasts and throw away their broken bones...


zechariah 11:10-16


First I will send for many fishermen says the Lord and they will fish for them; after that I will send for many hunters and they shall hunt them out from every mountain and hill and from the crevices in the rocks, for my eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from my sight, nor is their wrongdoing concealed from me.... Jeremiah 16:16


----------



## RWS (Jul 21, 2017)

*Well I hate to point this out but didn't Star Trek have a spaceship? And again, how do you know that's a spaceship and not merely an extradimensional transport pod? You're making a lot of assumptions for someone who doesn't know all the answers.*

How did the aliens make the extradimensional transport pod in our area, without travelling here first? They would need double the technology to do that. Travel here to make the pod, and then materialize here.


*You don't know what can pop into and out of our dimensions. You don't know that what you're seeing as a "spaceship" is actually a spaceship. And yes, it would appear obvious this would be technology more advanced than we understand. However, it doesn't defy quantum physics.*

Transporting a quantum particle such as a photon, is possible. We've done it. But to somehow "print out" a complex object on the "pod" based on quantum particles, and have it perfectly reproduce the original when printed out, is kinda hard. But still, it is an option, though not likely as an explanation of "gods" and "ufo's". Since they had to come here first to build the printing pod.


*Finally, I want to challenge your opinion on religion. I believe you're wrong because religion has been around a long time and technology is still advancing.

Last but not least, the father of science, the man who is thought to be the greatest scientific mind of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, was the product of a religious background, upbringing and education. He is personally responsible for writing much of the modern protestant doctrine.*

But many other great scientific minds got severely punished because they didn't adhere to the the religious doctrines of the time. Maybe he got smart. What one says, and what one believes, can often be two different things.


But you don't believe in religion anyway. You're just arguing for it. Here are some quotes by you:


This is when you first took up the fight for religion, even though you don't believe in it, just to be smart and try to make me look foolish for my diction.

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"


That's a lot of religious defending for somebody who does not believe in religion. Just to argue, because you didn't like my oxymoron reference for its failure in English, which I acknowledged.


----------



## RWS (Jul 21, 2017)

I have no problem with people arguing ideas. But when you go the route you did, you're gonna have a lot of problems with me.  

A lot of people make mistakes in diction, grammar, or punctuation. I never comment on it, or put them down. 

But you chose to do that, try to make fun of the thread topic, just to be a smart-ass. You were not contributing a thing, except your own need for superiority. But you did it against the wrong person. And when I called you out on it, you just decided to take the side of religion to save face and argue that side. And you have been making these nonsensical arguments promoting religion ever since. You can't seem to let go of it. Even though you don't believe in religion. 

I know you don't like to lose. And that's why I have been trying to steer you away, rather than you destroying the threads with your insecurities. 

I know you want to be great, and all-powerful. But you're not, at least not yet. Not even close. You're a weakling, flexing your internet muscles and google brains. 

You can stand some time to learn about things. And don't even think about comparing how many posts we have on this board...


----------



## Boss (Jul 21, 2017)

RWS said:


> How did theat has happened aliens make the extradimensional transport pod in our area, without travelling here first? They would need double the technology to do that. Travel here to make the pod, and then materialize here.





RWS said:


> Transporting a quantum particle such as a photon, is possible. We've done it. But to somehow "print out" a complex object on the "pod" based on quantum particles, and have it perfectly reproduce the original when printed out, is kinda hard. But still, it is an option, though not likely as an explanation of "gods" and "ufo's". Since they had to come here first to build the printing pod.



You're not making any sense... why would they need to travel here to create something first? 

Again. I'm not saying this is what has happened, I have no idea. I'm merely offering a suggestion based on our current understanding using quantum mechanics. To me, this makes at least as much (if not more) rational sense than aliens traveling an impossible amount of light years through space, undetected by any of our thousands of probes and space telescopes. It just seems to me like we would've occasionally run across a few of them in our primitive explorations. 



RWS said:


> But many other great scientific minds got severely punished because they didn't adhere to the the religious doctrines of the time. Maybe he got smart. What one says, and what one believes, can often be two different things.



Except that Newton often spoke of "a mercurial spirit coursing through our universe" which he could not define. This is why he devoted much of his time to alchemy... and he kept his work secret because it was considered heresy. The point being, Newton didn't dismiss anything. 



RWS said:


> This is when you first took up the fight for religion, even though you don't believe in it, just to be smart and try to make me look foolish for my diction.



Ahh.. I knew there must be a source of your butthurt. 

Let me try and explain it to you a little slower.... I am not a practicer of any organized religion because I believe all religions are flawed because they are creations of man. I still have respect for religions because I believe they are mankind's way of spiritually connecting. I believe civilization of man would be in serious trouble without religions.

With man-made religions comes both good and bad things. I have no problem condemning the bad things but I also acknowledge the good things and I believe the beneficial good far outweighs the bad. I am a devout Spiritualist and I believe in a Spiritual Energy, which may or may not reside in another dimension. I say that "I believe" in this but it's really much more than that. I am fundamentally aware of this Energy, it affects my daily life in many ways. That's the evidence for my belief and I don't require you to believe or accept it.

And I am very smart... Mensa smart. I don't belong to the organization but I qualify.


----------



## Boss (Jul 21, 2017)

RWS said:


> I have no problem with people arguing ideas. But when you go the route you did, you're gonna have a lot of problems with me.
> 
> A lot of people make mistakes in diction, grammar, or punctuation. I never comment on it, or put them down.
> 
> ...



Well, I can tell you this... diction and grammar are important on any forum. Especially when creating a thread topic because you can't change that. This is a direct reflection of the intellect you bring to the table and if you blow it before you start, people will never take you seriously. So you ought to actually thank me for making you more conscious of how you put things.

You are wrong about my motives. Just completely, factually wrong. It had nothing to do with saving face or just arguing for the sake of arguing. None of my arguments are nonsensical, I don't make nonsensical arguments.  I don't mind losing but I'm not going to lose to you because I'm just way smarter.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 21, 2017)

Boss said:


> . I am a devout Spiritualist and I believe in a Spiritual Energy, which may or may not reside in another dimension. I say that "I believe" in this but it's really much more than that. I am fundamentally aware of this Energy, it affects my daily life in many ways. That's the evidence for my belief and I don't require you to believe or accept it.
> 
> And I am very smart... Mensa smart. I don't belong to the organization but I qualify.




lol....I suspect that you have confused 'spiritual energy' with conceit in the same way believers have confused faith with obstinate stupidity..


----------



## RWS (Jul 22, 2017)

I too am a spiritual person. Although I may take the side of science in most aspects, I am open to a higher reality.

The thing is, that I realize that the higher reality has nothing to do with Religion. Which, boss, you seem to think as well. And in order to achieve that higher reality, we need to tone down the rhetoric that Religions promote.

So I try to tell people about the evils their religions committed, and that they still defend, and what it means. And the consequences of following those religions. Christians and Jews nowadays think that everything is honky-dory. But it's not. They just need a little prodding to go back to their roots. Which the Muslims are trying to do. And then we'll be back to all-out warfare again due to religions. Which we're already doing, to protect Israel, and the possibilities of Israeli nuclear retaliation to a bad-enough attack. So the Jews sit back nowadays, and get the Christians to fight on their behalf against the Muslims. Same thing, in different ways, has been going on for hundreds of years.

Fool us once, fool us twice, fool us three times, and then continue to fool us, and then that's when I say it's time to stop the foolishness.

You seem to agree with that.

Any "good" things that Religions have given us, would have come about without the religion. They just take credit for it, to absolve their sins.

"Goodness" among higher mammals is an evolutionary trait. Not a religious one. We can be good without religion. My argument is that we could be BETTER... without it.


----------



## Boss (Jul 22, 2017)

RWS said:


> I too am a spiritual person. Although I may take the side of science in most aspects, I am open to a higher reality.



I don't see "sides" here. You can acknowledge science AND acknowledge spiritual faith. One doesn't preclude the other. In fact, I would argue there is a lot of science that points to a Creator. The Anthropic Principle... Cosmological Constants, etc. I've never heard a sufficient explanation for why we have some 40-odd constants which must be precise to an incredible degree, just for a universe to exist and then for life to exist in it. There has never been any science demonstration to prove abiogenesis. It still remains a scientific fact that life comes from life. (biogenesis)



> The thing is, that I realize that the higher reality has nothing to do with Religion. Which, boss, you seem to think as well. And in order to achieve that higher reality, we need to tone down the rhetoric that modern religions are promoting.



I don't think it has "nothing to do" with religion. As I said, I believe religions are a byproduct of our spiritual connection. I don't personally have a problem with "rhetoric they promote" because a lot of it is good. Christians teaching people to love one another isn't a bad thing, is it? Telling someone they are not worthless because the Savior died for their salvation, isn't a bad thing. The 10 Commandments are a pretty good guide for living a decent respectful life. 



> So I try to tell people about the evils of their religion, and what it means. And the consequences of following those religions. Christians and Jews nowadays think that everything is honky-dory. But it's not. They just need a little prodding to go back to their roots. Which the Muslims are trying to do. And then we'll be back to all-out warfare again due to religions. Which we're already doing, to protect Israel and the possibilities of retaliation.



Well Muslims are the exception to the rule because their religion has never been reformed. You don't hear about Buddhist suicide bombers. Hindus aren't flying planes into buildings. Christians would literally have to forsake the teachings of Jesus to do what radical Muslims are doing. If you go try to tell the Muslims about the evils of their religion, they'll cut your head off. So you need another way to change them over time and it needs to be a spiritual replacement ideology. 

The consequences of following Christianity and Judaism is you are constantly persecuted for your beliefs. 



> Fool us once, fool us twice, fool us three times, and then continue to fool us, and then that's when I say it's time to stop the foolishness.
> 
> You seem to agree with that.
> 
> ...



I agree that we should stop fighting and allow humans to express their religious faith freely. I don't believe good things come about devoid of religion because history has proved it doesn't. There have been far more non-religious wars and death tolls than anything ever caused by religion.


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I too am a spiritual person. Although I may take the side of science in most aspects, I am open to a higher reality.
> ...



Yes you do. Stop fucking around. Biogenesis still requires abiogenesis at some point. If any of those points didn't happen in our universe, then we would not be having this discussion. But it did, and here we are...

Multi-Universes may be infinite. And if it's just a matter of probability, then in that case, the possibility of a universes like ours, is certain. And probably many, many more like ours, infinite ones. And somewhere, there's another universe, where someone like you, is arguing with someone like me. And one where I'm taking your side, and you're taking mine.



> > The thing is, that I realize that the higher reality has nothing to do with Religion. Which, boss, you seem to think as well. And in order to achieve that higher reality, we need to tone down the rhetoric that modern religions are promoting.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it has "nothing to do" with religion. As I said, I believe religions are a byproduct of our spiritual connection. I don't personally have a problem with "rhetoric they promote" because a lot of it is good. Christians teaching people to love one another isn't a bad thing, is it? Telling someone they are not worthless because the Savior died for their salvation, isn't a bad thing. The 10 Commandments are a pretty good guide for living a decent respectful life.



The 10 Commandments are things that followers have not followed. And those mythical commandments came from more ancient societies.

Zeitgeist about 10 commandments:

The Truth from George Carlin:

Full Zeitgeist about Jesus and what he really means (includes the 1st video in much better quality, get to 13 minutes to bypass the awful intro and get to the good stuff):



> > So I try to tell people about the evils of their religion, and what it means. And the consequences of following those religions. Christians and Jews nowadays think that everything is honky-dory. But it's not. They just need a little prodding to go back to their roots. Which the Muslims are trying to do. And then we'll be back to all-out warfare again due to religions. Which we're already doing, to protect Israel and the possibilities of retaliation.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...



I don't argue about Buddhists or Hindus. They may actually have the answer. But the OT-trilogy religions? They are all about death as the answer.



> Fool us once, fool us twice, fool us three times, and then continue to fool us, and then that's when I say it's time to stop the foolishness.
> 
> You seem to agree with that.
> 
> ...





> I agree that we should stop fighting and allow humans to express their religious faith freely. I don't believe good things come about devoid of religion because history has proved it doesn't. There have been far more non-religious wars and death tolls than anything ever caused by religion.



If religion was necessary to create the human race, then how did we evolve from non-religious ancestors? If goodness requires religion, then how do other non-human species do "good" things? What is your definition of "good"? Killing others to promote a Santa Claus religion?

Which non-religious wars do you mean? Socialism is a religion. Nazism is as well.

When did scientists declare war on anyone in the name of science??


----------



## Boss (Jul 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> Yes you do. Stop fucking around. Biogenesis still requires abiogenesis at some point.



That's a totally contradictory statement. It would be the same as saying "Theism requires Atheism at some point!" 

You can BELIEVE that abiogenesis occurred but you can't prove it. 



RWS said:


> If any of those points didn't happen in our universe, then we would not be having this discussion. But it did, and here we are...



Exactly... but you have no explanation for WHY. 



RWS said:


> Multi-Universes may be infinite. And if it's just a matter of probability, then in that case, the possibility of a universes like ours, is certain.



This is convenient because it's a theory that can never be proven. In order to disprove one God, you have to create infinite universes. Interesting, isn't it? I'd love to believe in your theory but I don't have that much faith.



RWS said:


> The 10 Commandments are things that followers have not followed.



Of course they haven't. We've all fallen short of the glory of God. No one is without sin, that's why salvation is required. 



RWS said:


> I don't argue about Buddhists or Hindus. They may actually have the answer. But the OT-trilogy religions? They are all about death as the answer.



That's your opinion, a lot of people disagree with you. 



RWS said:


> If religion was necessary to create the human race, then how did we evolve from non-religious ancestors?



The human race existed many thousands of years before the first organized religions. I've never said religion was necessary for the human race to be created. However, that said, humans have been spiritual creatures since the very first signs of civilization. That's an indisputable fact.

Sorry, but I'm not watching your anti-God videos and propaganda. These are nothing more than opinionated garbage compiled by idiots. I could present just as many videos expressing opinions of religious believers arguing the existence of their God.  Let's be perfectly clear, no one has the definitive answer, if they did, we wouldn't be arguing and this thread wouldn't exist. What we have are various opinions and FAITH.


----------



## Boss (Jul 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> When did scientists declare war on anyone in the name of science??



Atheists do it all the time. They USE science to wage war against religion. Truth of the matter is, science keeps pointing us to a Creator. Nothing else comports with rationality. It's amazing and ironic that every time science finds itself on the verge of a breakthrough that will supposedly unlock the mysteries of origin, they turn over the rock to reveal something else that is impossible without a Creator.

Take for instance, the study of subatomic particles. Electrons popping in and out of existence or existing in two places at the same time. The observer effect... double slit experiment. Particles changing to waves because they are observed. Even when we've tried to fool the particles into thinking they are not observed, they can seemingly go back in time and change what they were. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance." Is light a particle or a wave? It cannot be both, yet... it is! 

The point being, at the smallest subatomic level, our rules of physics break down and nothing makes sense. This happens in two other instances as well.. beyond the "event horizon" of a black hole and, theoretically, "before" the Big Bang. What's more, up until about 2012, every physics textbook in the world was incorrect. They all stated the universe was mostly comprised of atoms. We now know this is not true. The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter.... which we cannot interact with as physical beings.


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

If biogenesis does not require abiogenesis... then how did it start? How'd we get here? I didn't come up with the idea of infinite universes. But it is an idea that you should agree with based on your quantum ideas and multiple dimension theories about God and UFO's. They do tie together. 

George Carlin is not an idiot, and you'd be an idiot for dismissing him as such. You need to listen to him, because he makes fun, in a logical way, of the problems of religion. He speakum the truthum. 

The original human civilization (as far as we know) of Sumer was not spiritual. They told of real things. And they didn't think that by dying it would better their cause. They just wrote what they knew. There was no afterlife for Sumerians. 

That idea came later, and thus the birth of religions. 

You should watch the last 2 videos I posted, if you want to have an intelligent discussion, and not denial of truth.


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2017)

There is so much we do not know. And never can. The universe is a misunderstood and strange place. We inhabit a microscopic speck of it. We don't know shit.


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > When did scientists declare war on anyone in the name of science??
> ...



Wow... name some.


----------



## Boss (Jul 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> If biogenesis does not require abiogenesis... then how did it start? How'd we get here?


Well obviously something beyond physical nature created physical nature. It's a paradox... physical nature can't create itself. Matter can't create mater... energy can't create energy. If it exists, Something had to Create it.



> I didn't come up with the idea of infinite universes. But it is an idea that you should agree with based on your quantum ideas and multiple dimension theories about God and UFO's. They do tie together.



Oh, I realize you didn't come up with the idea. I'm simply explaining the idea is a theory that can't be tested and will never be tested. Therefore, it's not really science. It's philosophy. It's an attempt to explain that which can't be explained without acknowledging a Creator. 



> George Carlin is not an idiot, and you'd be an idiot for dismissing him as such. You need to listen to him, because he makes fun, in a logical way, of the problems of religion. He speakum the truthum.



George Carlin is also not a scientist... he is a COMEDIAN! 



> The original human civilization (as far as we know) of Sumer was not spiritual. They told of real things. And they didn't think that by dying it would better their cause. They just wrote what they knew. There was no afterlife for Sumerians.
> 
> That idea came later, and thus the birth of religions.
> 
> You should watch the last 2 videos I posted, if you want to have an intelligent discussion, and not denial of truth.



Sumerians were NOT the first human civilization. And there is plenty of evidence these people were spiritual believers in all sorts of Gods. But you're talking about a civilization from 6500-4000 BC and human civilizations date back 70,000 years or more. The oldest remains of any human civilization is in Africa and Australia, and both sites offer evidence of ritualistic burial using ceremonial red ocher. They were worshiping something.

I'm not watching videos produced by Atheists to bash on religion... SORRY!


----------



## Boss (Jul 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Dude... you just posted fucking videos!


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

> Boss, post:
> 
> And I am very smart... Mensa smart. I don't belong to the organization but I qualify.



ROFL

You also don't belong to human organizations, though you qualify...


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Watch them if you're so smart. And tell me what you think of them. 2nd video, skip to 13min, don't want to hear anything about the awful music intro. I want to hear about the end.


----------



## jillian (Jul 23, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



what does the likelihood that there is life elsewhere in the huge universe have to do with being atheists?

why do religious zealots feel what anyone else believes is your business?

leave everyone else alone.


----------



## jillian (Jul 23, 2017)

S.J. said:


> We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God.  God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy?  He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.



whether there is life elsewhere or not has zero to do with a belief in G-d.

false equivalence.


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

And definitely watch George and tell me what you think, with your superior intellect.


----------



## Boss (Jul 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> Watch them if you're so smart. And tell me what you think of them. 2nd video, skip to 13min, don't want to hear anything about the awful music intro. I want to hear about the end.



Why do I want to watch a video of some opinion that I already know I don't agree with and could shoot holes in six ways from Sunday? I have NO reason to. Sorry... not happening!  Show me some fucking SCIENCE!


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > If biogenesis does not require abiogenesis... then how did it start? How'd we get here?
> ...



They were marking burial sites, and staining hair, including pubic areas. that's what the red ocher is for. I don't know why you believe that is the evidence for God or Religion. 

Sumerians were the first human civilization to create writing, science, mathematics, and many other things. And they wrote a lot about the Anunnaki. But they had no religion based on them. 

That came later, in different civilizations.


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Watch them if you're so smart. And tell me what you think of them. 2nd video, skip to 13min, don't want to hear anything about the awful music intro. I want to hear about the end.
> ...



You don't want to, because you're an ignorant asshole, arguing something you don't believe in, for the sake of argument.


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Are we now in agreement?


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Read "The Twelfth Planet"


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Good book.


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Read them all. Gave me a new way of thinking about things. My fav is the 3rd book "The Wars of Gods and Men".


----------



## RWS (Jul 23, 2017)

Another must read is William Bramley's "The Gods of Eden". It takes it forward from where Sitchin left off, and where religions began, and why.

Make sure it's Bramley's version though. There are 2 books with the same name. The other is nonsense.

I have lent out that book so many times, and never got it back, and bought it again multiple times rather than pursue it. That's what I consider a "keeper"


----------



## G.T. (Jul 23, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Too dumb for words


----------



## S.J. (Jul 23, 2017)

jillian said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God.  God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy?  He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.
> ...


In your opinion (which only means something to you).


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

Bonzi said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


What makes you, as a Christian, believe we are alone in the universe?

Does it say something about it in the Bible or old testament?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Why do you think we are alone? If atheists believe we are probably not alone, why do Christians think we are alone? Is there something in the Bible that suggests we are alone?

Can you find anyone who thinks we are alone? I'd like to hear all their arguments.

And your logic is flawed by the way. Why would we care if aliens confirmed our beliefs? And we know you wouldn't believe them without proof, which is impossible by the way.

In fact if they believed in a god too, you would use that as an argument that even though their story is different the main premise is still the same. Of course that's not evidence of anything other than all life with big brains don't like not knowing what happens when they die.

And there are so many other possibilities. What if they are secretly watching us? What if the distance is too much for them too? What if they visited 2 billion years ago? What if they made us? I could go on with the possibilities


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 24, 2017)




----------



## Boss (Jul 24, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



No, red ocher was used in important ceremonies and rituals. They buried their dead in ritualistic ceremonial fashion. There is only one explanation for this and it's spirituality. There is no physical advantage or purpose in ritual burial of the dead. I did not say it's evidence for religion or God. It's proof of human spirituality. Stop trying to twist and contort my statements into something you can argue... that's annoying and dishonest.

Sumerians were spiritual people as well. They were polytheistic and worshiped numerous Gods. While they may be one of the early examples of civilizations with recorded history, they are far from being the first civilization.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 27, 2017)

RWS said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Dinosaurs were around for about one hundred fifty million years.  We have only been around for about five million.
> ...


Thank goodness for the latest advances in Astronomical technologies. 

AnCap theory seems to hold in our plane of existence. 

Anarcho Capitalism must occur, given the right opportunities, eventually.


----------



## RWS (Jul 30, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Because ancient people stained their loved-ones hair with dye, or marked the grounds around a burial site where you don't want to get diseases, does not mean that they had a religion. They were doing so based on superstition. Hoping it leads to a rebirth or something like that. It's all you can do, when you don't have technology or medicine to help your loved ones. It's a "hope". They were superstitious and maybe a little OCD, and spreading red ocher made them feel better once their loved ones died. There was no "red ocher religion". That was simply an innocent and harmless way to deal with death. 

I'm a very spiritual person, and I understand the idea of a greater meaning. But I refuse to kill or subordinate anyone based on that idea. 

That is the difference between spirituality and religion. 

Sumerians were not spiritual. They were subordinated people, who followed their leaders, the Anunnaki. The Anunnaki taught them everything they knew, per their own words, and they created the first civilization in recorded history. Yes others existed before, but recorded history starts with Sumer, since that's where writing began, and math, and science, and astronomy, and a whole lot of other stuff that we take for granted today. Sumerians were not people willing to kill and subjugate others.

It took other civilizations to take their original writings, and take advantage of them by creating religions around them. It was genius. Since there was no proof, ancient rulers declared themselves as gods, so they could pummel their constituents into blind faith. And they used them as armies to kill anyone they wanted, to promote their power and wealth. 

And here we are, almost 6000 years later. And we still have the same bullshit...


----------



## Boss (Jul 30, 2017)

RWS said:


> Because ancient people stained their loved-ones hair with dye, or marked the grounds around a burial site where you don't want to get diseases, does not mean that they had a religion. They were doing so based on superstition. Hoping it leads to a rebirth or something like that.



Spiritual... ALL SPIRITUAL! What part are you not getting? 

You can't explain ritual ceremony using red ocher any other way. 



RWS said:


> Sumerians were not spiritual.


You're wrong. That's all I can say about that. If you like being wrong you can believe that. 



RWS said:


> They were subordinated people, who followed their leaders, the Anunnaki.



The Anunnaki were primordial beings... DEITIES! Descendants of the sky-god _An_! 



RWS said:


> Yes others existed before, but recorded history starts with Sumer, since that's where writing began...



It doesn't matter, humans were spiritual for tens of thousands of years before this. We have the evidence.



RWS said:


> I'm a very spiritual person, and I understand the idea of a greater meaning.



It doesn't matter, this is not about you. Spirituality is a fundamental behavioral attribute of civilized human beings and always has been. Religions are simply a manifestation of human spirituality. You can bash on religious beliefs, criticize religions, denounce their dogma, speak out against religious atrocities, etc., but you're never going to wipe out religion because it's how humans express their spirituality.


----------



## RWS (Jul 30, 2017)

Rethink your reply, and don't pick apart sentences that your internet search tells you otherwise. Here it is again for posterity. 

Because ancient people stained their loved-ones hair with dye, or marked the grounds around a burial site where you don't want to get diseases, does not mean that they had a religion. They were doing so based on superstition. Hoping it leads to a rebirth or something like that. It's all you can do, when you don't have technology or medicine to help your loved ones. It's a "hope". They were superstitious and maybe a little OCD, and spreading red ocher made them feel better once their loved ones died. There was no "red ocher religion". That was simply an innocent and harmless way to deal with death.

I'm a very spiritual person, and I understand the idea of a greater meaning. But I refuse to kill or subordinate anyone based on that idea.

That is the difference between spirituality and religion.

Sumerians were not spiritual. They were subordinated people, who followed their leaders, the Anunnaki. The Anunnaki taught them everything they knew, per their own words, and they created the first civilization in recorded history. Yes others existed before, but recorded history starts with Sumer, since that's where writing began, and math, and science, and astronomy, and a whole lot of other stuff that we take for granted today. Sumerians were not people willing to kill and subjugate others.

It took other civilizations to take their original writings, and take advantage of them by creating religions around them. It was genius. Since there was no proof, ancient rulers declared themselves as gods, so they could pummel their constituents into blind faith. And they used them as armies to kill anyone they wanted, to promote their power and wealth.

And here we are, almost 6000 years later. And we still have the same bullshit...


----------



## Boss (Jul 30, 2017)

RWS said:


> Rethink your reply, and don't pick apart sentences that your internet search tells you otherwise. Here it is again for posterity.
> 
> Because ancient people stained their loved-ones hair with dye, or marked the grounds around a burial site where you don't want to get diseases, does not mean that they had a religion. They were doing so based on superstition. Hoping it leads to a rebirth or something like that. It's all you can do, when you don't have technology or medicine to help your loved ones. It's a "hope". They were superstitious and maybe a little OCD, and spreading red ocher made them feel better once their loved ones died. There was no "red ocher religion". That was simply an innocent and harmless way to deal with death.
> 
> ...



I pick the parts of what you post to reply to for sake of clarity, so you'll know what the fuck I'm addressing. You've been on this same stupid point for nearly two pages... the Sumerians were not the first human civilization and they certainly were spiritual. The Anunnaki were primordial deities, the descendents of the sky-god An. Go fucking look it up! 

MY POINT was that human beings have been spiritual since they've been civilized creatures. The evidence is indisputable. Religions are the manifestation of human spirituality. Now... accept that, ignore it, change the subject... I don't really care.


----------



## RWS (Jul 30, 2017)

Religions are the manifestation of human greed and corruption. Based on those poor people's spiritual ideas.

What OT-religions do, is reshape those spiritual ideas into a form that they can weaponize for power and money. And thus, here we are!

I have been saying this over and over and over and over... And you still want to argue?

Pick exactly which part you want to argue next time. Since you have been subtly agreeing with me the whole time, yet arguing other nonsense stuff to get a forum woody.


----------



## Boss (Jul 30, 2017)

RWS said:


> Religions are the manifestation of human greed and corruption. Based on those poor people's spiritual ideas.
> 
> What OT-religions do, is reshape those spiritual ideas into a form that they can weaponize for power and money. And thus, here we are!
> 
> ...



No, religions have nothing to do with greed or corruption. That's not to say that greedy people can't corrupt religions. The religions are based on spiritual people's ideas, it has nothing to do with wealth.

I've already addressed your stupidity about "OT religions" ...there is no such thing. The Old Testament is part of the Bible, relevant to the presence of the New Testament. To fully understand what the New Testament is all about, you have to read the Old Testament. You've heard the saying, "throwing the baby out with the bath water?" Well, you are throwing the baby out and keeping the bath water. The New Testament literally defines modern Christianity. 

I've not been subtly agreeing with you. I've been systematically shooting down every lame argument you've presented. The only thing we really agree on is that organized religions are flawed.


----------



## RWS (Jul 30, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Religions are the manifestation of human greed and corruption. Based on those poor people's spiritual ideas.
> ...



No, religions have nothing to do with greed or corruption.

What?

 That's not to say that greedy people can't corrupt religions. The religions are based on spiritual people's ideas, it has nothing to do with wealth.

See your 1st sentence. I thought religions had nothing to do with that stuff.

I've already addressed your stupidity about "OT religions" ...there is no such thing. The Old Testament is part of the Bible, relevant to the presence of the New Testament. To fully understand what the New Testament is all about, you have to read the Old Testament.

And I have, both. What are you saying? The NT occurs after the OT. Both say horrible things about how we should treat our neighbors, family, and enemies. And that bad stuff that will happen if we don't listen. 

You've heard the saying, "throwing the baby out with the bath water?" Well, you are throwing the baby out and keeping the bath water. The New Testament literally defines modern Christianity.

I'm throwing all of you out. I'm regurgitating the ugliness that you promote in believing in these things. Terrible people believe in these things. Good people, don't. 

I've not been subtly agreeing with you. I've been systematically shooting down every lame argument you've presented. The only thing we really agree on is that
organized religions are flawed.

What? Really? But you're arguing for the religions! You just can't help yourself, can you...
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Boss (Jul 30, 2017)

RWS said:


> No, religions have nothing to do with greed or corruption.
> 
> What?
> 
> ...



Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem. What the fuck do you mean "What?" .. you want me to retype it slower for you? Religions have nothing to do with greed or corruption, they are the manifestation of human spiritual belief. 



RWS said:


> I've already addressed your stupidity about "OT religions" ...there is no such thing. The Old Testament is part of the Bible, relevant to the presence of the New Testament. To fully understand what the New Testament is all about, you have to read the Old Testament.
> 
> And I have, both. What are you saying? The NT occurs after the OT. Both say horrible things about how we should treat our neighbors, family, and enemies. And that bad stuff that will happen if we don't listen.



Well... NO... you're wrong! They don't both say horrible things about how we should treat others. I seriously doubt you've read much of the Bible and you've probably not taken a Comparative Religion course. So why do you think you're some sort of theological expert? What you are is a little degenerate blowhard who hates Christians. Probably because they denounce your butt sex.



RWS said:


> You've heard the saying, "throwing the baby out with the bath water?" Well, you are throwing the baby out and keeping the bath water. The New Testament literally defines modern Christianity.
> 
> I'm throwing all of you out. I'm regurgitating the ugliness that you promote in believing in these things. Terrible people believe in these things. Good people, don't.



You're not doing anything except making a fool of yourself.



RWS said:


> I've not been subtly agreeing with you. I've been systematically shooting down every lame argument you've presented. The only thing we really agree on is that
> organized religions are flawed.
> 
> What? Really? But you're arguing for the religions! You just can't help yourself, can you...



I haven't argued for or against religions. Religions are what they are... manifestations of human spirituality. Good things and bad things are done in the name of religion. I believe the good far outweighs the bad. Obviously, you don't share my opinion and that's okay but it doesn't mean you're right.

And I really wish you'd stop asking "What?" on a message forum! It's annoying and makes you appear retarded. It's an expression used when communicating verbally, if you didn't understand what someone said. With text communication, you simply need to re-read what was typed. Jeesh!


----------



## RWS (Jul 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > No, religions have nothing to do with greed or corruption.
> ...



But if greedy humans corrupt religions, aren't the religions therefore corrupt'?



RWS said:


> I've already addressed your stupidity about "OT religions" ...there is no such thing. The Old Testament is part of the Bible, relevant to the presence of the New Testament. To fully understand what the New Testament is all about, you have to read the Old Testament.
> 
> And I have, both. What are you saying? The NT occurs after the OT. Both say horrible things about how we should treat our neighbors, family, and enemies. And that bad stuff that will happen if we don't listen.





> Well... NO... you're wrong! They don't both say horrible things about how we should treat others. I seriously doubt you've read much of the Bible and you've probably not taken a Comparative Religion course. So why do you think you're some sort of theological expert? What you are is a little degenerate blowhard who hates Christians. Probably because they denounce your butt sex.



Maybe you should be re-reading some stuff then. And since you mention butt-sex, that is a hallmark of Christian priestly values, and defended and protected by the Vatican for hundreds of years.



RWS said:


> You've heard the saying, "throwing the baby out with the bath water?" Well, you are throwing the baby out and keeping the bath water. The New Testament literally defines modern Christianity.
> 
> I'm throwing all of you out. I'm regurgitating the ugliness that you promote in believing in these things. Terrible people believe in these things. Good people, don't.





> You're not doing anything except making a fool of yourself.



You're not doing anything except defending religions you don't believe in, just to try to argue and build up your already formidable ego. You're a troll. And you're probably short with a need to overcome your inadequacies.



RWS said:


> I've not been subtly agreeing with you. I've been systematically shooting down every lame argument you've presented. The only thing we really agree on is that
> organized religions are flawed.
> 
> What? Really? But you're arguing for the religions! You just can't help yourself, can you...





> I haven't argued for or against religions. Religions are what they are... manifestations of human spirituality. Good things and bad things are done in the name of religion. I believe the good far outweighs the bad. Obviously, you don't share my opinion and that's okay but it doesn't mean you're right.
> 
> And I really wish you'd stop asking "What?" on a message forum! It's annoying and makes you appear retarded. It's an expression used when communicating verbally, if you didn't understand what someone said. With text communication, you simply need to re-read what was typed. Jeesh!



Yes you have argued for religions. That's why you're still arguing about it. And here you go with turning back to diction, when your back is against the wall.

You simply believe that you are the most intelligent person at any given time, and you like to argue any topic, whether you believe it or not, just for the sake of internet masturbation.

Well, you're not the most intelligent person. I can think of 10 people on this board off the top of my head that will run circles around your brain.

You are not as smart as you think you are, and you are not the "Boss" that you think you are.

As Carlin said, you equate to a "temp with an attitude".


----------



## Boss (Jul 31, 2017)

RWS said:


> But if greedy humans corrupt religions, aren't the religions therefore corrupt'?



This would be to assume that once something is corrupted it can never be cleansed of corruption. I didn't say all religions are corrupted by greedy humans and irredeemable. 



RWS said:


> Maybe you should be re-reading some stuff then.



No, I don't think so. The NT is a reformation of Christianity for modern man. It is centered on the teachings of Jesus Christ who preached love of your neighbor, forgiveness of their transgressions and the possibility of eternal salvation without judgement of one's past. The diametric opposite of what you incorrectly claimed. 



RWS said:


> You are not as smart as you think you are, and you are not the "Boss" that you think you are.



I'm actually a good deal smarter than I think I am, jackass. I just try to remain modest. This thread proves I am definitely your Boss and you're my little bitch. I've addressed and destroyed every argument you've presented. What really seems to frustrate you is that I'm not some religious fanatic you can mock and ridicule. Instead, you're coming across like a jilted school girl. What's amazing is how you keep coming back for more. The stupid is strong with this one.


----------



## RWS (Aug 2, 2017)

Whoa, where'd that sexual anger come from?

Is that what you're doing? Make me your little bitch? Do me in the butthole?

I'm just talking about truth. And you're talking about butt-rape and domination.

Do you like that type of stuff?

It would seem so, based on what you're defending...


----------



## RWS (Aug 2, 2017)

Because religions defend the same things.

However, you "don't believe in religion". So I guess you're just plain psycho, with no excuse...


----------



## RWS (Aug 2, 2017)

BTW, I'm going to use your statement, "I'm actually a good deal smarter than I think I am, jackass. I just try to remain modest." as my sig for a little while. If you don't mind. If you mind, let me know.

I don't like sigs, but geez... that was so classically stupid! I'll keep it on for a week, for giggles. That was so classic...


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> Because religions defend the same things.
> 
> However, you "don't believe in religion". So I guess you're just plain psycho, with no excuse...



Well, no... Religions don't defend the same things, that's why we have different ones. 

For someone speaking with such self-proclaimed authority on the subject, you seem quite dumb. 

Where did I say that "I don't believe in religions?"  I don't subscribe to organized religions because I believe they are all flawed as creations of man. I do believe they exist and that spiritual people practice their spiritual faith through them. 

I've spent a lot of time studying aspects of several religions just out of curiosity. I don't find anything inherently wrong with The Bible or Christianity. Same for Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. I think the Muslim religion is a fraud, ripped off from Christianity. That is my personal evaluation after studying their doctrine and history. I think Catholicism has become corrupted and is in need of reformation. I think Mormonism is a cult-like offshoot of Christianity. Numerous denominations of Christianity are fanatical and take the Bible out of context. 

Like I said before, I believe religions have both good and bad aspects. Being that I am spiritually centered, I believe in promotion of positive spiritual energy. So when a church feeds the hungry or houses the homeless, helps disaster victims or provides care for orphans, etc., I applaud these efforts and support them as much as possible. I've been on several mission trips to Nicaragua and will probably be heading there again in a few months.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 2, 2017)

One need not be an 'atheist' to hope that all the established religions could be irrefutably proven false.


----------



## Pete7469 (Aug 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> I've always wondered what would happen if we made contact with a distant civilization and they had virtually the same beliefs in God? Would that silence Atheists? Probably not.



All of the atheists I have ever known were liberals. These are "people" who when faced with simple facts will ignore them if it compromises the way they're programmed to respond to things. God Himself could come down, perform whatever miracle you can imagine and the bed wetters will call it a fraud or simply deny it happened.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 2, 2017)

As an atheist, I believe the probability of aliens contacting us is almost as remote as there being a God


----------



## RWS (Aug 3, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Because religions defend the same things.
> ...



The 3 OT-based religions, which are the ones at question here, do defend the same things. And that most importantly includes dominating others to spread their power. Which you are also quite eager to do.

Anybody can do charitable things. Charity is not a hallmark of religion. It is a hallmark of good people who really care, and are not trying to put on a show to gain followers.



> Where did I say that "I don't believe in religions?"  I don't subscribe to organized religions because I believe they are all flawed as creations of man. I do believe they exist and that spiritual people practice their spiritual faith through them.



Regarding your disbelief in religion, I did a really quick search by using your name and "I don't believe", and here's an extremely short list of what came up... Don't try to be cute and change it to that you believe "religions" exist. Of course religions exist, but they're not true, and you don't believe in any of them. But you still argue for them. These are a small sample of your quotes, there's many many more pages.



> Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...
> I don't believe in a Christian God
> 
> Is There A God?
> ...








> I've spent a lot of time studying aspects of several religions just out of curiosity. I don't find anything inherently wrong with The Bible or Christianity. Same for Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. I think the Muslim religion is a fraud, ripped off from Christianity. That is my personal evaluation after studying their doctrine and history. I think Catholicism has become corrupted and is in need of reformation. I think Mormonism is a cult-like offshoot of Christianity. Numerous denominations of Christianity are fanatical and take the Bible out of context.



Then why defend them if you disagree? These people cannot learn to co-exist with others, because of their corrupted man-made religions that they follow blindly. They will turn back to "kill-mode" once commanded.




> Like I said before, I believe religions have both good and bad aspects. Being that I am spiritually centered, I believe in promotion of positive spiritual energy. So when a church feeds the hungry or houses the homeless, helps disaster victims or provides care for orphans, etc., I applaud these efforts and support them as much as possible. I've been on several mission trips to Nicaragua and will probably be heading there again in a few months.



Please stop with the bullshit. You are very, very, far off-center spiritually. Borderline psycho. You believe in domination, degradation, and deception of others, and you have to do it to everyone you interact with. That's what REALLY floats your boat... I hope you aren't doing the same on your "mission trips". You should not be representing humanity, if so.

And please stay away from the children.


----------



## Boss (Aug 3, 2017)

RWS said:


> The 3 OT-based religions, which are the ones at question here, do defend the same things. And that most importantly includes dominating others to spread their power. Which you are also quite eager to do.
> 
> Anybody can do charitable things. Charity is not a hallmark of religion. It is a hallmark of good people who really care, and are not trying to put on a show to gain followers.



We've already established there is no such thing as "OT religions" because if you have an OT you also have a NT. I can only assume you mean Abrahamic religions? Christianity, Judaism and Islam? All three have different doctrines and Islam doesn't even use the Christian Bible. 

Judaism is an actual race, so I'm not sure how the religion exploits you to dominate and spread power when you're a Jew by birth. 

Christianity is a religion of acceptance, not dominance. You must accept Christ to be a Christian, it's the only way. When you willingly accept something, how are you being dominated? 

As for charitable things... you're right, it doesn't require religion. So name three major non-religious and totally secular charities operating worldwide? While you're trying to think of some, keep in mind that I didn't say it was a hallmark, I said that as a spiritually-driven person, I applaud the efforts of religious groups who do good deeds. I'm puzzled as to why you can't do the same and seem to want to be disagreeable on this point. 



> Regarding your disbelief in religion, I did a really quick search by using your name and "I don't believe", and here's an extremely short list of what came up... Don't try to be cute and change it to that you believe "religions" exist. Of course religions exist, but they're not true, and you don't believe in any of them. But you still argue for them. These are a small sample of your quotes, there's many many more pages.



Right, and I have been consistent in context. I didn't say they were not true. I don't know if they are. I don't subscribe to their beliefs. I argue for religion in general against morons who presume we'd be better off without them. I believe religions are a vehicle for human spiritual expression. 



RWS said:


> Then why defend them if you disagree? These people cannot learn to co-exist with others, because of their corrupted man-made religions that they follow blindly. They will turn back to "kill-mode" once commanded.



Again, I defend that which is good (positive spiritual energy) and condemn that which is bad (negative spiritual energy). Your opinions are very biased and show an ignorance in what the nucleus of Christianity teaches. Jesus' best friend was a prostitute. One of his most prolific disciples was previously a tax collector who stoned Christians to death. The Bible is literally full of stories about turning the other cheek, doing unto others, reserving judgment of others, forgiving transgressions. 

Islam is the only religion with a "kill mode" and it's because they are a fraudulent and phony religion.



RWS said:


> Please stop with the bullshit. You are very, very, far off-center spiritually. Borderline psycho. You believe in domination, degradation, and deception of others, and you have to do it to everyone you interact with. That's what REALLY floats your boat... I hope you aren't doing the same on your "mission trips". You should not be representing humanity, if so.
> 
> And please stay away from the children.



I don't know what that last sentence was supposed to mean but I will tell you that you're on the verge of a very serious and bannable offense. I don't appreciate the implications and you need to back way the fuck down. Understood?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 3, 2017)

Someone, today, still refers to Jewish people as a race?!?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Aug 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



And I bet you still believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth and the moon is made of cheese...

Mankind has been listening to the stars for a short period of time and you already declare that Aliens will never contact us.

I would say you are very close minded and fear the thought humanity is not alone in this Universe and if Aliens are among us then it will make you question your faith...


----------



## Boss (Aug 3, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Someone, today, still refers to Jewish people as a race?!?



Not only are they a race, they are probably the purest race. This might explain why Jews are so incredibly smart.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 3, 2017)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Someone, today, still refers to Jewish people as a race?!?
> ...


Purest....That's a good one..


----------



## Boss (Aug 3, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Scientific fact bruh.


----------



## Penelope (Aug 3, 2017)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Someone, today, still refers to Jewish people as a race?!?
> ...


Judaism is an actual race is false and you have not read the OT, and do not know what is going on in Israel/P. 

Christians invade and kills others, assuming the maj of the US military are Christians. 

Jew are not a pure race and nor are they even a race.


----------



## hobelim (Aug 3, 2017)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Someone, today, still refers to Jewish people as a race?!?
> ...




lol,,,

I suspect any unbeliever in a christian society would seem smarter than average by not being as intellectually and emotionally hobbled by irrational superstitions,  maudlin beliefs, and the resulting cognitive dissonance imposed Christians since childhood...

How deeply can anyone possibly think about anything in that state especially when to question the beliefs that cause their confusion, in fact rational thinking itself, is shunned as evil?


Just think about how unfocused a person would have to constantly be to remain a believer and how emotionally and intellectually exhausting it is for them to keep a straight face while professing preposterous beliefs that are contradicted by reality every day ?

Shit like that to deal with in their head and in their daily lives makes deep rational thinking about any topic or subject impossible.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Aug 3, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


 They rather to believe in an invisible made-up aliens, rather than to believe in God. But then they calls Christians crazy lunatics..


----------



## Boss (Aug 3, 2017)

Penelope said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Well, I am going by what the dictionary says "race" means. Maybe you have a different definition? According to geneticists, Jews are their own race. What race do you think a Jew is? They have their own distinct genetic markers making them different from other races. And since they are also their own religion, they tend to marry (and procreate) within their own race, preserving the purity of their race. Historically, they've done this more rigidly than other races.

Now, that said, all Jews are not of the Jewish race. You can adopt the Jewish religion and not belong to the race. But you can also be of the Jewish race and not practice Judaism. If what you believe were true, Hitler wouldn't have needed to exterminate the Jews... just ban Judaism and viola.. no more Jews! It wasn't orthodox religious believers he was sending to the furnaces.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 3, 2017)

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a race that was 'Jewish'. Semitic is a language group, not a race. Science shows there is only one race of humans today.


----------



## Boss (Aug 3, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> There is not now, nor has there ever been, a race that was 'Jewish'. Semitic is a language group, not a race. Science shows there is only one race of humans today.



As far as a social theory, I am all for that idea... let's get rid of Black Lives Matter... let's end Anti Semitism... Let's do away with Affirmative Action... stop bashing and blaming white Europeans... stop demanding reparations for Native Americans! 

...But how would Democrats and Progressives function?  

Yes, we are a homogenous species. There is no such thing as a pure race. We're all a mixture of races. But to deny there is any such thing as race while at the same time, dividing groups by racial definition, is a bit disingenuous. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Aug 3, 2017)

Boss said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Genesis 41:45 Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt.

Numbers 12:1  Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite.

Matthew 1:5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse,

Song of Songs 1:6 Do not stare at me because I am dark, because I am darkened by the sun. My mother’s sons were angry with me and made me take care of the vineyards; my own vineyard I had to neglect.


----------



## RWS (Aug 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > The 3 OT-based religions, which are the ones at question here, do defend the same things. And that most importantly includes dominating others to spread their power. Which you are also quite eager to do.
> ...



It was meant exactly as you think it means. You are a person who wants to dominate every conversation, and put people down if they disagree. Make them your little bitch, like you said. And then deceive when put to the test.

So yeah, you should not be representing humanity when you visit other societies in need for our help. If they put a muzzle on you, and you're just handing out money, then it's ok.

But otherwise, you will corrupt people that are looking to you for help. Because that's how you roll...You want to dominate, boss.


----------



## RWS (Aug 5, 2017)

Thing is, it doesn't work with me. Or others here. 

We're not going to back down because you pull your bullying tactics, once you're in a corner. You're not the boss. 

By finding those threads where you said you didn't believe in religion, I found your same argumentative way with everybody you came across. It was gross. 

So I don't take it personally, but you have a serious problem... 

And I'm pointing it out to you. 

You're not the boss. You're not smarter than anyone else here, and using domination, degradation, and deception, does not make you any better than anyone else here. In fact, it makes you worse. 

Your posts are what "organized religions" do, while maintaining you don't believe in them. You follow the same tactics.


----------



## RWS (Aug 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > There is not now, nor has there ever been, a race that was 'Jewish'. Semitic is a language group, not a race. Science shows there is only one race of humans today.
> ...



Again, you're just trying to deceive again by changing the subject to how the US divides groups by race. We all know that's wrong. But you seem to think that the Jewish people are their own race, and stated it as such. And then changed your tune, to make it seem like you said something else. 

What do you really think?


----------



## RWS (Aug 5, 2017)




----------



## Boss (Aug 5, 2017)

Man, I hope you feel better getting all that nastiness out of your system.



RWS said:


> It was meant exactly as you think it means. You are a person who wants to dominate every conversation, and put people down if they disagree.



To the contrary, I actually enjoy a healthy debate with someone who disagrees with me and can formulate a coherent argument to support their views. Unfortunately, that's not you. You keep making idiotic arguments to support an ignorant viewpoint. When someone disagrees, you want to attack them personally, make them feel small or you ignore their points and continue parroting nonsense. 



RWS said:


> So yeah, you should not be representing humanity when you visit other societies in need for our help. If they put a muzzle on you, and you're just handing out money, then it's ok.



Well I'm glad I have your permission to help others. Where I go, I don't hand out money. I feed children who are lucky to get one hot meal a day and live in a landfill. Even though I'm not religious, I spend a lot of time praying with them because they are religious. The mission group I work with are also religious.

You know what we did the last time I was there? We had a feet washing. I spent about 6 hrs on my knees washing dirty feet. This is purely a Christian thing, it's what Jesus did. I can't describe to you the feeling you get in humbling yourself that way. It was certainly a spiritually healthy experience for me and something I'll never forget.



RWS said:


> Thing is, it doesn't work with me. Or others here.
> 
> We're not going to back down because you pull your bullying tactics, once you're in a corner. You're not the boss.



You know how I can tell I am winning? When the person I'm arguing with has to create a fake crowd that opposes me. That's really pathetic and sad. You speak for yourself, there's no one standing in your corner here. 



RWS said:


> Again, you're just trying to deceive again by changing the subject to how the US divides groups by race. We all know that's wrong. But you seem to think that the Jewish people are their own race, and stated it as such. And then changed your tune, to make it seem like you said something else.
> 
> What do you really think?



I didn't change anything. Jewish people are their own race. They have their own distinct genetic markers. 

I'm not deceiving anyone. I could easily come here and be a fake Christian... or Jew. I honestly profess that I'm non-religious but spiritual. I never claimed the US divides people by race. We're all Americans with the same rights. What I keep seeing a pattern of in your posts is deception. Outright lies and distortions of what I've said, over and over again.

This is psychological. You feel the need to turn me into the thing you hate about yourself. By doing that it makes you feel better. The problem is, your demons are still there, you haven't faced them. I doubt you're going to anytime soon.


----------



## RWS (Aug 5, 2017)

Get the fuck out, you take every thread, change the topic, and make it into your own. Because you want to dominate the conversation, and put everyone else down. That's what I learned from reading your other threads that didn't involve me. So I realize it's something you just do because it's part of your nature. 

Yet you won't make your own thread, because you don't want people attacking you and your OP. You just like to sit outside and snipe and hen-peck away by picking apart posts that everyone else makes. Never taking responsibility or ownership. Trying to make everyone else look stupid, and making yourself look smart. Changing your story mid-stream when the tide turns against you. So the people only see your most current vomit of a post, and forget your other shit. 

There are a lot of people here who disagree with you, who you have bullied into silence. I have seen that from your other threads. But you're not gonna bully me into silence, and you don't seem to understand that concept. I don't need or want anyone to back me up, but their posts are there, and you shut them down. You bullied them into silence. That will not work with me. 

You said you want to make me your little bitch. 

I do not want sexual relations with you. Understand that. But yet, you want to dominate me. 

You want to put me down, like I'm some stupid mofo, and you're the superior boss, and do some butt things that you mentioned.

And you're upset that I said you should stay away from children??

Are you serious?


----------



## RWS (Aug 5, 2017)

Anyway, back to the topic that the blowhard has been trying to change nonstop... 

I'm going to post this again, here's a story about UFO's by Carlin:


----------



## Boss (Aug 5, 2017)

RWS said:


> Get the fuck out, you take every thread, change the topic, and make it into your own. Because you want to dominate the conversation, and put everyone else down. That's what I learned from reading your other threads that didn't involve me. So I realize it's something you just do because it's part of your nature.
> 
> Yet you won't make your own thread, because you don't want people attacking you and your OP. You just like to sit outside and snipe and hen-peck away by picking apart posts that everyone else makes. Never taking responsibility or ownership. Trying to make everyone else look stupid, and making yourself look smart. Changing your story mid-stream when the tide turns against you. So the people only see your most current vomit of a post, and forget your other shit.
> 
> ...



I made two threads this past week. One was about Fusion GPS, Awan Brothers and DNC Collusion... the other was about Carbon dioxide not being a pollutant. I usually make a couple of threads per week. Sometimes they take off and have lots of replies and sometimes they fizzle out. I don't "bully" anybody, I simply make my points. Just like I've done in this thread... which, incidentally, isn't YOUR thread. You are the one using bullying tactics here, trying to make things personal... borderline calling me a pedophile... accusing me of sexual innuendos... completely abandoning the topic to attack my posting style and criticize me in every way possible. That's what bullies and trolls do best. 

I don't put you down unless I think you deserve it. When you say stupid shit, I'm going to tell you... like "religion and ethics is an oxymoron" ...or "the OT religions" ....I mean, you sound like a fucking retard. I personally believe it's better to let you know that you sound like a retard than to ignore it and let you continue being one. I would rather you buck up and start making more coherent arguments. Flesh out your thoughts a little more... broaden those horizons. Instead, you want to turn into a little whiney bitch and play the victim. That's cool but expect me to treat you as such. 

As for the posters here, most of the people I converse with regularly can tell you that I am respectful when I'm respected but I can be a real smart ass when confronted with smart assery. I'm like a mirror, you get what you dish out. Debate the topic and address my points honestly and you'll get the same in return, it's not that hard. If you want to be a little obnoxious asswipe and engage a pissing flame war, don't blame me when I singe those pubes for ya... that's gonna happen. 

Now I don't understand what any of this has to do with atheists and outer space. We seem to be way out of the thread topic with this little diatribe and I'm not really comfortable with your continued insinuations about me and children. So if you cannot get back on topic and drop these kind of remarks, I am going to start reporting your posts and let the mods sort it out. I'm not going to warn you again and I'm not going to continue responding to your hurt feelings.


----------



## Boss (Aug 5, 2017)

RWS said:


> Anyway, back to the topic that the blowhard has been trying to change nonstop...
> 
> I'm going to post this again, here's a story about UFO's by Carlin:



Love George Carlin, he was a great comedian, did lots of funny shit. 

He's not a scientist or theologian.


----------



## indiajo (Aug 5, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> I can think about it, but I'm not overly impressed with large numbers.


Yolu should, Because they are really large. Huge. Not comprehensible.



Blackrook said:


> What does impress me is that in this very large universe, not one alien civilization, NOT ONE, has contacted our planet or left any evidence here that they ever came to visit.
> 
> What that tells me is that the most probable conclusion is that there are NO alien civilizations out there, because if there were only one in a trillion chance of there being an alien civilization around a star, we would have gobs of visitors by now.



Well, that's a consequence of the large numbers above, which don't impress you.
1. Distance. Laws of physics apply to them, too. So nobody out there will ever stop by for a short visit. Never. The next star, Alpha Centauri, is about 4,5 light years away from us. So even if it had a planet, which is not the case, and it would have a civilisation that is able to travel interstellar space, they would need possibly decades to come here,
Not considered that somebody traveling 1/10 the speed of light has to push the breaks in time.

2. Time. Civilizations are not created, they evolve. Like ours. The question is, when.  Here it was 4,5 billion years after the earth had formed. In a universe that is around 13 billion years old. And we are able to send signals out there since around 100 years? So another civilisation further away than 100 lightyears would not know that here some stupid chimps do not believe they exist.
If it would exist now. Possibly it could already gone extinct, or just learning to make fire.

3. Be happy that nobody stops by.
Civilisations able to do that would be in an intelligence comparison to us like we are to ants.
The would be able to bend spacetime. Maybe that would not impress you. It would impress me, for sure.


----------



## Boss (Aug 5, 2017)

Before we get to the question of life elsewhere, we have to objectively take a step back and try to figure out how life originated here. As much as we believe we know about the universe, we still cannot answer that basic fundamental question of origin. How did life begin? There have been many theories over the ages but none have ever been proven. Abiogenesis remains a theory. It contradicts biogenesis (life comes from life). 

In the 21st century we know lots of things. We have very smart scientists working on this question. We know what the building blocks are for life to exist but we cannot determine how it started. No one has ever combined inorganic materials to create life. State of the art labs and technology at our fingertips. The ability to simulate endless condition variables. Testing relentlessly, every possibility we can imagine.... nothing has been produced.

We have to, at some point, realize that origination of life itself is clearly not easy, casual, random.. whatever word you want to use. It's not something that just happens. If it were, we would have surely stumbled upon HOW by now. This question of origin remains a mystery to us in spite of all our theories and speculations.

Of course, our universe is full of the materials which life is created from. Still, we don't see life in abundance everywhere, even though the materials are there. Some will say, well you have to maintain certain conditions for life to exist and this is true, however, we still don't know how living things originate. Even with the right conditions, indeed, even with state of the art laboratories and critically controlled environments to play with and years upon years of testing and experimenting. Still... nothing. For all intents and purposes, it appears that life comes from life... and that's it. So how does it start? 

Until that question is answered, it's kind of pointless to speculate life exists elsewhere in the universe.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 5, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


What does one have to do with the other?  What if we just find life forms like moss, shrimps or  early sentient beings? Perhaps we will tell them there is a god, and give them a copy of "The Watchtower".


----------



## RWS (Aug 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Get the fuck out, you take every thread, change the topic, and make it into your own. Because you want to dominate the conversation, and put everyone else down. That's what I learned from reading your other threads that didn't involve me. So I realize it's something you just do because it's part of your nature.
> ...



So let me get this straight. 

You said you want to make me "your little bitch." 

You called me a "retard"

All on this thread, that you have been changing the subject of, from the beginning. 

I've been trying to get you back on track to the thread, and now you're saying you "don't understand what any of this has to do" with the OP? 

Really?

I have been saying that from the beginning. But you kept going on with your hubris.

Yes, you should not be around people that rely on you for survival. 

Because you do it for giggles and woodies. If you even do it. 

Based on what I know of you here on this board, you should not be representing humanity and "goodness" to people who rely on you. Your way of rolling is domination and deception. 

Give your money to Sally Struthers and her foundation. That's the best way you can help. 


So... back to the OP...


----------



## RWS (Aug 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> Before we get to the question of life elsewhere, we have to objectively take a step back and try to figure out how life originated here. As much as we believe we know about the universe, we still cannot answer that basic fundamental question of origin. How did life begin? There have been many theories over the ages but none have ever been proven. Abiogenesis remains a theory. It contradicts biogenesis (life comes from life).
> 
> In the 21st century we know lots of things. We have very smart scientists working on this question. We know what the building blocks are for life to exist but we cannot determine how it started. No one has ever combined inorganic materials to create life. State of the art labs and technology at our fingertips. The ability to simulate endless condition variables. Testing relentlessly, every possibility we can imagine.... nothing has been produced.
> 
> ...


It happened here, and given the right environment, it can happen elsewhere. There are few scientists who would disagree with that.

Just because we haven't been able to create a self-replicating molecule in a lab environment, does not mean it was a "God" event on our planet. We are not that technologically advanced yet, that we can just say that it's impossible to create "life" in a test tube, using basic elements.

We can create the primordial soup where we prove amino acids form, and have a few different ideas about how the containment wall forms, including a new one recently.

The problem is we have been trying this for about 30 years. And hoping for proof in 30 years, for something that took nature half a billion years, is not proof that it took an imaginary "God" to do it.

Once we find proof of organisms on a different planet or moon, that should dismiss all ideas of "God".

Because "He" failed to flourish those life forms on those other planets/moons, means that "He" is not omnipotent, and life is actually a matter of math and science and chaos.


----------



## Boss (Aug 6, 2017)

RWS said:


> It happened here, and given the right environment, it can happen elsewhere. There are few scientists who would disagree with that.



I'm not disagreeing with that. But that wasn't the question. HOW did it happen? The answer: We don't know! 

You say "given the right environment" but you need to understand how incredibly unique our environment probably is. First we have the water in mostly liquid form, this rules out at least 90% or more of the planets out there. They are either too close to their sun, too far away or they don't have water in abundance. So right off the bat, we're down to (optimistically) one in ten probability and we've just started. 

Next one is very tricky. Something huge collided with Earth early on and gave us two two important things. A distinctly wobbly rotation and a moon. Our moon is just the right size and distance in geosynchronous orbit to cause tides in our vast oceans. Without those tides the oceans would be stagnant bodies of motionless water incapable of supporting life. The wobbly rotation gives us seasons and while it may not be a prerequisite for life, it certainly appears to be fundamental to millions of life forms. It also plays a role in oceanic convection which is another fundamental to oceanic life. 

Finally, another unique attribute is our molten nickel and iron core. How did that happen? Well, apparently, some event we are not certain of, actually "cooked" our early planet. The heat was so intense it melted the entire planet and the heavier elements became our core as lighter ones became our mantle and crust. Why is this important? Because it gives us our magnetic poles and provides an electromagnetic shield around our planet to enable our atmosphere to form. 

This "cooking" event is mysterious because it happened after materials forming the planet had coalesced and the heat was more intense than the sun is capable of producing. Whatever it was, it doesn't appear it happened to Mars. 

So all of these things and dozens more that I didn't mention, all go into creating "the right environment" as you said. The way I see it, we're down to "near impossible" for another planet out there to have the same exact ecosystem as our own. That's not to say life doesn't exist elsewhere but it's very likely not life as we know it here on Earth. 



> Just because we haven't been able to create a self-replicating molecule in a lab environment, does not mean it was a "God" event on our planet. We are not that technologically advanced yet, that we can just say that it's impossible to create "life" in a test tube, using basic elements.
> 
> We can create the primordial soup where we prove amino acids form, and have a few different ideas about how the containment wall forms, including a new one recently.



We're pretty technologically advanced. We can examine subatomic particles. So far, it IS impossible to create life from inorganic materials. It has NEVER been done. Not saying "God did it" but if we cannot answer the question it remains a viable possibility. Theories are great but if a theory can't produce predicted results it is a failed theory and worthless. 



> The problem is we have been trying this for about 30 years. And hoping for proof in 30 years, for something that took nature half a billion years, is not proof that it took an imaginary "God" to do it.
> 
> Once we find proof of organisms on a different planet or moon, that should dismiss all ideas of "God".
> 
> Because "He" failed to flourish those life forms on those other planets/moons, means that "He" is not omnipotent, and life is actually a matter of math and science and chaos.



I don't see how finding life on other planets/moons dismisses God. To me, even finding a viable physical answer for origin of life doesn't dismiss God, it just explains how God did it. You're attempting to reason God's purpose but you're not God. It's kind of like the supposition that "if God exists, why do babies die of cancer?" This attempts to reason that living in a physical state of existence is the preferable form of existence. This is something we cannot possibly know.


----------



## Hyddan92 (Aug 22, 2017)

S.J. said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Scientists create new life form from scratch

Sooner or later...


----------



## Hyddan92 (Aug 22, 2017)

Obviously we can't know for sure if life on other worlds exist or not until we have found proof of their existence.

But if the universe for all intense and purposes are endless and the number of worlds are endless then that would mean that the amount of planets more or less exactly like our own with developed sentient life are also endless.

In fact that would mean that worlds exactly identical to our own down to the last atom would be endless as well not matter the probabilities of that occurring.


----------



## Boss (Aug 22, 2017)

Hyddan92 said:


> Obviously we can't know for sure if life on other worlds exist or not until we have found proof of their existence.
> 
> But if the universe for all intense and purposes are endless and the number of worlds are endless then that would mean that the amount of planets more or less exactly like our own with developed sentient life are also endless.
> 
> In fact that would mean that worlds exactly identical to our own down to the last atom would be endless as well not matter the probabilities of that occurring.



But we are fairly certain the universe cannot be "endless." It might be big, it might be vast, but that doesn't mean endless. 

To believe in "endless" is to believe in "infinity" and to believe in "infinity" is to believe in "eternal" which is a purely "spiritual" concept, no different in distinction than belief in God. 

I approach the idea of "life" from a much different perspective than merely calculating basic odds of probability determined by a vast number of possibilities. I agree that it would seem rational to believe, if all the elements of life are within our universe, the probability for other life forms in our universe is high. But let's consider the following analogy...

Let's say you walk into a house and find on the table, a cake. You look around and find the various ingredients to make a cake in the kitchen. Does this mean another cake exists in the house? The ingredients are certainly there, so this is a possibility. However, until you can explain how the cake on the table originated, it's not possible to conclude another cake must exist. Even if the ingredients are in abundance. Clearly, the only way to prove another cake exists is to find one. 

Furthermore, the more we objectively analyze this cake on the table, the more we realize how specific variables and sets of conditions had to happen in precise order for the cake to exist. It didn't simply materialize because the ingredients were there. We can certainly speculate and ponder the possibility of the cake spontaneously creating itself but rational thought should at least entertain the idea the cake was the product of a creator. We do not need to identify that creator to entertain the idea.


----------



## Hyddan92 (Aug 22, 2017)

Boss said:


> Hyddan92 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously we can't know for sure if life on other worlds exist or not until we have found proof of their existence.
> ...




Sure, the universe might not be endless, but as far as we know it has no border, we cannot see the end, we can not notice it, so for us it might as well be endless. In the same manner as ancient men looked over the ocean and thought of it as endless we look out into Space. Now we know that the oceans were not endless, but the people back then didn't know that, they couldn't know that just as we now can't know that the Universe is not endless. And until we find out, for all intents and purposes of anything we can understand it is endless and everything in it is infinite. We simply can't consider anything else. Without information we are simply guessing.

As for your analogy with the cake I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence. But the same logic stands, I can't know if there is another cake anywhere, until I have found it. As for your talk of a creator; it's not simply that the planets spontaneously came into existence, there are forces in Space, Gravity, all matter has mass and attracts other mass to it, this causes matter to bind together, pressure to build up, temperature to shift. During the right circumstances, that cake could simply put itself together.


----------



## Boss (Aug 22, 2017)

Hyddan92 said:


> Sure, the universe might not be endless, but as far as we know it has no border, we cannot see the end, we can not notice it, so for us it might as well be endless. In the same manner as ancient men looked over the ocean and thought of it as endless we look out into Space. Now we know that the oceans were not endless, but the people back then didn't know that, they couldn't know that just as we now can't know that the Universe is not endless. And until we find out, for all intents and purposes of anything we can understand it is endless and everything in it is infinite. We simply can't consider anything else. Without information we are simply guessing.
> 
> As for your analogy with the cake I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence. But the same logic stands, I can't know if there is another cake anywhere, until I have found it. As for your talk of a creator; it's not simply that the planets spontaneously came into existence, there are forces in Space, Gravity, all matter has mass and attracts other mass to it, this causes matter to bind together, pressure to build up, temperature to shift. During the right circumstances, that cake could simply put itself together.



It's interesting that you cite principles of physics as if these are simply rules that exist because they exist. The problem is, when we objectively evaluate physics, none of the parameters of physics HAS to exist. There are at least 40 cosmological constants which have to be precise in order for even a physical universe to exist and there is nothing in physics to indicate universes must contain these constants. Since physics can't explain this, we entertain the theory of multiple universes. This is the notion that an endless number of universes exist and ours just happens to be one with the right cosmological constants. Problem is, that's not really valid science because we can never evaluate or test the hypothesis. Therefore, it becomes something we can basically categorize in the same realm as belief in God. 

*I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence.*

Really? Based on what exactly? Let me help you... it's called *FAITH*. 

The ONLY way you can know for certain another cake exists is to discover another cake. If not, you can only speculate one MIGHT exist. IF you could explain how a cake spontaneously created itself, that would certainly support the idea that another cake does likely exist somewhere. However, I am using the cake in the analogy because we already know that cakes cannot spontaneously create themselves. Is it possible? Yes, everything is possible. It's just not probable. In fact, the more we observe and examine it, the more improbable we find it to be that cakes can spontaneously create themselves. Much more likely is the probability the cake had some creative force. Much the same is true with life. 

It has always fascinated me about science, that every time science believes it is about to uncover the hidden secrets to origin, it inevitably uncovers more evidence of a Creator. It has happened over and over again, much to the chagrin of atheist scientists. 

*they couldn't know that just as we now can't know that the Universe is not endless. *

Except we DO know the universe is not endless... if we believe in physics. 

Now... the universe is HUGE. Make no mistake. There are billions and billions of galaxies. Our solar system is just a minor blip in one small galaxy. The next closest galaxy to us is thousands of light years away. Just over 100 years ago, we believed our galaxy was ALL the universe. So we are still very naive in terms of what we know about our universe. 

All that said, what we do know, because of physics, is that the universe is not infinite. This was settled by physicists in Copenhagen in the early 1900s. Early skeptics of the idea that our universe is not infinite or eternal are responsible for creating the term "Big Bang" which was actually a ridicule of the idea that the universe had a beginning.


----------



## Vastator (Aug 22, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> The alien thing is a religious issue for the atheists.  They think if we are contacted by aliens, the entire Christian religion will have a faith crisis and collapse in ruin.  This is the reason atheists run around insisting that aliens are real, when they have absolutely no proof to back up these claims.


Nonsense. Its doing that all by itself, without alien intervention. Unless rational thought is alien to you... Then yes. Aliens are definitely destroying the zombie cult.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 22, 2017)

Boss said:


> The problem is, when we objectively evaluate physics, none of the parameters of physics HAS to exist.



No. That's totally wrong. We don't know that at all. And we know that in some cases, it's flat out not true.

Hence, the "designed universe" argument flops.


----------



## Boss (Aug 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, when we objectively evaluate physics, none of the parameters of physics HAS to exist.
> ...



We do know that. It's not totally wrong or even partially wrong, it's the absolute truth. 

I would LOVE to see your evidence that universes MUST adhere to any given principle, law, variable, constant or parameter in physics. What your argument is reduced to is "it just so happens to be that way, therefore, it has to be that way!" Fact is, there is absolutely nothing written in physics which says it has to be that way. 

The ONLY way an argument flops is when you have disproved the argument. You've failed at that.


----------



## RWS (Aug 23, 2017)

Why? Because you say so?

Your argument doesn't hold water. So there is nothing to disprove. Straw man argument.

The fact that this universe exists, means that the physics and science in this universe exists.

Now that may be "god" or some universal intellect, but it certainly isn't a "God" from a religion that we made up some 13+ billion years later after the big bang, and where we should be killing each other over it to this day.

I agree that the way particles interact with each other in this universe, is perfect for our survival, otherwise we wouldn't be here arguing about it.


----------



## Boss (Aug 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> Why? Because you say so?
> 
> Your argument doesn't hold water. So there is nothing to disprove. Straw man argument.
> 
> ...



I didn't claim physics in this universe didn't exist... how moronic. 

Again, this is an unsolved physics problem. There are 6 dimensionless physical constants. There are another few dozen weights, ratios, variables and forces which must be as they are for a physical universe equipped for life to exist. There is no physics answer to why we have a finely tuned universe. You can certainly say... _well, we just do!_ But, you see, that's not science or how science questions are ever resolved.

I'm not here to argue theology with you and I haven't claimed this proves God created the universe. I'm merely suggesting the possibility of a creative force. Obviously, that would explain a lot.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Aug 23, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Um no.

Many atheists do wish to have some sort of contact with extra Terrestrial life. Or to discover it in some fashion even if only microbes.

Most atheists know that such a significant discovery will tell us nothing one way or the other about the god myths.
Sagan never said there must be life on other worlds he addressed the probability of life on other worlds. He did so because he was a scientist and wanted to discover the unknown.

We are almost certainly not alone and science is in fact teaching us this an yes there is science backing up this claim.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> We do know that.



Because you say so? Not a very impressive argument, though we're used to seeing you use it as your only argument.



> I would LOVE to see your evidence that universes MUST adhere to any given principle, law, variable, constant or parameter in physics.



Pi, for example, has to be what it is.

And I only needed one counterexample to destroy you absolutist claim.

You're in a much more difficul position than I. All I have to is point out "We don't know", and my position wins, because that only leaves you with "God of the gaps" nonsense. You have to absolutely prove that all physical constants can vary to make your case. You haven't even tried. You've just waved your arms and declared it must be so. Thus, it's clear you have nothing.



> What your argument is reduced to is "it just so happens to be that way, therefore, it has to be that way!"



No, my argument is nothing like that. My argument is that your claims that any constant can vary to any degree is unproven and has no evidence to support it, and in some cases in clearly false. Hence, your claim is incorrect. My claim is "We don't know, so we can't draw any conclusions in this area".


----------



## Boss (Aug 23, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We do know that.
> ...



Physicists have been struggling with this paradox for literally centuries. It's not "god of the gaps nonsense" because it's physics. You can go to Youtube and find pages of videos on the subject, it's certainly not just because I say so. 

I never said I could prove physical constants can vary in other universes... I can't even prove there are other universes! 

In a chaotic random universe, there shouldn't be this precise set of fundamental dimensionless physical constants. (Like the ratio between strong nuclear force and electromagnetism.) Physics is usually able to calculate things and produce accurate solutions. However, it constantly confronts problems with the cosmos that can't be resolved unless you apply some dimensionless physical constant... then suddenly, the math works! 

It's like, if you tried to calculate 1+1 and the result produced 1.998 instead of 2. That's obviously not correct, but you then apply this invisible and mysterious "constant" of .002 and viola... you get your correct answer. There shouldn't BE a constant... 1+1 should just logically equal 2... but it doesn't unless you factor in the constant. Obviously, this is a very simplistic analogy but we're not physics majors here. It's a lot more complex on the cosmological level but the point is the same. 

For the record, I agree with you... We do not know! That IS my position here. I am countering the argument that we DO know and a Creator has been ruled out by physics. Or the argument that things are how they are "just because they are!" To me, that in particular, is an argument that is the antithesis of scientific discovery. It's not any different than the "god of the gaps" argument.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 23, 2017)

.
large scale heavenly bodies all exist as spheres ... proves there is an Apex to knowledge, everything is accountable. and also proves the physiological is not by chance but destined same as planets when the elements are so arranged for that purpose. nothing extraordinary in the creation of life than the life itself.


----------



## Boss (Aug 23, 2017)

Hyddan92 said:


> As for your analogy with the cake I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence. But the same logic stands, I can't know if there is another cake anywhere, until I have found it. As for your talk of a creator; it's not simply that the planets spontaneously came into existence, there are forces in Space, Gravity, all matter has mass and attracts other mass to it, this causes matter to bind together, pressure to build up, temperature to shift. During the right circumstances, that cake could simply put itself together.



Reading this again, I realized you misinterpreted the analogy. The house represents the universe. The table represents the Earth. We don't know if other houses exist or if any cakes exist in the rest of the house. Unless we search every square inch of the house, we can't conclude there are no more cakes. And there are vast areas of the house that we are incapable of searching at this time. 

What we know is, there is a cake on the table and there are ingredients to make a cake in the house. Yes, it is possible the cake spontaneously created itself, however, we cannot reproduce conditions by which this happens in any kind of experiment so far. Finding another cake in the house doesn't answer the creator question. We are still left with the same unanswerable question and it can never be answered. All we can do is use our reasoning and then have faith in what we reasoned.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 23, 2017)

Aletheia4u said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...


What we find funny, is you believe in an alien God, then deny aliens exist.

So which is it?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 23, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> There is not now, nor has there ever been, a race that was 'Jewish'. Semitic is a language group, not a race. Science shows there is only one race of humans today.


While this is true in a biological sense, ie every human can interbreed and produce viable offspring (we are all one species), the concept of race is a population with semi-unique haplotypes. A good example is using your genetics to give you an idea of where your ancestors came from as Ancestry.com does.

The modern term for races is ethnicity if you want to get picky.

Jewish falls in this mix. You can call it a race or ethnicity.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> Before we get to the question of life elsewhere, we have to objectively take a step back and try to figure out how life originated here. As much as we believe we know about the universe, we still cannot answer that basic fundamental question of origin. How did life begin? There have been many theories over the ages but none have ever been proven. Abiogenesis remains a theory. It contradicts biogenesis (life comes from life).
> 
> In the 21st century we know lots of things. We have very smart scientists working on this question. We know what the building blocks are for life to exist but we cannot determine how it started. No one has ever combined inorganic materials to create life. State of the art labs and technology at our fingertips. The ability to simulate endless condition variables. Testing relentlessly, every possibility we can imagine.... nothing has been produced.
> 
> ...


There is a lot wrong with this post. Whether or not we understand the origin of life has nothing to do with whether or not non-terrestrial life exists. Again, creating life in the lab is difficult when we cannot smash a million years of randomness into a week.  

The DNA molecule was only structured in 1953, 64 years ago. This is now the world of advanced science and big labs require big bucks. Test tube science no longer occurs. There are not as many doing origin research as you might think. 

As far as your we don't see life elsewhere, we have not looked. Telescopes and space probes cannot see microbes, nor cities. We need soil samples from many locations on Mars & even then we have the problem of fossilization. Mars is not good for that. 

Part of the problem apparently is the life = aliens. Science believes life is almost everywhere. Human-level "advanced" life should be rare.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 23, 2017)

indiajo said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > I can think about it, but I'm not overly impressed with large numbers.
> ...


In addition, what do they expect for evidence of alien visitation of earth in the past? Pyramids? Metal does not last long. I would expect evidence to go poof and that aliens only did come to visit for only a short time.

Our civilization goes back to what about 2-3000 BC with the invention of writing. That is only 5000 years of history and even then it was a tiny percentage of the planet with civilization. 

Like the backpacker's law ~ Take only pictures and leave only footprints.

Yes, we left a mess every time we visited the moon, but we were rookies. I don't expect interstellar voyagers to be so rookish. They might even have a Star Trek Prime Directive.


----------



## Boss (Aug 23, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Before we get to the question of life elsewhere, we have to objectively take a step back and try to figure out how life originated here. As much as we believe we know about the universe, we still cannot answer that basic fundamental question of origin. How did life begin? There have been many theories over the ages but none have ever been proven. Abiogenesis remains a theory. It contradicts biogenesis (life comes from life).
> ...



I think discovery of origin is very fundamental in helping answer the question of whether life exists elsewhere. We know the elements of life exist elsewhere but that doesn't mean life exists. 

If we can't recreate origin in a controlled lab environment, how are we to assume it happened randomly by chance? That makes no rational sense whatsoever. 

DNA existed before we discovered it. I know that detail might blow your mind but even back when Aristotle was trying to figure shit out, DNA existed. It also might interest you to know that many of Darwin's speculations about origin have been proven invalid by the discovery of DNA. Not ALL, but many. 

DNA is very intriguing because it's essentially high-end computer processing code. It's remarkable we find it naturally occurring in every living thing. Think of how much computer space it would require to document every single detail about each of the trillions of cells in your body. That information is contained in every strand of DNA. The question remains, from where did this originate? 

Uhm... yes, we have looked for life elsewhere. It's basically all we do in exploration of space. Science doesn't "BELIEVE" things... that's not Science! That is called FAITH! Science examines probability of possibility through observation and falsification.


----------



## RWS (Aug 24, 2017)

Very nice discussion folks.

I understand the incredibly small chances of a universe existing, where all the forces work in the way they do, to allow a universe like ours.

But it is a certainty that it will happen. And will happen more than once.

How universes are created is probably due to an energy field that we cannot detect yet. And just as particles are created out of this field, and pop in and out of existence constantly, so can universes pop in and out constantly.

Now the term "universe" is widely used, but it just means a sustainable system. How long it is sustainable to qualify for the term "universe" is up for grabs. Our universe is actually not sustainable, and expanding rapidly and will eventually fade away. Since the math required to keep us stable, says that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and our atoms and sub-particles will eventually separate, we're doomed. Our universe is not a sustainable system. It's just going to last a certain amount of time before it fades away. Some universes can last micro-seconds, some can last longer than ours. But our universe certainly doesn't have the correct ratios to sustain ourselves for eternity. Only for a length of time.

So our universe is not perfect. It's perfect enough to last for the amount of time it will last. But that time will end. So it cannot have been perfectly and intelligently created, since we wouldn't have an end-date if it was intelligently and perfectly created. The math for the perfectly sustainable universe does not apply to our universe.

Plus, the idea of an intelligent creator then brings up the obvious questions of where that creator came from.

This universe is the consequence of chance. There are probably almost-infinitely more that have lasted longer or shorter.

Where this grand "energy field" exists, and how it came about, is the closest thing I can think of to "god".

But that "god" is certainly not affecting our human day-to-day lives and decisions. That's stuff we created in our minds to try to explain stuff before modern science could.

There is a lot we need to learn yet. And we have to give ourselves enough time to learn it. Following fatalistic religions and philosophies is not helping in that regard. We need to chill out and learn more, and work together.

And aliens visiting us wouldn't hurt to increase our knowledge million-folds.


----------



## K9Buck (Aug 24, 2017)

RWS said:


> Very nice discussion folks.
> 
> I understand the incredibly finite chances of a universe existing, where all the forces work in the way they do, to allow a universe like ours.
> 
> ...



Something or someone had to get it all started.  Or perhaps you believe stuff comes from nothing.


----------



## Hyddan92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Boss said:


> Hyddan92 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, the universe might not be endless, but as far as we know it has no border, we cannot see the end, we can not notice it, so for us it might as well be endless. In the same manner as ancient men looked over the ocean and thought of it as endless we look out into Space. Now we know that the oceans were not endless, but the people back then didn't know that, they couldn't know that just as we now can't know that the Universe is not endless. And until we find out, for all intents and purposes of anything we can understand it is endless and everything in it is infinite. We simply can't consider anything else. Without information we are simply guessing.
> ...




*Really? Based on what exactly? Let me help you... it's called FAITH.
*
No it's not it's called "I found evidence of a second cake so now I know there's at least two in existence*.
*
The analogy of cakes is kinda stupid, however let's go with it a bit more. I believe that the one cake in the house is created by a creator, obviously, I have never seen a cake suddenly just being. The reason for this is ofc that I know how to make cakes, I have made them myself, I'm a creator, a mystical mighty force beyond the simple understanding of the mind of a mere cake. I also know that no one force in the world makes all of the cakes, it's kind of a popular thing cakes you see so I pretty much know that there are not just a single one in our existence.

However I have never seen gods float around making Planets, nor eating them, nor inviting other gods over for a birthday party serving lots of delicious planets to each other. Yet if we follow your analogy I'm a god that just found a planet I have not made, I guess if I were a god and are used to making planets myself I wouldn't be that surprised over the existence of just another planet.

However I wouldn't be the person watching the cake, not the god watching a planet. I would be some kind of microbe somewhere on the cake not being able to understand anything, I wouldn't know about the gods and creation, I would'nt be able to understand the mere concept of a cake nor a human so your little analogy makes absolutely no sense.

So even if there are gods out there creating planets for fun as you seem to believe I'ts completely unprovable to us, so I think I can discard the silly idea without much remorse.


*"It has always fascinated me about science, that every time science believes it is about to uncover the hidden secrets to origin, it inevitably uncovers more evidence of a Creator. It has happened over and over again, much to the chagrin of atheist scientists."*

Really? Like what? When has hard evidence of a creator ever been uncovered?


----------



## Hyddan92 (Aug 24, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Very nice discussion folks.
> ...




Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?


----------



## Hyddan92 (Aug 24, 2017)

Boss said:


> Hyddan92 said:
> 
> 
> > As for your analogy with the cake I'm sure if I would search more houses eventually I would find another cake, not the same, not identical but definitely a cake, and I would not need to understand how the first one was created to know that there were at least two in existence. But the same logic stands, I can't know if there is another cake anywhere, until I have found it. As for your talk of a creator; it's not simply that the planets spontaneously came into existence, there are forces in Space, Gravity, all matter has mass and attracts other mass to it, this causes matter to bind together, pressure to build up, temperature to shift. During the right circumstances, that cake could simply put itself together.
> ...



Ah yeah, the cake is life, the table is a planet. I did missunderstaad that.  Well we know that atoms binds together into molecules that binds together into larger macro-molecules which creates stuff like acids, protein DNA etc. which eventually builds up into Cells. Simplified greatly ofc. So the question here is how and why?

We know how, but we can't replicate it yet, so I guess we don't know exaclty how, we know in theory not in practice

Why? Well idk, nobody knows. I don't think that's really somewthing that can be answered.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 24, 2017)

RWS said:


> So our universe is not perfect. It's perfect enough to last for the amount of time it will last. But that time will end.



time will never end for the matter and energy that makeup the universe even through (the) cycles the basic components remain the same. 

perfection is in the eye of the beholder, Sabbath is another word for perfection, deemed a perfect completion on the seventh day when life first began on Earth ... that mechanism for life requires two components the physiology and its narrative or Spirit the latter of which the same as the basic components may last forever for whomever may capture its presence and exist without the physiological component. would then be a god.


----------



## K9Buck (Aug 24, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> time will never end for the matter and energy that makeup the universe even through (the) cycles the basic components remain the same.



The universe and all the matter and energy in it WILL come to an end if and when the creator deletes the program, entiendes?


----------



## K9Buck (Aug 24, 2017)

Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?[/QUOTE]

That's not how our universe works.  Now, if you believe in magic, then I guess it does.  In my experience, creations have a creator, whether it be a sand castle at the beach, the Statue of Liberty or the universe.  I believe in science, not mythology.


----------



## Boss (Aug 24, 2017)

Hyddan92 said:


> *Really? Based on what exactly? Let me help you... it's called FAITH.
> *
> No it's not it's called "I found evidence of a second cake so now I know there's at least two in existence*.*



Really? You've found evidence of life elsewhere? This is news to me. 

No... You've found ingredients to make another cake and you have faith that this means another cake exists somewhere. 



Hyddan92 said:


> So even if there are gods out there creating planets for fun as you seem to believe I'ts completely unprovable to us, so I think I can discard the silly idea without much remorse.



Well, I don't believe Gods are creating planets for fun. That is you, mocking a belief in a spiritual Creator. But you are correct, it's not provable... it's also not disprovable. Going back to the cake analogy, finding another cake neither proves or disproves a creator. And yes, you can indeed discard the idea as silly... or you can have faith.

From a philosophical standpoint, based on knowledge we  have, things which happen have a cause. Nothing ever happens without some cause. Ergo; the universe happened, therefore, there must be a cause. 



Hyddan92 said:


> *"It has always fascinated me about science, that every time science believes it is about to uncover the hidden secrets to origin, it inevitably uncovers more evidence of a Creator. It has happened over and over again, much to the chagrin of atheist scientists."*
> 
> Really? Like what? When has hard evidence of a creator ever been uncovered?



I never said hard evidence of a Creator has been uncovered. 

Okay, so the first thing that comes to mind as an example is DNA. When Darwin was postulating his theories on origin, a cell was understood to be no more complex than a ping pong ball. Darwin theorized, perhaps living things have evolved from one common ancestor through a series of natural selection over millions of years. But DNA disproves this. Each living thing has it's own unique DNA and genome. While there is still evidence to support microevolution, it's virtually impossible everything evolved from common DNA. 

DNA requires a combination of specific amino acids and proteins which are uniquely suited to the DNA. It sort of becomes a "chicken or egg" dilemma. We're nowhere near figuring it out but the discovery of DNA turned everything we previously thought on it's ear. 

Other examples: Higgs Boson, the God Particle, completion of the Standard Model... we assumed once we discovered this it would finally solve the mystery of origin but it only opened a whole new series of unanswered questions. Quantum Mechanics... what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." Time and time again, we venture to pull back the curtain of discovery, only to find more mystery and unanswered questions to ponder. 

We actually discovered Dark Matter by accident. Physicists much smarter than us were crunching the numbers and working their formulas to try and determine the total mass of the universe. But the math didn't add up. There is not enough matter to account for the size and gravity of the universe. In fact, physical matter as we know it, only accounts for about 4% of the universe... that's pretty amazing. The other 96% is comprised of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, of which we cannot interact and don't really understand. Think about that... 96% of your universe is made of stuff you can't see, measure. evaluate, test or interact with. If I didn't know better, I'd say that's almost "spiritual."


----------



## K9Buck (Aug 24, 2017)

Finding life on another planet would be akin to Christopher Columbus discovering life in the "new world".  If there is life elsewhere in the universe then, it is all a part of the creator's plan.


----------



## Boss (Aug 24, 2017)

Hyddan92 said:


> Ah yeah, the cake is life, the table is a planet. I did missunderstaad that. Well we know that atoms binds together into molecules that binds together into larger macro-molecules which creates stuff like acids, protein DNA etc. which eventually builds up into Cells. Simplified greatly ofc. So the question here is how and why?
> 
> We know how, but we can't replicate it yet, so I guess we don't know exaclty how, we know in theory not in practice
> 
> Why? Well idk, nobody knows. I don't think that's really somewthing that can be answered.


*so I guess we don't know exaclty how, we know in theory not in practice*

BINGO! 

We don't know. We can know how things work and often we do. That doesn't answer WHY. 

And this is where faith comes into play. We can place our faith in many things but it doesn't make our faith any more or less than what it is.


----------



## Boss (Aug 24, 2017)

Hyddan92 said:


> Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?



Because it defies physics.


----------



## RWS (Aug 26, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > So our universe is not perfect. It's perfect enough to last for the amount of time it will last. But that time will end.
> ...


I'm just sayin that the idea that our universe has the perfect ratios that boss mentions, to have the particle interactions that we observe, is not perfect. Our universe is expanding faster and faster constantly. What that eventually means, is that molecules will separate into atoms, and atoms will separate to sub-atomic particles, and so on. We'll eventually go back to the cosmic "soup" or energy that created this universe, and start over. It happens constantly.

We do not have the "magic formula" in this universe. Random chance will create a perfectly sustainable universe. But ours, is not one...


----------



## K9Buck (Aug 26, 2017)

RWS said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Do we exist?


----------



## Boss (Aug 26, 2017)

RWS said:


> What that eventually means, is that molecules will separate into atoms, and atoms will separate to sub-atomic particles, and so on. We'll eventually go back to the cosmic "soup" or energy that created this universe, and start over. It happens constantly.



I don't think you can support this with actual science. The atoms of molecules are not growing apart. Subatomic particles in atoms are not growing apart. The universe is rapidly expanding and the expansion is accelerating. It's certainly not "going back" to anything. Now, we've known the universe is expanding for about 100 years or so. It wasn't until the mid '60s that we began to discover the acceleration. This is very problematic for the cyclical universe theory. 

What we expected physics to show is that the universe is expanding (from the Big Bang) but that friction produces a slowing rate. Eventually, the expansion would reach equilibrium and gravitational forces would result in contraction. According to laws of motion we should've discovered an expanding but slowing universe... we didn't. So this whole entire idea that our universe is cyclical and everlasting has now become obsolete. 



RWS said:


> I'm just sayin that the idea that our universe has the perfect ratios that boss mentions, to have the particle interactions that we observe, is not perfect.



Our universe has several immutable dimensionless physical constants. Where did those come from? The only viable explanation I've ever heard is Multiverse theory. That there are an endless number of universes and ours just happens to be the one with finely tuned physical constants to make matter and life possible. The only real problem with that theory is, it can never be validated because we can't observe other universes. What we're left with is faith in a theory that can never be proved or disproved.... exactly the same as belief in a Creator.


----------



## Boss (Aug 26, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Do we exist?



"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." 
~Albert Einstein


----------



## tecoyah (Aug 26, 2017)

Human centric thinking has always limited progress and led to incorrect belief. In the case of "Life" outside our planet it is expanded beyond "Human" centric into carbon and DNA. Who's to say there aren't Silicon squid swimming in the Methane lakes of Titan or Hydrogen blimp bladder thingys floating in the clouds of Jupiter. Hell, just extremophiles or deep sea vent worms on Earth should be enough to make people think twice.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 26, 2017)

Boss said:


> Hyddan92 said:
> 
> 
> > *Really? Based on what exactly? Let me help you... it's called FAITH.
> ...


DNA disproves evolution?

OK, that's gotta be the joke of the day. 

The discovery of DNA did not upset the apple cart, it proved the apple cart.


----------



## Boss (Aug 26, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> DNA disproves evolution?
> 
> OK, that's gotta be the joke of the day.
> 
> The discovery of DNA did not upset the apple cart, it proved the apple cart.



I didn't say DNA disproves evolution. 

DNA does give support to micro-evolution. 

DNA essentially disproves macro-evolution. 

Everything didn't come from common DNA. It's impossible.

Some will inevitably still argue that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a bigger scale but this is not true according to what we now know because of DNA. Every DNA has it's own shopping list of specific amino acids and proteins. Other combinations will simply not work. So to argue that this genus could've 'evolved' into that genus, is just not supportable.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 26, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > DNA disproves evolution?
> ...


What ARE you saying?

For evolution to be true, all life must have an information molecule that is different from DNA?

That is crazy


----------



## Boss (Aug 26, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> What ARE you saying?
> 
> For evolution to be true, all life must have an information molecule that is different from DNA?
> 
> That is crazy




Okay, it's more complicated than simply saying "evolution is true" or "evolution is not true." 

I have said that MICRO-evolution (evoultion within a genus taxon) is true. We have substantial evidence for this and DNA even lends support to this theory. It's how we have black bears, polar bears and grizzly bears. 

What is not supported with any finding is MACRO-evolution. That is the concept that every living thing has evolved from a universal common ancestor. IF this were true, DNA would be virtually the same in all living things. All living things have DNA but the DNA is unique. Each DNA has a specific combination of amino acids and proteins and these are not interchangeable. The DNA for humans has a completely different type of amino acids and proteins than the DNA of a chimpanzee, even though the structure of our DNA is remarkably similar. 

To compound the problem, the amino acids and proteins seem to be unique to the DNA itself. It is as if the DNA is required to produce these amino acids and proteins which enable the DNA to exist. So how does the DNA exist to produce amino acids and proteins essential for the DNA to exist? We don't have an explanation.


----------



## RWS (Aug 27, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > What that eventually means, is that molecules will separate into atoms, and atoms will separate to sub-atomic particles, and so on. We'll eventually go back to the cosmic "soup" or energy that created this universe, and start over. It happens constantly.
> ...



I agree, and I can support that with actual science. The way the universe is going due to constantly rapid expansion, eventually means that everything dissipates until the point that our sub-atomic particles become energy again. And we go back to the original energy field. Expansion in space is also acting on expansion in particles.

The laws of physics that govern this universe, cannot sustain an eternal universe. The ratio is wrong. Our universe will continue to expand and revert back to energy. Therefore, our universe is not perfect, but just one that has lasted long enough to create intelligent life. They all will, given they survive long enough. Our universe will end, due to the math being incorrect for us. But that doesn't mean there are other universes that can last longer, and maybe forever, that have the better ratios.

So we are not a "perfect" universe. We're just one that will last a few trillion years.


----------



## RWS (Aug 27, 2017)

A few trillion years is a hiccup to "god". He didn't create a perfect universe with us. And maybe that's why he no longer cares about us, and is busy on some other universe...


----------



## Boss (Aug 27, 2017)

RWS said:


> I agree, and I can support that with actual science. The way the universe is going due to constantly rapid expansion, eventually means that everything dissipates until the point that our sub-atomic particles become energy again. And we go back to the original energy field. Expansion in space is also acting on expansion in particles.
> 
> The laws of physics that govern this universe, cannot sustain an eternal universe. The ratio is wrong. Our universe will continue to expand and revert back to energy. Therefore, our universe is not perfect, but just one that has lasted long enough to create intelligent life. They all will, given they survive long enough. Our universe will end, due to the math being incorrect for us. But that doesn't mean there are other universes that can last longer, and maybe forever, that have the better ratios.
> 
> So we are not a "perfect" universe. We're just one that will last a few trillion years.



I don't understand this "perfect universe" thing you keep mentioning. Is anything other than God perfect? I mean, we can find faults in everything, including the universe.  This doesn't change the fact that our universe has a set of constants and ratios which are curiously fine tuned for life and matter to exist. Will it last eternally? No... only God is eternal. 

You are making a point about subatomic particles becoming energy again. I've never heard this from any credible physicist. In fact, this contradicts physics because energy can't be created or destroyed. Many billions of years from now, our sun will die and collapse. A black hole will consume everything in our solar system. The universe will still be here, still expanding, still accelerating, Eventually, the universe will probably expand to the point there will be no way to support life anywhere. 

When the universe reaches this point, there is nothing to explain how it somehow regenerates itself. Maybe it will? Perhaps God IS the universe? What I have written about is the theory of a cyclical universe which expands and contracts back into a singularity. There is no longer any evidence to support that theory.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 27, 2017)

.
brandishing their blade again, must fell left out in the cold.


----------



## RWS (Aug 28, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, and I can support that with actual science. The way the universe is going due to constantly rapid expansion, eventually means that everything dissipates until the point that our sub-atomic particles become energy again. And we go back to the original energy field. Expansion in space is also acting on expansion in particles.
> ...



You have been mentioning many times about how the perfect ratio of forces in our universe allow our universe to exist, and is therefore a sign that "god" exists because of the precise nature of the ratios.

I have been trying to tell you that the ratio of forces in our universe is not perfect.

Our universe is expanding, which you agree with, and eventually that expansion is going to lead to the end of the universe.

So the ratio of forces is not perfect in this universe, as should be expected by a perfect "Creator" like you suggest.

And now you're changing your tune to save face because you realize I'm right. Go back and look at your posts, before this turns into another slapping battle.

You can't change your tune in the middle of a song.


----------



## RWS (Aug 28, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, and I can support that with actual science. The way the universe is going due to constantly rapid expansion, eventually means that everything dissipates until the point that our sub-atomic particles become energy again. And we go back to the original energy field. Expansion in space is also acting on expansion in particles.
> ...


You don't believe in God. As you have said. 



> I mean, we can find faults in everything, including the universe.  This doesn't change the fact that our universe has a set of constants and ratios which are curiously fine tuned for life and matter to exist. Will it last eternally? No... only God is eternal.



It is only tuned enough for our universe to last as long as it will. Other universes last longer and shorter. It is chance. Not a "God" that you don't believe in.



> You are making a point about subatomic particles becoming energy again. I've never heard this from any credible physicist. In fact, this contradicts physics because energy can't be created or destroyed. Many billions of years from now, our sun will die and collapse. A black hole will consume everything in our solar system. The universe will still be here, still expanding, still accelerating, Eventually, the universe will probably expand to the point there will be no way to support life anywhere.



When our sun dies it will NOT become a black hole. Where are you getting this from? Eventually the universe will expand to the point that atoms expand and break apart, and then subatomic particles expand to even smaller particles, up until the point that all particles revert back to their initial state of potential energy. Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Just converted. But matter is energy in concentrated form. And once expanded enough, the matter will not be destroyed, it will be reverted back to energy. Just like it's supposed to do. I don't understand your problem with this fundamental rule of physics all of a sudden. Unless you're so much on the God bandwagon now that you're forgetting basic laws of physics. 



> When the universe reaches this point, there is nothing to explain how it somehow regenerates itself. Maybe it will? Perhaps God IS the universe? What I have written about is the theory of a cyclical universe which expands and contracts back into a singularity. There is no longer any evidence to support that theory.



When our universe reaches the point where all matter has been converted back to energy through expansion, it is ready to be reused for the next universe. This happens constantly. 

Only a perfect ratio from a perfect Creator will allow for a universe to exist forever. And that's definitely not us... Maybe your God exists elsewhere, but he's not in charge of this place.


----------



## hobelim (Aug 28, 2017)

RWS said:


> Only a perfect ratio from a perfect Creator will allow for a universe to exist forever. And that's definitely not us... Maybe your God exists elsewhere, but he's not in charge of this place.




Elsewhere.... exactly.  Everything we know about the visible material universe amounts to about only 4% of everything that actually exists.  basing conclusions on that isn't very wise. Thats like concluding that there's no life in the ocean because you can't find any life in the puddle of water that you are sitting in.


Did you ever consider that the creation story has nothing whatever to do with the beginning of the universe or solar system or the first plants,  animals,  or human beings?


When God, an extraterrestrial intelligence,  said," let there be light",  it is only a reference to law being given as a light to the nations already in existence.

Adam being taken from the dust of the earth and becoming a "living being",  " like one of us", only a story of an unsuccessful attempt by superior intelligences to elevate a lower form of life.

When you find the door that leads to elsewhere hidden in the wall of the Temple, which is the Law, , the hidden door the angles pulled Lot through,   you will become like they are.

Only then will you have become a living creature capable of perceiving the living God, only then will you know what eternal life is...


----------



## Boss (Aug 28, 2017)

RWS said:


> You have been mentioning many times about how the perfect ratio of forces in our universe allow our universe to exist, and is therefore a sign that "god" exists because of the precise nature of the ratios.
> 
> I have been trying to tell you that the ratio of forces in our universe is not perfect.
> 
> ...



I did not use the word "perfect" anywhere in my commentary. That is all you baby. I also didn't say "ratio of forces" ...not sure what that means. I said there are several immutable dimensionless physical constants that must be fine tuned as they are for a universe to exist and life to exist in it. I do not know what a "perfect" universe would be since I am a mortal human without the capability to know what perfection in a universe actually is. 

I also didn't say "this is a sign god exists." I merely pointed out this is something physics hasn't explained and perhaps there is a spiritual explanation. Do you see a difference in what I say and what you are interpreting? Saying "this IS..." happens to be very different than suggesting a possibility of something. 

From my perspective, there are no "slapping battles" between you and I. While you flail at me like a little girl, I beat you down like a pimp on his crack ho. It embarasses you, so you respond by being rude and holding a grudge.


----------



## Boss (Aug 28, 2017)

RWS said:


> You don't believe in God. As you have said.



Again, not something I have ever said. This is something you've derived based on my criticism of organized religions. 



RWS said:


> It is only tuned enough for our universe to last as long as it will. *Other universes last longer and shorter. *It is chance. Not a "God" that you don't believe in.



REALLY? Where are these "other universes" I can observe and evaluate for myself? Or maybe you mean *imaginary *universes like the one you live in where you can arbitrarily decide what constitutes perfect universes? 



RWS said:


> When our sun dies it will NOT become a black hole. Where are you getting this from?



Physics. 



RWS said:


> Eventually the universe will expand to the point that atoms expand and break apart, and then subatomic particles expand to even smaller particles, up until the point that all particles revert back to their initial state of potential energy.



Preposterous and not supportable with science. 



RWS said:


> When our universe reaches the point where all matter has been converted back to energy through expansion, it is ready to be reused for the next universe. This happens constantly.



Wow... this is amazing since you are a human being who has only existed in THIS universe. Pardon my skepticism but until you can show me some other universes and/or the natural cycle you are claiming happens constantly, I can't accept this from you. It may be your THEORY this is what happens, but it's MY theory that God creates universes whenever God feels inclined.... see how that works? 



RWS said:


> Only a perfect ratio from a perfect Creator will allow for a universe to exist forever.



So do you have a special funny hat that you wear as we genuflect toward you, O Mighty Physics God?


----------



## RWS (Aug 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > You don't believe in God. As you have said.
> ...



Have you been hacked, Boss?

Just asking before I respond further, because you're saying ludicrous things that i wouldn't expect you to, based on my knowledge of you and your protection of future posts. Or are you just arguing the opposite again for giggles?

Just to start, about our sun turning into a black hole... 
HubbleSite - Reference Desk - FAQs
Will The Sun Become A Black Hole When It Dies?
And endless more...


----------



## Boss (Aug 29, 2017)

RWS said:


> Have you been hacked, Boss?
> 
> Just asking before I respond further, because you're saying ludicrous things that i wouldn't expect you to, based on my knowledge of you and your protection of future posts. Or are you just arguing the opposite again for giggles?
> 
> ...



Okay... so you want a cookie from me or something? Congrats... you found someone to argue our sun won't create a black hole because it's too small. Newsflash: IT DOESN'T MATTER! When our sun dies, we're fucked! Anyway, I am pretty sure our solar system will be consumed by a black hole eventually... probably the one in the center of our galaxy. But again... you and I will be long gone, so I won't be able to tell you that I told you so. 

Was that ALL you had to throw at me? That's incredibly weak, even for you.


----------



## RWS (Aug 29, 2017)

No, I'm just wondering why you would say something like that. I have a teeny bit of respect for you, so when you say things like that, I have to question if you've been hacked.

But if you haven't, obviously your physics are waaaaay off, somewhere in lala land. And you should not be arguing other physics stuff that I can easily prove.

You're the one that argued it as truth. For whatever reason. 

And yes, I would like a cookie.


----------



## Boss (Aug 29, 2017)

RWS said:


> No, I'm just wondering why you would say something like that. I have a teeny bit of respect for you, so when you say things like that, I have to question if you've been hacked.
> 
> But if you haven't, obviously your physics are waaaaay off, somewhere in lala land. And you should not be arguing other physics stuff that I can easily prove.
> 
> ...



Well go back and review what I actually SAID... 

_"Many billions of years from now, our sun will die and collapse. A black hole will consume everything in our solar system. "_

You will note there are TWO sentences here. I did not state that OUR sun will create a black hole. I realize that's how you interpreted it and that's probably my fault for not making myself clearer, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you're going to strut around acting like you've gotten one over on me, then let's go back to what I actually SAID and not what you THINK I said. 

Now, for the record, suns certainly DO collapse and turn into black holes. That's where black holes come from. So my physics are not way off in lala land at all. But even IF there is an error on my part regarding one trivial detail, that doesn't mean anything I say on physics is automatically wrong. What you are pulling is a very dishonest debate tactic and if this were a formal debate, you'd be disqualified on that basis alone. 

So... that said, let's get back to some of your lala land comments... like: 

*"Other universes last longer and shorter" 
*
Let's see your evidence for this? 

Or this...
*
"Eventually the universe will expand to the point that atoms expand and break apart, and then subatomic particles expand to even smaller particles, up until the point that all particles revert back to their initial state of potential energy."*

Given your propensity to interpret things that simply aren't said, I can't help but wonder if you've heard something that you've misunderstood. I know for a fact that we've not discovered other universes. So how can we possibly know if they last longer or shorter? Or if they even exist? I know for a fact that atoms aren't going to expand and break apart because when we split atoms apart, tremendous energy is released along with subatomic particles. I know that subatomic particles aren't going to expand to even smaller particles because subatomic particles are made of quarks and leptons. 

Because the universe is expanding, doesn't mean the matter in the universe is also expanding. I mean, this is easily debunked just by looking at planet Earth and the atoms that comprise it. Do you believe the Earth's atoms have been expanding for 4.5 billion years with the universe? This is just child-like nonsense.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > What ARE you saying?
> ...


This is just dumb. The DNA for humans and other apes is biochemically the same. The DNA sequences differ by only a few percent. There is no problem there, only in your mind. Humans ARE apes. 

Which came first, nucleic acids or proteins?

Ever heard of RNA, the primitive nucleic acid?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

tecoyah said:


> Human centric thinking has always limited progress and led to incorrect belief. In the case of "Life" outside our planet it is expanded beyond "Human" centric into carbon and DNA. Who's to say there aren't Silicon squid swimming in the Methane lakes of Titan or Hydrogen blimp bladder thingys floating in the clouds of Jupiter. Hell, just extremophiles or deep sea vent worms on Earth should be enough to make people think twice.


Silicon does not form chain molecules important for life. It is too brittle.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



This is a pretty weird hypothesis. LOL.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, and I can support that with actual science. The way the universe is going due to constantly rapid expansion, eventually means that everything dissipates until the point that our sub-atomic particles become energy again. And we go back to the original energy field. Expansion in space is also acting on expansion in particles.
> ...


Yes his hypothesis is weird.

More correctly, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed as a total. They can be converted to each other. Energy can create particle/antiparticle pair. 

Matter creation - Wikipedia

Fission, fusion, particle decay & matter/antimatter collisions create energy from matter.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > What ARE you saying?
> ...



Yes you are using the modern Intelligent Design argument with a bit of nonsense thrown in. Microevolution is true, but macroevolution is not to IDers. You all even invented the two terms. It was the modern faith argument when science had showed speciation to be a fact. The logic is same as the missing link which can always be argued to be true. If we find a missing link, you all declare we just created two new gaps, one on each side of the newly found missing link.

You really should not try using DNA as the difference, it just does not work for your argument. It works for ours!

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/papers/ASA2009Campbell.pdf

Your macroevolution mainly occurred in the past, especially the precambrian soup. Many Phyla experiments arose that later went extinct. That was in a constant opening of new environments. Once the planet got full, sea, river, air & land, your macroevolution becomes much harder. Life is finely tuned to its environment and natural selection works AGAINST such huge changes now.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

Let's say all or most life was wiped out in an area. While there would be selective pressure for new macroevolution, it would also be in competition of recolonization from existing species with the possibility of the existent colonizers evolving a bit. Speciation might not even occur, just the population genetics of the species would. We call this genetic flow.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > You have been mentioning many times about how the perfect ratio of forces in our universe allow our universe to exist, and is therefore a sign that "god" exists because of the precise nature of the ratios.
> ...


You mean you think physical constants are special. I don't. Different constants would produce a possible different universe and if they produced one w/o us, we wouldn't care cuz we would not be here to wonder about it. 

I believe life and us are a direct result of the chemistry of the periodic table.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > You don't believe in God. As you have said.
> ...


Our G2 population I sun is tiny & pitiful, but perfect for life! Not big enough to produce a black hole; that is for massive stars following supernova stage. Our sun will end with a whimper, not even a red giant stage, more like a red dwarf. Then the planetary nebula stage. Then a tiny white dwarf until it burns out.

The Once & Future Sun


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 29, 2017)

Perfect is a human concept with no external reference or meaning. The universe could as easily be called perfect as it is. There is no proof it could be any other way, there being the implicit impossibility of objective (external) observation.
Even a non-atheist might be glad to see extraterrestrials arrive with proof all major religions are wrong.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 29, 2017)

there4eyeM said:


> Perfect is a human concept with no external reference or meaning. The universe could as easily be called perfect as it is. There is no proof it could be any other way, there being the implicit impossibility of objective (external) observation.
> Even a non-atheist might be glad to see extraterrestrials arrive with proof all major religions are wrong.


True!

I have a huge problem with a "perfect" God. We are surrounded by examples of his failures.

Of course believers use the same excuse as game developers. That is not a bug, it is a FEATURE!

LOL


----------



## Boss (Aug 29, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Humans are NOT apes. If we were, we could breed with apes. The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about. I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that! 

I read the article you posted because I am always genuinely interested in the topic but what I am seeing is not anything conclusive. It's simply more theory. You cannot present theories as facts.


----------



## Boss (Aug 29, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



No one invented terms. Micro and macro had definitions long before ID theory. Your assertions about macroevolution are more theories that you can't support with factual evidence or through observable testing and evaluation, and that's how science works. If it were possible for one genus to spawn a completely new and different genus, you'd be able to make that happen and you can't. 

You are as guilty as RWS in your post of speaking in conclusive absolutes, as if your assorted theories and ideas have been conclusively proven to be true. It's a smugness I often encounter when arguing with people who think science is "on their side".  I don't think science picks sides.


----------



## Boss (Aug 29, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



A different constant for the force of gravity would result in no material universe. Differences in other constants would result in no carbon. A universe without carbon cannot support life. Even the periodic table relies on immutable dimensionless physical constants which are finely tuned.

Your disbelief in the constants being 'special' is akin to finding a radio set on a deserted island and surmising that it's nothing special, if it weren't there. we wouldn't be worried about where it came from. The fact is, the constants are there and we exist because they are there. And you have no physics explanation for why they are as they are.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 30, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Uh, yes we most certainly are apes.

*Family* *Hominidae ~ The Great Apes*

The *Hominidae* (/hɒˈmɪnɪdiː/), whose members are known as *great apes*[note 1] or *hominids*, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: _Pongo_, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; _Gorilla_, the eastern and western gorilla; _Pan_, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and _Homo_, which includes modern Humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as _Homo erectus_.[1]

Hominidae - Wikipedia



> If we were, we could breed with apes.



We are a different species. We breed with other apes, human apes. Now if you had said gorilla, chimp, orang, you would be correct. We are not them. Apes is a general category.

I realize that you resent being a member of the ape family. It is why I use one as my avatar.

This is my baby pic, my windows avatar








> The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about.



You are confused. The biochemistry is exactly the same. The genetics are different. We are talking modern apes/humans, not primitive life with RNA.



> I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that!



LOL, why does that give you pause? There is a LOT of DNA that just gives rise to the basic biochemistry of the cell & multicellularity. This common DNA is further proof that all life is related.



> I read the article you posted because I am always genuinely interested in the topic but what I am seeing is not anything conclusive. It's simply more theory. You cannot present theories as facts.



DNA was an improvement on RNA due to the double helix providing self repair of mutations. RNA has no way to fix itself since it is a single primitive strand. If one strand of DNA has an substitution error, the other strand is used as a template to fix the error.

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-DNA-chosen-to-be-the-genetic-material-instead-of-RNA

RNA world - Wikipedia


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 30, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.

I think you are actually referring to Einsteins cosmological constant from general relativity,  shape of the universe & whether or not the universe is open or closed (expansion rate).

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia


----------



## Hyddan92 (Aug 30, 2017)

Boss said:


> Hyddan92 said:
> 
> 
> > Why couldn't stuff come from nothing?
> ...



How?


----------



## tecoyah (Aug 30, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> tecoyah said:
> 
> 
> > Human centric thinking has always limited progress and led to incorrect belief. In the case of "Life" outside our planet it is expanded beyond "Human" centric into carbon and DNA. Who's to say there aren't Silicon squid swimming in the Methane lakes of Titan or Hydrogen blimp bladder thingys floating in the clouds of Jupiter. Hell, just extremophiles or deep sea vent worms on Earth should be enough to make people think twice.
> ...


As far as you know...perhaps.


----------



## Boss (Aug 30, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Yes, I understand we are part of the same family. We're not part of the same genera. Until you can show me clear indisputable evidence that one genera ever became another genera, I can't accept that is a valid assumption. You can certainly have faith that is true... you just can't pass that off as a fact, which you're attempting to do here.


----------



## Boss (Aug 30, 2017)

Hyddan92 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hyddan92 said:
> ...



Because physics doesn't support things coming from nothing.


----------



## Boss (Aug 30, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.
> 
> I think you are actually referring to Einsteins cosmological constant from general relativity, shape of the universe & whether or not the universe is open or closed (expansion rate).
> 
> ...



You don't know if there would still be gravity if the gravitational force were different. You assume there would be but you can't know. Physicists are still arguing this but most conclude if the gravitational constant weren't as it is, there would be no planets orbiting suns. 

Carbon is a necessary component of all life that we know. 

12C, a stable isotope of carbon, is abundantly produced in stars due to three factors:

The decay lifetime of a 8Be nucleus is four orders of magnitude larger than the time for two 4He nuclei (alpha particles) to scatter.
An excited state of the 12C nucleus exists just above the energy level 8Be + 4He. This is necessary because the ground state of 12C is 7.3367 MeV below the energy of 8Be + 4He. Therefore, a 8Be nucleus and a 4He nucleus cannot reasonably fuse directly into a ground-state 12C nucleus. The excited Hoyle state of 12C is 7.656 MeV above the ground state of 12C. This allows 8Be and 4He to use the kinetic energy of their collision to fuse into the excited 12C, which can then transition to its stable ground state. According to one calculation, the energy level of this excited state must be between about 7.3 and 7.9 MeV to produce sufficient carbon for life to exist, and must be further "fine-tuned" to between 7.596 MeV and 7.716 MeV in order to produce the abundant level of 12C observed in nature.
In the reaction 12C + 4He → 16O there is an excited state of oxygen which, if it were slightly higher, would provide a resonance and speed up the reaction. In that case insufficient carbon would exist in nature; it would almost all have converted to oxygen.
This is just one of many examples of dimensionless physical constants and how they MUST be fine tuned for our universe and life to exist.


----------



## RWS (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.
> ...


And who fine-tuned that?


----------



## RWS (Aug 31, 2017)

The universe is facing 4 different outcomes:

Contraction. This seems to be ruled out by the ever-increasing expansion of the universe.

Expansion. There are three possibilies for this as we can imagine thus far before "alien intervention" :
    a. The Big Chill
    b. The Big Freeze
    c. The Big Rip

A and B are not likely unless the ever-increasing expansion decides to stop at some point. Why would it suddenly stop when it is increasing exponentially?

That leaves us with The Big Rip. Which is what I have been trying to explain, and that expansion continues forever, based on the ratio of constants in this universe.

In that scenario, expansion continues to increase to the point where it starts ripping apart the space inside our atoms. And then the space between our sub-atomic particles that make up our atoms. And then rips apart our sub-atomic particles into ever-smaller quantum particles.

Those quantum particles, as they reach absolute zero will convert to the energy that created them. Thus, this universe will eventually have 0% matter, and 100% energy, and be ready for the next iteration of the "Big Bang" or whatever it was that started the whole thing.

Now, if God exists, he wouldn't have made the constant of expansion as high as he did. Unless his intention was for us to all fail. No, it seems more likely that our universe is existing for the amount of time that it has, due to pure chance. We are not the best universe there can be.

We are just living out our lives in the universe that we were born into, and trying to make sense of it.

Some prefer a scientic approach and lots of questions and discovery, and some prefer "gods" and "religions" as a quick and easy solution.

Doesn't really matter in the end...

We won't be around to get a cookie.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

RWS said:


> And who fine-tuned that?



I don't need to define the fine tuner. That's a logical fallacy. 

The fact is, the universe IS fined tuned. And it's not just that another tuning would produce a weirder universe, it would have resulted in no universe at all or one devoid of matter, or one devoid of basic fundamental elements. The focus of science is not on defining WHO fined tuned the universe but rather, WHY it is fine tuned. The answer cannot be just because it HAS to be. It certainly does NOT have to be. You can give up on science and believe that but it's circular reasoning. 

It would be like discovering a road that leads to the ocean and determining the road leads to the ocean because it has to. That's not WHY the road leads to the ocean.


----------



## RWS (Aug 31, 2017)




----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

RWS said:


> That leaves us with The Big Rip. Which is what I have been trying to explain, and that expansion continues forever, based on the ratio of constants in this universe.
> 
> In that scenario, expansion continues to increase to the point where it starts ripping apart the space inside our atoms. And then the space between our sub-atomic particles that make up our atoms. And then rips apart our sub-atomic particles into ever-smaller quantum particles.
> 
> Those quantum particles, as they reach absolute zero will convert to the energy that created them. Thus, this universe will eventually have 0% matter, and 100% energy, and be ready for the next iteration of the "Big Bang" or whatever it was that started the whole thing.



This is just absolutely not supported by any physics, quantum or otherwise. It is a hypothesis based on theories surrounding dark matter and dark energy, of which we know virtually nothing. That's fine but it's really no different than spiritual faith. I could just as easily argue that God is Dark Energy.... where does that leave your theory?


----------



## Hyddan92 (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> Hyddan92 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But some kind of being creating stuff from nothing is supported by physics?


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

Hyddan92 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hyddan92 said:
> ...


Not a physical being.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

tecoyah said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > tecoyah said:
> ...


Oh we have tried!

_Although silicon can form chains, these are not stable like hydrocarbon chains; neither does silicon share carbon’s ability to easily make and unmake bonds with oxygen. When energy is released from a carbon compound during respiration it is ‘oxidised’, and the waste product is carbon dioxide – an easily excretable gas. When silicon compounds go through the same process, solid silica is produced as a by-product – less easy to remove, although the brick-excreting sci-fi aliens seem to have the answer._

Big Picture

Chains are required for life. Long chains = proteins and nucleic acids, the informational structures with life.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > You are going waaay afield here. There would still be gravity with a different G. A difference in constants would change the properties of carbon so that there would not be any periodic table or element with 6 protons? Wow! I am talking about changes, not the obliteration of constants and physics itself.
> ...


I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but it isn't what you argued.

The constants are part of physics.

Triple-alpha process - Wikipedia ~ formation of carbon in stellar cores

What I do appreciate is your basic posting philosophy is against creation by a God. The universe and its mechanisms are just to complicated for a magical shazaam moment from the alien God.

The funniest thing is that believers expect us to prove everything immediately when advanced science is barely a few hunderd years old, while the believers claim they need to prove nothing.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

RWS said:


> The universe is facing 4 different outcomes:
> 
> Contraction. This seems to be ruled out by the ever-increasing expansion of the universe.
> 
> ...


The big rip is really out there as far as hypotheses go. More like a very bad acid trip. 

Big Rip - Wikipedia

Phantom energy - Wikipedia

Some mathematicians have waaay too much time on their hands.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > And who fine-tuned that?
> ...


Hogwash


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



*I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but it isn't what you argued.*

Not trying to "prove" anything really. Has anyone ever proven anything on a message board? My "argument" has simply been, that we have a finely-tuned universe and that's possibly more than mere coincidence. 

*The constants are part of physics.*

Well of course they are, what did you think we were talking about--Theological pancakes with the image of Jesus? Many would say the constants are what makes physics work. I mean, can you imagine how hard it would be to calculate things if the gravitational constant were an ever-changing variable? 

Yes, I understand the Triple-alpha process, I just posted about it. You indicated you thought I was referring to Einstein's cosmological constant and I was illustrating one of many physical dimensionless constants. 

*What I do appreciate is your basic posting philosophy is against creation by a God. The universe and its mechanisms are just to complicated for a magical shazaam moment from the alien God.*

Let me be clear. I don't believe a physical argument for God is worthwhile. Although, I do believe there is a philosophical argument for both God and a physical universe. MY God is Spiritual Energy. While this is not something physics is adequate to evaluate, it certainly can be debated philosophically. I believe there is a reason human beings have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. It's not an accident or some vestigial behavior and it shouldn't be easily dismissed as such. 

I've always believed the best argument for Spiritual Energy is the paradox that physical nature cannot have created itself. As for some mythical incarnation of a deity with a white beard and robe, with a Charlton Heston voice, sitting on a cloud and casting judgment and condemnation down on mankind... I don't believe in that.  However, I do believe there is an ever-present mercurial force flowing through our physical universe that we cannot observe directly or evaluate with physics. I believe it's possible that force explains the finely-tuned universe as well as life. And yes... that is a philosophical argument.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 31, 2017)

RWS said:


> Expansion. There are three possibilies for this as we can imagine thus far before "alien intervention" :
> a. The Big Chill
> b. The Big Freeze
> c. The Big Rip




RWS, there is a 4th result of expansion - the Boomerang Theory

matter is expelled from Singularities sphere, its center outward / at a finite angle (trajectory) all matter will then return in unison to that origin, point of Singularity without ever changing direction following the trajectories curvature. to recompact creating a new Singularity and new cyclical expulsion.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> WS, there is a 4th result of expansion - the Boomerang Theory
> 
> matter is expelled from Singularities sphere, its center outward / at a finite angle (trajectory) all matter will then return in unison to that origin, point of Singularity without ever changing direction following the trajectories curvature. to recompact creating a new Singularity and new cyclical expulsion.



And this defies Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.


----------



## dblack (Aug 31, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



What if the aliens show up and simply say "There's a god - ours! Yours is just delusion."


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


A God by a different name, conveniently immune to science, but can create science. A non-physical who can create physical & never has to answer where "it" came from.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > WS, there is a 4th result of expansion - the Boomerang Theory
> ...


.


> And this defies Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.




that is patently false - matter is expanding in a vacuum without interaction to distort their momentum - clear sailing from beginning to end. a circuitous cycle.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

dblack said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...


I think they would be ok with that and could even quote you gospel chapter & verse (they did just this in the past, when caught). They would just say the aliens were wrong.

The problem would occur when the aliens were shown to be older than us, ie they were created first.

This must not stand!


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> A God by a different name, conveniently immune to science, but can create science. A non-physical who can create physical & never has to answer where "it" came from.



Is Dark Matter "conveniently" immune to science? I think not. 

Again, you are faced with a philosophical paradox, if not, a scientific one. Physical nature cannot create itself. 

As for "where it came from" ...this is meaningless to something spiritual. The spiritual exists outside of time and space, it doesn't "come from" anywhere. It is not a physical thing that requires creation. I realize this is a difficult concept for an Atheist to grasp because they don't believe in spiritual existence. 

Look, you can believe one of two things: Physical nature created itself from nothing or Spiritual nature which doesn't require creation, created physical nature. I believe the later is more probable than the former. Can I prove it? NO... Can you disprove it? NO. Therefore, it is forever, philosophy.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



It's not patently false, it's patently true. Singularity has always been a problem for physicists to explain. The theories of a cyclical universe are about 70 years out of date. In terms of science which encompasses thousands of years, that's not much time, so you still have some who will argue these outdated theories.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > WS, there is a 4th result of expansion - the Boomerang Theory
> ...



*Phantom energy[edit]*
Main article: Phantom energy
Current observations allow the possibility of a cosmological model containing a dark energy component with equation of state _w_ < −1. This phantom energy density would become infinite in finite time, causing such a huge gravitational repulsion that the universe would lose all structure and end in a Big Rip.[20] For example, for _w_ = −3/2 and _H_0 = 70 km·s−1·Mpc−1, the time remaining before the universe ends in this "Big Rip" is 22 billion years.[21]

Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

The existence of phantom energy could cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate so quickly that a scenario known as the Big Rip, a possible end to the universe.

Phantom energy - Wikipedia

Their behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy–time uncertainty principle

Vacuum energy - Wikipedia

This link sez no it doesn't 

Essays on the Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics and Cosmology


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > A God by a different name, conveniently immune to science, but can create science. A non-physical who can create physical & never has to answer where "it" came from.
> ...


_Physical nature cannot create itself. _

So you continue to claim. You also claim that non-physical CAN create itself & then create the physical too.  Sorry, but that is not a solution.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Spiritual nature

I have several problems with this.

1) The singularity of it. Only one Spirit? You still need to explain the origin of this spiritual nature & also why only one.

2) The ability of spirit to interact with the physical, let alone create the physical. This is a HUGE one for me. I would think spirit must remain spirit and cannot pick up a glass of water.

3) The claim that this spirit created our universe must allow for other universes to also be created. Thus, my issue disappears. I can claim there were two universes created, one matter, the other antimatter & we no longer need the big bang singularity from nothing.

4) To allow such a spiritual nature, you also have to allow ghosts, goblins, magic, witches, demons, reincarnation and a host of other things.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> I think they would be ok with that and could even quote you gospel chapter & verse (they did just this in the past, when caught). They would just say the aliens were wrong.
> 
> The problem would occur when the aliens were shown to be older than us, ie they were created first.
> 
> This must not stand!



I wrote a really good science fiction novel back in my college days. I really ought to pull it back out and brush it off because I think it would make for a really great movie today. The premise was, a scientist who makes contact with an alien civilization through meditative prayer. He learns all about their civilization and even learns where they are located in the cosmos. He takes his findings to the science community who resoundingly rejects his assertions as crackpot nonsense. He ends up dying an old man who everyone thinks is a religious crazy person except his son who carries on his work. Eventually, the son is able to get an astronomer to listen and they begin to observe the location in the cosmos where the aliens are supposedly from. Low and behold, they find the physical proof needed to confirm the existence of the civilization. Still, they are met with rejection and contempt because of the nature of how the original contact was made. Not only are they condemned by the scientific community but the religious community as well. 

The climax comes when the aliens inform them of an impending asteroid on a collision course for Earth. They give them the precise coordinates which they relay to the proper officials but still, they don't believe them. As time ticks off and the impending doom draws closer, more and more people hear of the prediction and begin to "follow" the messengers. With detailed instructions from the aliens, they begin to build an escape vessel and participate in a lottery for who will get to leave. Years pass by as the "real" scientists continue to dismiss these people as nuts and wackos until one day an astronomer observes the actual asteroid careening toward Earth. At this point, it is far too late to do anything about it. The group of followers and messengers are met with hoards of people in panic. They barely escape and they watch from space as the asteroid destroys the planet.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



It's not a claim, it's a paradox you have no explanation for. I didn't claim the spiritual can create itself, I argued the spiritual doesn't require creation because it's not physical.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > I think they would be ok with that and could even quote you gospel chapter & verse (they did just this in the past, when caught). They would just say the aliens were wrong.
> ...


Good story! I think it might have already been done, but duplicates occur. Watch out for the lawyers!

Scientific peer review is very brutal, sometimes indistinguishable from a food fight.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> You still need to explain the origin of this spiritual nature & also why only one.



This argument often arises from skeptical Atheists but it's a non sequitur. If we apply this logic, there is indeed, no explanation for anything. Because, you would require the explanation of the explanation... then the explanation of the explanation of the explanation... then the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation... etc. 

You do not need to explain the explanation for the explanation to be valid. 

As for the "how many" question... it's like asking how many Dark Matters are there? It's not really an important query is it? Personally, I believe there might be a Spiritual Nature and a (for lack of a better term) Dark Spiritual Nature or Anti Spiritual Nature.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It's not a paradox unless you assume it is true. 



> I didn't claim the spiritual can create itself, I argued the spiritual doesn't require creation because it's not physical.


Yes, you do and I don't buy it. Using spiritual does not get you outta jail free.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > You still need to explain the origin of this spiritual nature & also why only one.
> ...


You do well about beating around the bush.

Describe your religion for me.

Does every human have a spiritual part? Where did this come from and what happens after death. Is this spirit only in humans, no other life on earth?

It sounds like you are talking the Christian God in all its glory, but w/o saying so.

Soooo, where do you differ from Christianity?


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> 2) The ability of spirit to interact with the physical, let alone create the physical. This is a HUGE one for me. I would think spirit must remain spirit and cannot pick up a glass of water.



I think there is evidence of the spiritual interacting with the physical all the time. I previously offered the example of "Love." Of course, you'll say that's an emotion but so so what? It's still a spiritually guided emotion from my perspective. As for picking up a glass of water, that's a physical action. Is physical nature or physics required to perform spiritual actions? Then why would spiritual nature be required to perform physical actions? 

I can put some carbon and water in a petri dish and tomorrow, the dish will not contain an assortment of life forms. I can't draw the conclusion that water and carbon are obviously not the building blocks of life. That would be to draw a conclusion based on an impossible expectation. That's what you seem to be doing with spiritual nature.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> 3) The claim that this spirit created our universe must allow for other universes to also be created. Thus, my issue disappears. I can claim there was two universes created, one matter, the other antimatter & we no longer need the big bang singularity from nothing.



I agree... God could have created the parameters by which physical reactions created a physical universe from nothing.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> 4) To allow such a spiritual nature, you also have to allow ghosts, goblins, magic, witches, demons, reincarnation and a host of other things.



Do you have a valid physical explanation for ghosts, goblins, etc.? It's obvious these experiences of various phenomenon have existed in human nature for a long time and it doesn't appear to be a fad or trend. I would surmise that spiritual nature might play a role.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> It's not a paradox unless you assume it is true.



I'm not sure if you understand what a paradox is. 



MarkDuffy said:


> Yes, you do and I don't buy it. Using spiritual does not get you outta jail free.



Didn't ask for an "outta jail free" here. Again, spiritual nature doesn't require physical creation.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > 2) The ability of spirit to interact with the physical, let alone create the physical. This is a HUGE one for me. I would think spirit must remain spirit and cannot pick up a glass of water.
> ...



That's pretty lame



> As for picking up a glass of water, that's a physical action. Is physical nature or physics required to perform spiritual actions? Then why would spiritual nature be required to perform physical actions?



Creating the physical universe is pretty physical



> I can put some carbon and water in a petri dish and tomorrow, the dish will not contain an assortment of life forms.



If you start with a sterile petri dish, sterile carbon & water, sterile swab and don't leave the lid off for more than a  second, you might get lucky and nothing happens. Trust me. Been there done that. Nothing worse than that fuzz stuff messing up a good plan.



> I can't draw the conclusion that water and carbon are obviously not the building blocks of life. That would be to draw a conclusion based on an impossible expectation. That's what you seem to be doing with spiritual nature.



I have observed the physical world. I have not observed the spiritual. I can explain the voices in my head. LOL


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a paradox unless you assume it is true.
> ...


OK then, we will play this one on your turf. It would require spiritual creation. 

Depending on how you reply to my religion post, you might need to explain the creation of human spirit with every birth.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > 4) To allow such a spiritual nature, you also have to allow ghosts, goblins, magic, witches, demons, reincarnation and a host of other things.
> ...


Obvious? Shirley you jest!


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> You do well about beating around the bush.
> 
> Describe your religion for me.
> 
> ...



I don't really have a "religion" per say. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a "God" of Spiritual Energy. Are you familiar with Spinoza's God? 

Again, you are referencing something spiritual and asking me where it "came from" and things that are spiritual don't "come from" anywhere, they exist outside of time and space. 

I believe every human has intrinsic spiritual connection, whether they utilize it or not. Humans are the only living thing that seems to have an awareness of spiritual connection. It's possible that other living things have spiritual connection but aren't intrinsically aware of it. I believe Breeze has made this argument for the Flora and Fauna before. 

How does my belief differ from Christianity? Okay, there are tremendous differences. I don't believe in a God with humanistic characteristics like love, hate, anger, jealousy, needs and wants, desires, etc. From my perspective, God doesn't give a shit if you want to be spiritually connected or not. In this respect, God is kind of like electricity.... it's there for you to access and benefit from, but it doesn't care if you do or don't. I believe that your spiritual soul lives on after your physical body dies. What happen to it and where it goes from here, I don't have a clue. I have a theory... I assume, since spiritual nature tends to incline us toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark, that it does infer "purpose" by it's nature. Perhaps our soul/spirit "ascends" to a higher plain of existence? I say this because it just makes logical sense to me from my perspective but to each his own. 

I don't have a particular animosity toward Christians, or really, any other religious group. I believe all religions are simply evidence of intrinsic human spirituality that is part of who we are. Religions often help mankind to nurture their spiritual connection. Sometimes, this doesn't always produce satisfactory results... i.e.; radical Islam. However, in reading and studying the Bible, I find that most of it is a very good primer on how to live a good spiritual life. I mean, what is bad about "love thy neighbor?" Now, do many people exploit Christianity and the Bible to control others and create hate and discord? Of course, that's also human nature. We're fallible creatures, which is why we are unable to create a flawless religion.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Creating the physical universe is pretty physical



Not until you can present a valid physical explanation for how universes are created.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> That's pretty lame


That's not an argument.


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> I have observed the physical world. I have not observed the spiritual. I can explain the voices in my head. LOL



So you have never loved anyone?


----------



## Boss (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> OK then, we will play this one on your turf. It would require spiritual creation.
> 
> Depending on how you reply to my religion post, you might need to explain the creation of human spirit with every birth.



Again.... "CREATION" is a PHYSICAL concept!  How many times do I have to make this point? To CREATE is to bring into physical state of being or existence. Something SPIRITUAL is not CREATED! It cannot be CREATED or it would be PHYSICAL!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > You do well about beating around the bush.
> ...


_ I believe that your spiritual soul lives on after your physical body dies._

Why am I not amazed you skipped the origin question?

 Something that lives on after death assumes was created at birth, unless you want to go the reincarnation route. The problem with that is the population of the planet is astronomically expanding so there are not enough souls to go around unless you go full Indian and have souls of say monkeys (since that really pisses off the creationists LOL).


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > OK then, we will play this one on your turf. It would require spiritual creation.
> ...


Which is why my claim of spirit cannot create the physical universe is exactly what you believe. You just admitted it in bold.

We are done here. You have no case. You plead immunity from argument.

We don't play on only one side of the field, my end of the field.

I accept your surrender.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 31, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> I believe every human has intrinsic spiritual connection, whether they utilize it or not. Humans are the only living thing that seems to have an awareness of spiritual connection. It's possible that other living things have spiritual connection but aren't intrinsically aware of it. I believe Breeze has made this argument for the Flora and Fauna before.




you're a hopeless case bossy, the Lion is unaware of their presence ...


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> you might need to explain the creation of human spirit with every birth.



every being represents a Spirit the random physiology is the unknown ... aliens in our mist.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > you might need to explain the creation of human spirit with every birth.
> ...


What you call spirit, I call consciousness. It is born with the human and dies with the human. This sounds distasteful, and that is why we invented a God.


----------



## BreezeWood (Aug 31, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


.


MarkDuffy said:


> What you call spirit, I call consciousness. It is born with the human and dies with the human. This sounds distasteful, and that is why we invented a God.




there you go with the human thing, surly you do not reserve consciousness to humanity alone ...

there is an Almighty as there is the Apex of Knowledge and The Triumph of Good vs Evil as exists the reward for those who surmount those summits, the Everlasting.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Aug 31, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


_there you go with the human thing, surly you do not reserve consciousness to humanity alone ..._

No I don't, but I don't want to start an argument over it. More precisely, there are levels of consciousness & I put humans at the top.


----------



## Boss (Sep 1, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> _I believe that your spiritual soul lives on after your physical body dies._
> 
> Why am I not amazed you skipped the origin question?
> 
> Something that lives on after death assumes was created at birth, unless you want to go the reincarnation route. The problem with that is the population of the planet is astronomically expanding so there are not enough souls to go around unless you go full Indian and have souls of say monkeys (since that really pisses off the creationists LOL).



Okay, maybe I stated that incorrectly but I've now said four times in this thread that spiritual things are not physical. Physical things "begin" and "end" and "are created" and "come from" and "have life" and "die." Those are PHYSICAL attributes. So I don't know how many times you want me to correct you on this... 100? 200? How many times is it going to take before you get it? 

As for the numbers, I appreciate your concern over the number of souls available... but again, spiritual things aren't dependent on numbers. Numbers are human creations to measure physical things. This is beginning to really frustrate me because you don't seem to comprehend that spiritual is not physical. Maybe you're just closed-minded and nothing is going to penetrate your granite-like noggin? IF that is the case, we don't have much more to discuss here.


----------



## Boss (Sep 1, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Well I didn't surrender. You just have a disconnect where you can't comprehend that spiritual and physical are two entirely different things. The physical universe requires creating because it's a physical thing. Spiritual things don't need to be created because they don't have physical existence. There is no "plead of immunity" but spiritual things are not physical and never will be... sorry you don't get that.


----------



## RWS (Sep 1, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > The universe is facing 4 different outcomes:
> ...


It seems like the natural progression of this universe. And the links support it. No disrespect, but why do you think it is "out there"?


----------



## RWS (Sep 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Expansion. There are three possibilies for this as we can imagine thus far before "alien intervention" :
> ...


That's hard for me to understand at the moment , but I do have a theory that I will discuss elsewhere, that's about 2 singularities colliding head-on, and the result, and why.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 1, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> What you call spirit, I call consciousness. It is born with the human and dies with the human.  This sounds distasteful, and that is why we invented a God.




Spirit is consciousness. What the ancients would have called an unclean spirit people today would think of as a filthy or dirty mind.

Nothing mystical or superstitious about it.



When Jesus first appeared he spoke of a merciful and benevolent God that no one had ever heard about before and no one really understood or believed in until Jesus appeared to his disciples in dreams after his death.


This is what convinced them that Jesus was right and what he taught about God must be true for dreams were believed to be the medium through which God speaks to man,  the bridge between the consciousness of man and the eternal  realm of God who is spirit.

They didn't make up a belief in God, they were convinced that the personal consciousness, the spirit of Jesus,  survived death which convinced them that the God that Jesus taught about was the only true God.

They abandoned their former belief in a puerile and petty tyrant of a god that obsesses over diet, fashion, and the sexual preferences  of human beings invented by fear and ignorance and used by the potentates of darkness to control and fleece the population like sheep....


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 1, 2017)

.


MarkDuffy said:


> _there you go with the human thing, surly you do not reserve consciousness to humanity alone ..._
> 
> No I don't, but I don't want to start an argument over it. More precisely, there are levels of consciousness & I put humans at the top.




on top of what ... destroying Earth with an A-Bomb. 

is it possible then for a Spiritual coefficient to consciousness that precludes self destruction that is relevant to the "discussion".


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 1, 2017)

Boss said:


> The physical universe requires creating because it's a physical thing. Spiritual things don't need to be created because they don't have physical existence. There is no "plead of immunity" but spiritual things are not physical and never will be... sorry you don't get that.




_*but spiritual things are not physical and never will be... sorry you don't get *_


just curious how you then believe the spiritual is responsible for the creation of the physical, or why the spiritual would not develop a physical presence if so desired. what is physiology.

birth is not the creation of a new Spirit.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> ...



I did not put a value judgement on it. As a matter of fact, I have posted many times that there is absolutely zero evidence that intelligence is a positive selective trait. 



> is it possible then for a Spiritual coefficient to consciousness that precludes self destruction that is relevant to the "discussion".



You would have to ask the believers. I don't agree that spirits exist, especially spirits who can control science by magic.


----------



## Boss (Sep 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The physical universe requires creating because it's a physical thing. Spiritual things don't need to be created because they don't have physical existence. There is no "plead of immunity" but spiritual things are not physical and never will be... sorry you don't get that.
> ...



Are you not reading the thread? I've already discussed this. I believe spiritual nature is responsible for creation of physical nature because of the paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself. 

Second part of your question... If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical. And I've never said birth is the creation of a new spirit. That's McDuff's claim that I rejected.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 1, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> You would have to ask the believers. I don't agree that spirits exist, especially spirits who can control science by magic.



_believers_ ... anything but a christian.




MarkDuffy said:


> I don't agree that spirits exist










I'm not convinced a consciousness is how the cicada transforms from a terrestrial to avian being, going from one to another ...


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > You would have to ask the believers. I don't agree that spirits exist, especially spirits who can control science by magic.
> ...


During development in the womb, we go from a fish to a lizard to human.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 1, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


.


MarkDuffy said:


> During development in the womb, we go from a fish to a lizard to human.



what does ... consciousness, I would think by your definition that remains the same and unalterable for just humans their specific type. the cicada is an example of the deployed being making their own transformation from one living physical form to another, yours is not yet a being.

do you monitor your heart rate, the sub conscious, you are claiming to have a role regulating basic physiology. autopilot and pilot are not the same.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 1, 2017)

Boss said:


> I believe spiritual nature is responsible for creation of physical nature because of the paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.



the intermediary, physiology could be responsible for both ...





Boss said:


> If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical. And I've never said birth is the creation of a new spirit.



_*If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical.
*_
I'm not sure why they would not both retain their own unique quality when absorbed into eachother - the spirit turning itself into its own physical shape would make more sense. as what I would expect the spirit to be capable of when necessary.


----------



## Boss (Sep 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I believe spiritual nature is responsible for creation of physical nature because of the paradox. Physical nature cannot create itself.
> ...



_Physiology is the scientific study of normal mechanisms, and their interactions, which works within a living system._ - cr: Wikipedia

Physical things cannot create themselves. Repeat that to yourself a few times if you need to. It is a paradoxical argument that a physical thing can create itself because it would logically have to first exist in order to create itself. If it exists already, it's not creating itself because it already exists. I don't really know how to dumb that down any more for you, if you want to mindlessly argue that it could do this or that, it's up to you... it can't do anything until it exists. That's just basic logic. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > If a spiritual entity imbibes itself into something physical, by definition, it becomes something physical. And I've never said birth is the creation of a new spirit.
> ...



By definition, if something is physical, it is not spiritual. Likewise, if something is spiritual, it is not physical. Can something physical have spirituality? Sure! But it is, by definition, something physical. We are physical creatures who have spirituality. You can argue that we are spirits who have physiology but having physiology makes us physical beings.


----------



## RWS (Sep 2, 2017)

Is that spiritual part of the physical being weightless? Or is that 21 or 28 grams? 

And then what causes the difference between one organism having a "spirit", and another not having one? What is necessary physically to have a spirit? 

Or do bacteria have spirits too? Because if they don't, there's a difference between organisms that have a spirit, and those who don't. And that will be a physical trait that science can then determine. And then we can get into the deep down science of what causes that trait to create a spirit.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

RWS said:


> Is that spiritual part of the physical being weightless? Or is that 21 or 28 grams?
> 
> And then what causes the difference between one organism having a "spirit", and another not having one? What is necessary physically to have a spirit?
> 
> Or do bacteria have spirits too? Because if they don't, there's a difference between organisms that have a spirit, and those who don't. And that will be a physical trait that science can then determine. And then we can get into the deep down science of what causes that trait to create a spirit.


You're quibbling.  His point was not in defining what spiritual is.  His point was in making the distinction of materialism versus spiritualism.  By definition spiritualism is unseen.  Discussing it's attributes like you are trying to do is meaningless.  If it isn't material it is spiritual.  That's the only definition you need.  Communism is based on materialism.  Good luck with your material world.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

Does Earth have a shadow biosphere? | Aeon Essays


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Of course the fetus is a being. I was letting you know that transformation is a normal thing with most if not all life. Lower organisms especially go through a larval stage. Ours mainly happen in the womb. Our brain growth and complexity occurs mainly outside the womb. This is an  evolutionary response to the birth canal being too small. Humans use neoteny.

Neoteny - Wikipedia

Neoteny in humans - Wikipedia

Your insect does not require consciousness to change from larval stage to butterfly. They all do it.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

In writings by God spiritualists, don't you find it interesting that their spirit God appears to know nothing more than the people did? Apparently teaching new knowledge was not on the agenda. God could have at least taught them to write.

This evidence is that the reason for this dumb God, is he was the best man could invent at the time. Man did not know how to write, so neither could God.

Once man learns to write, shazaam, we have God writing the Ten Commandments on stone.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Bold assertions as truths with zero evidence that conveniently never need explanation.

Translation ~ He is clueless. To believe in the creator God is to turn your brain off.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> To believe in the creator God is to turn your brain off.



That's a pretty bold statement considering that it is atheism which is intellectually dead.  It doesn't require any intellect to say no.  It takes intellect to examine the possibility.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Is that spiritual part of the physical being weightless? Or is that 21 or 28 grams?
> ...


Was he now?  You mean his definition.

Spiritualism - Wikipedia

Soul - Wikipedia

Reincarnation - Wikipedia


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Yes, he was quibbling, and now so are you.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

When, where and how do spirit and material interact?

James Kent, Programmer, Writer, author of Psychedelic Information Theory
Answered May 25, 2016

By most definitions spirit is something that is invisible and cannot be measured, and therefore it cannot interact with matter. If something can be measured that means it has physical properties that interact with matter, if something is invisible then it by definition can not interact with physical things. Furthermore, if something is defined as being invisible and non-material, that is just a fancy way of saying it is imaginary and does not actually exist. So, by extrapolation, the only place where spirit and matter can interact is in the human imagination and fiction.

https://www.quora.com/When-where-and-how-do-spirit-and-material-interact

LOL, If spirit can interact with physical, it is by definition, NOT spiritual.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

Zhou Weiqun, chairman of the Committee on Ethnic and Religious Affairs of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference understands the distinction between spiritual and material.  

He blasted Chinese academics who suggest that Communist Party members can also adhere to any religion. 

"This prohibition against religion has been a “consistently upheld principle” since Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, declared Zhou. “It’s impossible to have another choice besides the dialectical materialist worldview.”

China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

If God created the universe, then why was it necessary to get Noah to build an ark? God could have easily shazaamed an ark. Much easier to make an ark than Adam.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> When, where and how do spirit and material interact?
> 
> James Kent, Programmer, Writer, author of Psychedelic Information Theory
> Answered May 25, 2016
> ...


If you want to see it as imaginary, go for it.  If you want to argue there is no distinction between the two, go for it.  Of course it is disingenuous to argue both.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

Same with Pharaoh and the Exodus. God could have simply shazaamed Pharaoh into letting them go. Why kill all those Egyptians?


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> If God created the universe, then why was it necessary to get Noah to build an ark? God could have easily shazaamed an ark. Much easier to make an ark than Adam.


I see.  You want to skip a whole bunch of steps and go straight to who God is.  Why do you think that is an effective argument for if there is a Creator?


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Same with Pharaoh and the Exodus. God could have simply shazaamed Pharaoh into letting them go. Why kill all those Egyptians?


Same answer as I just gave in post #423.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

Vladimir Lenin understood the distinction between spiritualism and materialism.  Why are you having such a difficult time in understanding this?

"A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

Lenin: The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

and while we are at it, isn't Noah and the Flood proof of a failable God that clearly is not perfect?


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> and while we are at it, isn't Noah and the Flood proof of a failable God that clearly is not perfect?


The flood, like other accounts in Genesis, is an allegorical account of an actual event.  So... no, it is not proof of a fallible God.  Again though, are you trying to prove a Creator does not exist by arguing who the Creator is?


----------



## Boss (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> If God created the universe, then why was it necessary to get Noah to build an ark? God could have easily shazaamed an ark. Much easier to make an ark than Adam.



Speaking as someone who doesn't believe in a God with humanistic characteristics, I would suggest it's because God didn't really care if Noah built an ark or not. I've always wondered, if God wanted us to worship Him/Her, then why not create us so that is a prerequisite for life? Just as we have to breathe and eat to live, why don't we have to worship and obey God? If an omnipotent God "wanted" something, why would it not be? 

It's this perspective that prevents me from embracing organized religion. I still believe there is a Spiritual Force and that's MY "God." It just doesn't have humanistic characteristics. Why would it need those?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

The perennial question: where does the light come from on the first three days if the sun, moon, and stars aren't created until the fourth day? How was there evening and morning without the sun? Seems like a little bit of a problem.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

Mark, I want to thank you for proving my point that atheists, especially militant atheists like yourself, are intellectually dead.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> The perennial question: where does the light come from on the first three days if the sun, moon, and stars aren't created until the fourth day? How was there evening and morning without the sun? Seems like a little bit of a problem.


Considering that science has proven that the universe had a beginning and that the evolution of matter from the big bang to the first conscious being who knows and creates was performed in steps.  The allegorical account of creation was pretty spot on.


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

Imagine their surprise when the scientists arrived at the point of believing the universe had a beginning and finding the philosophers and religious were already there waiting for them.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

ding said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > and while we are at it, isn't Noah and the Flood proof of a failable God that clearly is not perfect?
> ...



So, you admit the Bible cannot be trusted for anything


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


If that's what you concluded from what I wrote, then I doubt you are capable of comprehending anything I write.


----------



## Boss (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> When, where and how do spirit and material interact?
> 
> James Kent, Programmer, Writer, author of Psychedelic Information Theory
> Answered May 25, 2016
> ...



First of all, there is a false assertion that something invisible and non-measurable cannot interact with matter. Dark Energy and Dark Matter have disproved this because they are interacting with matter. 

Another invisible thing that interacts with matter is thought. Now you may say this is the same as imagination but thoughts aren't imaginary, we actually have them, right? I can imagine a house on a hill, but thought is what interacts with matter and makes that house on the hill a reality. Imagining the house didn't make it real. 

Yet another invisible thing that interacts with matter is Love. Love is not imaginary, you actually feel love for your mother, correct? Can you measure it? Can you extrapolate the difference in quantity of the love you have for your mother and the love you have for a fine wine? You can only say you love your mother more (hopefully). You can say this is an emotion but okay... so emotions can interact with matter... ever been punched in the nose?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Imagine their surprise when the scientists arrived at the point of believing the universe had a beginning and finding the philosophers and religious were already there waiting for them.


but you all don't believe in creation. 

You insist God doesn't need a creator


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine their surprise when the scientists arrived at the point of believing the universe had a beginning and finding the philosophers and religious were already there waiting for them.
> ...


The only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and never changing.  That's God.  

Of course we believe in Creation.  Creation is just another way of saying the universe and everything in it since it was created until now.  

Did you know that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?  Or do you think that is magic too?


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine their surprise when the scientists arrived at the point of believing the universe had a beginning and finding the philosophers and religious were already there waiting for them.
> ...


Do you know that the potential for you to exist existed before space and time were created?  Do you think that is magic?


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine their surprise when the scientists arrived at the point of believing the universe had a beginning and finding the philosophers and religious were already there waiting for them.
> ...


Did you know that all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom?  Or do you think that is magic too?


----------



## ding (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine their surprise when the scientists arrived at the point of believing the universe had a beginning and finding the philosophers and religious were already there waiting for them.
> ...


Did you know that all the energy and matter in the universe was created?  Or do you think this would be magic?


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 2, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


Boss said:


> _Physiology is the scientific study of normal mechanisms, and their interactions, which works within a living system._ - cr: Wikipedia




* physiology *


_1_ :  a branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of life or of living matter (such as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the physical and chemical phenomena involved — compare anatomy 


_2_ :  the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its parts or of a particular bodily process

you scream to much bossy, it causes ringing in one's eardrums, you must be cuban ...




Boss said:


> Physical things cannot create themselves.



you just created a physical being, themselves which begs the question just what are you defining physical things - is cellulose of a tree, physical things - - try once answering a question boss you live and breed for it yourself.




Boss said:


> By definition, if something is physical, it is not spiritual.



you're in the wrong forum, when in a room with a Lion, the Lion is Spiritual. to your existence.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 2, 2017)

Well, we have made some progress today. Both of our religionists believe the Bible is not to be trusted.

Science marches forward...


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 2, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> If God created the universe, then why was it necessary to get Noah to build an ark? God could have easily shazaamed an ark. Much easier to make an ark than Adam.


.
_*then why was it necessary to get Noah to build an ark ...
*_
is there a face value to the above of its own accord distinct of the physical object.


no doubt the 4th century books version is invalid, all those innocent beings besides humanity. also no doubt all those than Noah who were evil were destroyed, only because Noah did not fit that mold was mankind given a second chance.

that parable is the religion presented by the Almighty at that time for all humanity to Accomplish or Perish ... The Triumph of Good vs Evil.


----------



## MizMolly (Sep 2, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Atheism and aliens have no connection. I believe in a higher power but I also believe in the existence of other beings in the universe.


----------



## ding (Sep 3, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Well, we have made some progress today. Both of our religionists believe the Bible is not to be trusted.
> 
> Science marches forward...




I only wish you knew some science so we could discuss it.


----------



## indiajo (Sep 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Did you know that all the energy and matter in the universe was created?  Or do you think this would be magic?



Did you know that repeating nonsense is still nonsense?


----------



## ding (Sep 3, 2017)

indiajo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that all the energy and matter in the universe was created?  Or do you think this would be magic?
> ...


How is that nonsense?  Haven't you ever heard of inflation theory?  What are you some kind of science denier?


----------



## ding (Sep 3, 2017)

indiajo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that all the energy and matter in the universe was created?  Or do you think this would be magic?
> ...


The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2017)

ding said:


> indiajo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why do you always bring every discussion back to this? It's a thread about atheists and aliens. Now go take your ritalin.


----------



## ding (Sep 3, 2017)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > indiajo said:
> ...


Because that is the point where science begins.  And as a bonus... you know nothing about.


----------



## Borillar (Sep 3, 2017)

fncceo said:


> Why would the visit of aliens negate a belief in G-d?  Such visiting aliens would undoubtedly be Jewish.


----------



## RWS (Sep 5, 2017)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Is that spiritual part of the physical being weightless? Or is that 21 or 28 grams?
> ...



I'm not quibbling, I'm just saying that if there is such a thing as spirituality, and that spirituality is only possible for certain life forms, then that spirituality has a physical connection with those life forms. 

My question, once we determine what has a spirit and what doesn't, is what the physical difference is. 

Do rocks have a spirit?
Do bacteria have a spirit?
Do plants have a spirit?
Do fish have a spirit? 
Do reptiles have a spirit?
Do dogs have a spirit?

etc... once we can agree on what does and doesn't have a spirit, we can try to find the physical difference that enables that spirit.


----------



## Votto (Sep 5, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



What would be hilarious is if some aliens crashed on earth and were discovered to have T-shirts saying, "Make the Universe Great again" slogans and Bible thumpers to boot.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 5, 2017)

Should we ask any potential Vogons, for confirmation of delivery, for any eminent domain actions?


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

RWS said:


> I'm just saying that if there is such a thing as spirituality, and *that spirituality is only possible for certain life forms*, then that spirituality has a physical connection with those life forms.
> 
> My question, once we determine what has a spirit and what doesn't, is what the physical difference is.



What do you mean by this? Would you argue that physicality is only possible for certain life forms? Would that make any rational sense? 

We have to remember that "spirituality" is only a word we invented to describe something. What is being described? The simple answer is, "that which is not physical in nature." But it's really more complicated than that because there are things not physical in nature which are also not spiritual. A fantasy, for example. What we are describing is something beyond physical nature yet also connected with it.

Spirituality is possible for everything because spirituality exists. Do all living things have "spirits"?  That's an entirely different question. And it's an entirely different question as to which living things "spiritually connect." Humans appear to be the only animal that makes a conscious spiritual connection and possess spiritual awareness. I don't think it's coincidence humans are the most intellectually advanced life as well.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



You make a lot of assertions there for which you have no evidence, ironically in the process of accusing others of same. And you are even wrong about that. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that life, in some form, has existed and exists all over the universe.

Otherwise, your argument amounts to, "If we haven't found any by now, we likely never will." That is silly...it reminds me of people in the year 1900 who thought we had discovered and invented all there was to discover and invent.


----------



## Astrostar (Sep 5, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Good arguments.  Now, how about some proof that a Christian God exists, or that we were created by some supreme being or that something as nebulous as "prayer" works, or that the bible is nothing more than a work of fiction.  Please, "thrill me with your acumen!"


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2017)

The Bibles says that man was created in God's image, but, oddly enough, does not say what god needs a penis for.


----------



## MizMolly (Sep 5, 2017)

Vandalshandle said:


> The Bibles says that man was created in God's image, but, oddly enough, does not say what god needs a penis for.


I believe that "GOD" is pure energy, light and love, therefore I don't believe it reflects a physical image.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 5, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> But it's really more complicated than that because there are things not physical in nature which are also not spiritual. A fantasy, for example. What we are describing is something beyond physical nature yet also connected with it.



_*A fantasy, for example ...*_

I can't help to wonder how that makes sense, what is a fantasy ... howabout the wind, physical without a Spirit though tangentially Mother Nature is given spiritual qualities that could include a hurricane. or gravity

just being alive is spiritual irregardless the physical form and for some that quality is interrelated to all beings. the microbial zika virus could potentially wipe humanity off the face of Earth ...






it could not be what it is without a spirit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...



But what is the function of the spirit? Why is it necessary?


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...



I haven't disputed any of that. 

Wind, however, is simply atoms moving rapidly. It's physical, not spiritual. The same is true with hurricanes and gravity.... physical phenomenon we can observe, measure and test physically. Is there some "spiritual connection" with them? Probably so since Spiritual Nature created the Physical.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But what is the function of the spirit? Why is it necessary?



We developed a special word to describe this. 

*Inspiration. *


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > But what is the function of the spirit? Why is it necessary?
> ...



the spirit inspires the Zika virus?  How?  Or, are you saying only humans have spirits?  The other poster was being more general.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




"Wind, however, is simply atoms moving rapidly. It's physical, not spiritual."

By the same token, thoughts are simply atoms and electrical impulses moving about.  Every inspired thought you have ever had is  the result of physical activity in your brain.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I've seen no evidence to make me think the Zika virus has a spirit. You'll need to ask Breeze about that. 

Again, humans appear to be the only animals who consciously have spiritual awareness and make a spiritual connection. People have all kinds of beliefs on this topic. Native Americans thought their horses and buffaloes had spirits. Isn't it the Hindus who believe cows are spiritual animals? I am honest enough to admit that I don't know. All I can go by is human spirituality. _Inspiration_ explains it's function and necessity, in my opinion.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Wind, however, is simply atoms moving rapidly. It's physical, not spiritual."
> 
> By the same token, thoughts are simply atoms and electrical impulses moving about. Every inspired thought you have ever had is the result of physical activity in your brain.



But it's really not. If it were as you "simply" conclude, we'd see the great technological achievements of the chimpanzee who we share 96% of our DNA with. You're explaining the pathology of how thought is processed in our brains... it has nothing whatsoever to do with inspiration.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

Okay, fair enough... though I feel I can explain inspiration without invoking a spirit of any type. I would explain it through physical phenomena. Though, maybe your definition (and definitely mine) of "spirituality" does not involve a "spirit", detached from physicality.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "Wind, however, is simply atoms moving rapidly. It's physical, not spiritual."
> ...




That's a specious argument.  Just because our brains can process thoughts another brain cannot does not necessitate that there is anything more at work than physical processes, nor does asserting that everything which happens in our brains has a purely physical basis necessitate that a similar creature would have the same result from physical processes in their brains.

Furthermore, it may yet happen that chimpanzees eventually evolve into a species with self-awareness, or language, or art.  They have tools now.  Remember, there was a time in our own past when our direct ancestors did not share all the higher functions of our modern brains.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's a specious argument. Just because our brains can process thoughts another brain cannot does not necessitate that there is anything more at work than physical processes, nor does asserting that everything which happens in our brains has a purely physical basis necessitate that a similar creature would have the same result from physical processes in their brains.
> 
> Furthermore, it may yet happen that chimpanzees eventually evolve into a species with self-awareness, or language, or art. They have tools now. Remember, there was a time in our own past when our direct ancestors did not share all the higher functions of our modern brains.



There has never been a time in the history of human civilization that we've discovered, where humans did not possess spirituality of some kind. In*spir*ation is directly associated with human spirit and spirituality... it's even *in* the word. You can try to explain it physically but the fact remains, humans are inspired and humans are also spiritually connected. That is not a coincidence. Occam's Razor says simpler theories are preferable.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Furthermore, it may yet happen that chimpanzees eventually evolve into a species with self-awareness, or language, or art.



THIS is a specious argument. You have ZERO evidence to support this notion. We can postulate all day about what MIGHT happen... Dolphins MIGHT one day walk upright and speculate stock trades on Wall Street.... there's not any evidence to suggest that will happen, but it MIGHT.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They have tools now.



I can show you a video of a crow using a stick as a tool in order to get food. This is just evidence some species experience rationalized thought. That's a huge leap to inspiration.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

that's a thin argument, as one can find "inspiration" in any puddle or crack in the sidewalk, if one so chose.  "hey, a guy was 'inspired' to put a red handprint on a cave wall"... yeah?  Well, beavers are inspired to create complex structures.  As are many other animals.  are they not inspired/ Of course they are, by their genetics and by their culture.  As are we.

You are mistaken to think that entering into the discussion magical, non-physical elements (translation: therefore, they can be anything I want at any time, and also no way to tell if I'm wrong) creates a simpler explanation.  For one, it's not an explanation, as it explains nothing at all; you have merely replaced one mystery with another.  Second, you have just made everything more complicated, because now we have to explain this phenomenon and others while operating under the assumption that physical causality only exists "sometimes" . Now you have to explain when it exists and when it doesn't, then star over on all of our knowledge we have gained from square one to make sure we didn't "miss the magic".

A much simpler explanation (Occam's razor at work) would be that there is no "non-physical spirit or soul", and that our brains are merely physical systems, operating under all of the same deterministic laws as any other.  There, simple as it gets.  And guess what?  This principle withstands every test of it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, it may yet happen that chimpanzees eventually evolve into a species with self-awareness, or language, or art.
> ...




"THIS is a specious argument. You have ZERO evidence to support this notion. "

Not so. Every bit of evidence we have at our disposal says it MAY be that chimpanzees also eventually evolve some higher functions, in a few million years,  (if left to do so).  I didn't guarantee it would happen, I guaranteed that it is a possibility. And, it wasn't an an argument, it was a statement.

Yes, the descendants of dolphins MAY walk upright one day, just as their ancestors walked on all fours. of course, they will no longer be dolphins, they will be a new species.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> that's a thin argument, as one can find "inspiration" in any puddle or crack in the sidewalk, if one so chose.  "hey, a guy was 'inspired' to put a red handprint on a cave wall"... yeah?  Well, beavers are inspired to create complex structures.  As are many other animals.  are they not inspired/ Of course they are, by their genetics and by their culture.  As are we.
> 
> You are mistaken to think that entering into the discussion magical, non-physical elements (translation: therefore, they can be anything I want at any time, and also no way to tell if I'm wrong) creates a simpler explanation.  For one, it's not an explanation, as it explains nothing at all; you have merely replaced one mystery with another.  Second, you have just made everything more complicated, because now we have to explain this phenomenon and others while operating under the assumption that physical causality only exists "sometimes" . Now you have to explain when it exists and when it doesn't, then star over on all of our knowledge we have gained from square one to make sure we didn't "miss the magic".
> 
> A much simpler explanation (Occam's razor at work) would be that there is no "non-physical spirit or soul", and that our brains are merely physical systems, operating under all of the same deterministic laws as any other.  There, simple as it gets.  And guess what?  This principle withstands every test of it.



Indeed.... You CAN misuse the word "inspired" and apply it to anything you perceive as inspirational. Humans misapply words and context all the time. We are extremely fallible creatures. 

Again, there is nothing "magical" about spirituality. That is YOUR way of taking a backhanded slap at something you don't believe in, understand or accept. Spiritual Nature is very much a natural part of nature. It isn't PHYSICAL nature and that's where your problem lies. You don't believe in spiritual nature and the only existence you can comprehend is physical existence. But I can prove (physically) that your perception of physical reality is incomplete. You have only five senses which can perceive four dimensions of physical reality. There are at least 11 dimensions. There is nothing in physics which mandates your five senses are ALL possible senses. AND... your five senses are never able to observe present time in the present because physics has to happen. The only perception humans have of reality resides in the past. Anything you sense has already happened. It took time for your brain to process the sensation and you to realize it.  

Occam's Razor was being applied to the fact that humans are both uniquely inspired and spiritual. The simplest explanation is, there is a correlation. 

You're correct that our brains are physical systems. And they function the same as thousands of other mammals with the exception of our unique attribute of inspiration and spirituality, which is pretty much the key to our advancement as a species.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "THIS is a specious argument. You have ZERO evidence to support this notion. "
> 
> Not so. Every bit of evidence we have at our disposal says it MAY be that chimpanzees also eventually evolve some higher functions, in a few million years, (if left to do so). I didn't guarantee it would happen, I guaranteed that it is a possible.
> 
> And, it wasn't an an argument, it was a statement. yes, dolphins MAY walk upright one day, just as their ancestors walked on all fours. of course, they will no longer be dolphins, they will be a new species.




You have ZERO evidence. NONE!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > that's a thin argument, as one can find "inspiration" in any puddle or crack in the sidewalk, if one so chose.  "hey, a guy was 'inspired' to put a red handprint on a cave wall"... yeah?  Well, beavers are inspired to create complex structures.  As are many other animals.  are they not inspired/ Of course they are, by their genetics and by their culture.  As are we.
> ...




"You CAN misuse the word "inspired" and apply it to anything you perceive as inspirational. "

And let me guess who decides if I have "misused" it: You.  that seems pretty convenient. you also seemed to have decided what spirituality is.  You define them as unique, and then say their uniqueness is what makes us special.  You are rigging thee game. I don't agree that they are necessarily unique.  I don't think our inspiration is very much unlike that experienced by other animals, except for a matter of degree.

These unique attributes, no matter how we define them... they are still both completely physical. Do you agree?


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "You CAN misuse the word "inspired" and apply it to anything you perceive as inspirational. "
> 
> And let me guess who decides if I have "misused" it: You.  that seems pretty convenient. you also seemed to have decided what spirituality is.  You define them as unique, and then say their uniqueness is what makes us special.  You are rigging thee game. I don't agree that they are necessarily unique.  I don't think our inspiration is very much unlike that experienced by other animals, except for a matter of degree.
> 
> These unique attributes, no matter how we define them... they are still both completely physical. Do you agree?



i*n·spired*
inˈspī(ə)rd/
_adjective_

 of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.
*spir·it·u·al·i·ty*
ˌspiriCHo͞oˈalədē/
_noun_

the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> By the same token, thoughts are simply atoms and electrical impulses moving about. Every inspired thought you have ever had is the result of physical activity in your brain.










think again, they have no CNS your thoughts have nothing to do with your brain.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't agree that they are necessarily unique.



Then it's upon you to offer the empirical evidence it's not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "THIS is a specious argument. You have ZERO evidence to support this notion. "
> ...



"You have ZERO evidence. NONE!"

False.  _We_ (stop with this "you" language, the evidence doesn't belong to me) have plenty of evidence that suggests it is _possible _ that the descendants of chimpanzees, or any mammal could become self-aware.  The strongest, of course, is that it has already happened.  Really, the argument can end there, as i have proven it is possible for the evolution of self-awareness, which is all that was required of me. The onus would then be on you to prove it can only happen once in the entire history of the universe.  More on that later.

Mathematically, i could present theoretical evidence that the odds of it happening at all may be small, but the odds of it happening _exactly once _between the beginning and end of our habitable planet are even smaller. (extend that to the universe, and you get a sense of how silly it is to think that life itself has not evolved elsewhere in the universe)

which brings us to the next point, in that confining this idea to "only earth's organisms" is arbitrary, and i only really have to argue that it is possible for this to happen somewhere in the universe in the past, present, or future. you are arguing "uniqueness", and you don't get to make the rule that it only extends to the edge of our atmosphere, the edge of our solar system, or the edge of our galaxy. Either it is "unique", or it is not.  Unlike subjectivity, uniqueness does not come in degrees.  Rareness does.  

but, to really flesh out the argument, we have to understand how much an organism can change over long periods of time... like, a billion years. We can see how much our species has changed over the last 10 million years. Given the period of time in which evolution will be free to work on the brains of existing species, there is good reason to believe that the same forces of selection which caused humans to evolve this trait will cause its evolution in another species.  Maybe loooong after we're gone.  And that species will, no doubt, marvel at the "uniqueness" of itself, just as you are.


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "You have ZERO evidence. NONE!"
> 
> False. _We_ (stop with this "you" language, the evidence doesn't belong to me) have plenty of evidence that suggests it is _possible _ that the descendants of chimpanzees, or any mammal could become self-aware. The strongest, of course, is that it has already happened. Really, the argument can end there, as i have proven it is possible for the evolution of self-awareness, which is all that was required of me.
> 
> ...



In the realm of philosophical "possibility" *anything* is possible. That is NOT a scientific argument. Theories are NOT evidence. If you are under some delusion that theories ARE evidence, you've completely missed the meaning, purpose and intent of the scientific method. 

As for "uniqueness" ...do I need to pull the dictionary definition of that word as well?  It seems we're having trouble with simple basic English now. Until you can present me with empirical evidence of other species clearly exhibiting spirituality and inspiration, you can't argue that it's not unique to humans. IF all you have are speculative theories of what MIGHT one day be.... you have ZIPPOLA!


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> which brings us to the next point, in that confining this idea to "only earth's organisms" is arbitrary...



A-Gain.... Until you can offer some sort of empirical evidence organisms exist elsewhere, we have to confine our idea to organisms on Earth. There is nothing "arbitrary" about that. Do we need to look that word up too?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

"

of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse."
*** Notice... not "arising from some external impulse", but rather, "_as if _arising from external impulse".... nope, doesn't make your point.  It might even make MY point.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 5, 2017)

That's not how this works... you don't get to make any claim you like and then say it's true unless I prove you wrong. You can say "it's possible", and then I would have to prove you wrong to call that false.  

My counter would be that, these qualities you call "unique" come in degrees. Self-awareness?  we find it in degree. "Inspiration"?  Your dictionary definition requires self-awareness for it to be true: "as if coming from an external source", which implies observation by the _internal _source, by your own constraints. the onus would be on you to show that one of the animals in which we measure degrees of self-awareness does NOT "feel" this way, which you could not do. You have left yourself unable to prove your own assertion, here. to argue it is "possible" would release much of your burden, but that is not what you are doing.  you are asserting it as truth, and you carry the burden that comes with doing that.

 I, on the other hand, acknowledge as "possible" that what you are saying is true.  I argue it to be unlikely, and almost certainly false, given that i have no reason whatsoever to believe our brains are anything but physical systems.  if there is any "outside source" inspiring my brain, then  I think it comes in the form of chemicals and electrical reactions.  

Would you like to suggest an alternative source?


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "
> 
> of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse."
> *** Notice... not "arising from some external impulse", but rather, "_as if _arising from external impulse".... nope, doesn't make your point.  It might even make MY point.




Now you're parsing the definitions? Wow!


----------



## Boss (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's not how this works... you don't get to make any claim you like and then say it's true unless I prove you wrong. You can say "it's possible", and then I would have to prove you wrong to call that false.
> 
> My counter would be that, these qualities you call "unique" come in degrees. Self-awareness?  we find it in degree. "Inspiration"?  Your dictionary definition requires self-awareness for it to be true: "as if coming from an external source", which implies observation by the _internal _source, by your own constraints. the onus would be on you to show that one of the animals in which we measure degrees of self-awareness does NOT "feel" this way, which you could not do. You have left yourself unable to prove your own assertion, here. to argue it is "possible" would release much of your burden, but that is not what you are doing.  you are asserting it as truth, and you carry the burden that comes with doing that.
> 
> ...



You're still failing to support ANY of your arguments. I think we're done here.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 5, 2017)

Boss said:


> Until you can present me with empirical evidence of other species clearly exhibiting spirituality and inspiration, you can't argue that it's not unique to humans.




what is your example of an organism that does not have the qualities you claim strictly for yourself. 


* there is no such organism in existence.


the uniqueness of humanity is seen below, nothing much the rest of the inhabitants of Garden Earth care much to simulate including some humans that have not lost their sanity.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 5, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I, on the other hand, acknowledge as "possible" that what you are saying is true. I argue it to be unlikely, and almost certainly false, given that i have no reason whatsoever to believe our brains are anything but physical systems. if there is any "outside source" inspiring my brain, then I think it comes in the form of chemicals and electrical reactions.
> 
> Would you like to suggest an alternative source?




the quality of sight for one for those who care not to tell themselves what they are seeing. 

you might consider the other half Flora in regards to your thoughts. they manage at the same level of intensity as any other organism on planet Earth - "then I think it comes in the form of chemicals and electrical reactions", where in a plant does that occur.


----------



## RWS (Sep 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just saying that if there is such a thing as spirituality, and *that spirituality is only possible for certain life forms*, then that spirituality has a physical connection with those life forms.
> ...



All life forms have physicality. So Spirituality, by your definition is something that is not physical in nature. Yet some physical objects possess it.

So my question was, what is the threshold between an object that has spirituality and one that doesn't?

Like I said, does a rock have spirituality? I hope you say yes.

And please quote the whole post, not just what you want to argue. Tell me about how you think about spirituality among different physical things? 

Whole post follows:



> I'm not quibbling, I'm just saying that if there is such a thing as spirituality, and that spirituality is only possible for certain life forms, then that spirituality has a physical connection with those life forms.
> 
> My question, once we determine what has a spirit and what doesn't, is what the physical difference is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Boss (Sep 6, 2017)

RWS said:


> All life forms have physicality. So Spirituality, by your definition is something that is not physical in nature. Yet some physical objects possess it.
> 
> So my question was, what is the threshold between an object that has spirituality and one that doesn't?
> 
> ...



No. Some physical objects possess spirits. Spirituality is the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "
> ...



Yes, of course I am. If you are going to arbitrarily choose one dictionary service's statement as "the authority", then we are going to inspect what it means. I know you were hoping for a 'Mic drop' there, but this is a discussion, not a lecture.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 6, 2017)

How does the existence of aliens preclude a Creator?

secureteam10


----------



## Boss (Sep 6, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



You asked what is the function of the spirit and why is it necessary?
I replied, we have a word for it... *Inspiration.* 
You misapplied the word to several examples and I called you on it.
You denied you misapplied the word and accused me of determining my own meaning. 
I posted the dictionary's definition of the word.
You want to parse the definition. 

Anyone with a scroll wheel can roll up the thread and read it all for themselves. 

This stopped being a discussion when I answered your question and you responded with nonsense. 
You continue to respond with nonsense. 
Consider the mic dropped.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Vandalshandle said:


> The Bibles says that man was created in God's image, but, oddly enough, does not say what god needs a penis for.


No more guesses please, we now have the post of the day!

Bravo!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just saying that if there is such a thing as spirituality, and *that spirituality is only possible for certain life forms*, then that spirituality has a physical connection with those life forms.
> ...


There are a lot of words here saying nothing


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


It is the new and improved "proof" of God. The best part is its immunity from argument.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Apparently it was necessary for the spirit to create Zika.

I wonder if the spirit of the raptured Zika will cause trouble in heaven?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "Wind, however, is simply atoms moving rapidly. It's physical, not spiritual."
> ...



but it really is!



> If it were as you "simply" conclude, we'd see the great technological achievements of the chimpanzee who we share 96% of our DNA with.



I have corrected your nonsense before but you keep forgetting. 

1) That last 4% is really important. 

2) Technology requires the exacting anatomy to make physical objects, oral mechanisms  and writing to pass on high-level knowledge to others. Chimps do not have those. Technology is a result of advanced civilization. 



> You're explaining the pathology of how thought is processed in our brains... it has nothing whatsoever to do with inspiration.



You probably need a hyphen in your invented word path-ology. LOL

He exactly defined inspiration. No need to hocus pocus. You can thank Chuck Darwin.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > That's a specious argument. Just because our brains can process thoughts another brain cannot does not necessitate that there is anything more at work than physical processes, nor does asserting that everything which happens in our brains has a purely physical basis necessitate that a similar creature would have the same result from physical processes in their brains.
> ...



More bold assertions with no evidence



> Occam's Razor says simpler theories are preferable.



Occam's Razor as a defense of God?

*hahahaha-ah-haha-hahahahahahaha*


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, it may yet happen that chimpanzees eventually evolve into a species with self-awareness, or language, or art.
> ...


We have tons of evidence since we evolved from apes once already.

As far as non-human "spirit"

Mystery Lingers Over Ritual Behavior of New Human Ancestor


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "THIS is a specious argument. You have ZERO evidence to support this notion. "
> ...


No evidence?

Where did land animals come from? Explain the fossil record.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


LOL you are learning about Boss.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 6, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I didn't misuse the word inspiration. In fact, the definition you provided from a dictionary source is easily applied to, for instance, beavers building a dam. You have been guilty more than once of assuming as true that which is your burden to argue as true. This is one of those times.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 6, 2017)

Vandalshandle said:


> The Bibles says that man was created in God's image, but, oddly enough, does not say what god needs a penis for.


Well, it turns out we do have a problem!

Psalm 23:4 ~ Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.

Psalm 23:4 Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 6, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


MarkDuffy said:


> Apparently it was necessary for the spirit to create Zika.
> 
> I wonder if the spirit of the raptured Zika will cause trouble in heaven?




_*Apparently it was necessary for the spirit to create Zika.
*_
zika makes the spirit through its life expectancy, individually as not all zika would be admissible to heaven their refined Spirit would be the difference. not the other way around.


only those that Triumph in life are candidates to be Judged by whatever the Almighty of the time determines will be their verdict.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 6, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I already know the tactics.  Boss isn't the first.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 6, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Shaman Breezewood has spoken!


----------



## RWS (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > All life forms have physicality. So Spirituality, by your definition is something that is not physical in nature. Yet some physical objects possess it.
> ...



So what I take from that is that only humans can have spirituality. Right?

Previous iterations of high apes didn't have spirituality? Like Neanderthals?

And other high-intelligence animals like chimps, dogs, pigs, dolphins, crows, and "octopussies" don't have spirituality either.

So that means there's a difference in the physical nature of a modern homo-sapien-sapien that distinguishes it from it's predecessors like homo-sapien, and all other intelligent life forms.

What would that physical difference be to allow spirituality in only HSS? There has to be a physical trait.

Unless you change your answer once again...


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> No evidence?
> 
> Where did land animals come from? Explain the fossil record.



The fossil record shows species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing. There are very few examples of transitional fossils and no examples of cross-genus speciation. There should be trillions of these examples. Here is where people like you will usually say... _Well, we haven't looked everywhere!_ ...Well... your fossils don't prove your case then! 

Look man... I would LOVE to believe that, when God created Life, it was something SO incredible it was able to evolve from a single-cell organism into the billions of assorted life forms we know today. If ANYTHING would be capable of creating such a thing, it would indeed be God. But I don't believe that's how we came about having all the life we see today. I believe whatever created life was intelligent and created numerous forms of interdependent life... some of it evolved, some of it went extinct. I don't need to define the Creator and it doesn't need to be the Biblical God.


----------



## RWS (Sep 7, 2017)

boss says "I believe whatever created life was intelligent and created numerous forms of interdependent life... "

How old is the Earth, boss?


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> So what I take from that is that only humans can have spirituality. Right?
> 
> Previous iterations of high apes didn't have spirituality? Like Neanderthals?
> 
> ...



I don't KNOW what can have spirituality. I know that humans appear to be the only species who have spiritual awareness and spiritually connect. Other species may and we may just not be aware of it. But when we discuss "spirituality" we are talking about human spirituality. 

For the record, there has been evidence that some Neanderthals in Europe did attempt spirituality. It came late in the species evolution and it was probably an attempt to mimic their homo sapien counterparts who were thriving. There is something very important about human spirituality and survival of the species. 

Human spirituality is a physical behavioral trait. Now, if we study ANY species of life and find a repeated behavioral trait through the entire course of the species existence, we'd determine conclusively this was fundamental to the species even if we didn't understand why. There is no example of any life form having a consistent behavioral trait without any reason or purpose.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> boss says "I believe whatever created life was intelligent and created numerous forms of interdependent life... "
> 
> How old is the Earth, boss?



We think it's about 4.5 billion years old. 

Where did all the water come from? 
Why are we the only rocky planet with a molten iron-nickel core?


----------



## RWS (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > No evidence?
> ...



So if it was intelligent and created numerous forms of interdependent life, how long did it wait to do it?

Obviously God, nor an intelligent creator, is not going drop a bunch of interdependent life forms on a molten blob of rock.

So how long did he/it wait, before creating us? Was the planet created separately, and then he waited a few billion years to drop multiple forms of life onto the planet that could survive the environment (which would include humans based on your posts)? Or did he/it just do it all at once?

How old do you really think the Earth is? Because your posts, and your answer of 4.5 billion years, do not coincide.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> how long did it wait to do it?




Time is irrelevant to spiritual nature. Time is a physical dimension.


----------



## RWS (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > how long did it wait to do it?
> ...



But spirituality is a human trait, as you said. And like you said as well, we did not evolve from apes.

When did the creator/god drop off all of this interdependent life, including humans, on the planet? In Earth years? Consider that dropping off a few beings of each type of life is not going to be good enough to survive. The environment has to be already saturated with that ecosystem, for life forms to be dropped off on the planet and flourish.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> Because your posts, and your answer of 4.5 billion years, do not coincide.




Really? How do you figure that? 

You know.... for the fucking record, because I know what you're implying here.... MOST religious people don't believe the 6000 yr. old EEC story. In fact, that is a relatively tiny sliver of fundamentalists. You, trying to lump everyone who believes in any kind of God together with such nonsense is simply your method of besmirching those who you disagree with. 

This is because you're a punk. You don't have the mental capacity to debate on an intellectual level with people who know what they're talking about so you resort to punkish behavior like this. I guess you think that impresses the ladies? 

Furthermore... 4.5 billion years is the currently accepted scientific belief. Less than 50 years ago, that was 2.5 billion years. 100 years ago it was 1 billion years. 200 years ago it was a million years. See... it's a funny thing about Science, it continues to find new information and change. Unlike you.


----------



## RWS (Sep 7, 2017)

So if not by evolution, the creator had to create all life at once, including humans, fully saturated.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> But spirituality is a human trait, as you said. And like you said as well, we did not evolve from apes.
> 
> When did the creator/god drop off all of this interdependent life, including humans, on the planet? In Earth years? Consider that dropping off a few beings of each type of life is not going to be good enough to survive. The environment has to be already saturated with that ecosystem, for life forms to be dropped off on the planet and flourish.




I don't know what you mean by "drop off" ...Spiritual Nature is all around us all the time. It doesn't have to "drop off" things. 

For the record, I didn't say we didn't evolve from apes. I don't know. However we came to be, something greater than self bestowed upon us the ability to spiritually connect and be spiritually aware, and this is where human civilization began.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> So if not by evolution, the creator had to create all life at once, including humans, fully saturated.



I didn't say that.


----------



## RWS (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Because your posts, and your answer of 4.5 billion years, do not coincide.
> ...



Because you're full of shit dude. I have been telling you this from the beginning. You pick the opposite side to argue in a thread, even if you don't agree with it, and argue it forever for giggles. Maybe to make yourself feel smart or engage some mental muscles. But you don't stop after obvious dismissals. You change your story and the intention of the OP to something that suits your never-ending ego and need for attention. And obviously others here realize that too. And we're also obviously happy to give you what you want. Otherwise it would be boring here... 

You're fun to pick on!


----------



## Vastator (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> [QUOTE="RWS, post: 18099463, member: 45327
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Irony alert!!!


----------



## RWS (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > But spirituality is a human trait, as you said. And like you said as well, we did not evolve from apes.
> ...



From Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

*Boss said: 
Humans are NOT apes. If we were, we could breed with apes. The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about. I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that! *

And then you just said:* "For the record, I didn't say we didn't evolve from apes."
*
Technically, you didn't say it in those exact words, but... that's exactly what your previous post implied.


----------



## RWS (Sep 7, 2017)

Vastator said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOTE="RWS, post: 18099463, member: 45327
> ...


lol, he's having another temper tantrum, that's ok


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > No evidence?
> ...



LOL, and the pattern of increased complexity with time? Fish to amphibians to reptiles to vertebrates? Related organisms on different continents that can only be explained by plate tetonics & others clearly different for the same reason?



> There are very few examples of transitional fossils and no examples of cross-genus speciation.



We have lots of those. You demand dots that are close together but evolution does not work that way. When evolution occurs, it is fast not slow like Daddy Chuck hypothesized. 



> There should be trillions of these examples.



You clearly do not understand the fossilization process nor evolution. Fossils are RARE. 



> Here is where people like you will usually say... _Well, we haven't looked everywhere!_ ...Well... your fossils don't prove your case then!



Do you always win arguments you make up in your puny brain?



> Look man... I would LOVE to believe that, when God created Life, it was something SO incredible it was able to evolve from a single-cell organism into the billions of assorted life forms we know today.



You mean like the fossil record proves?



> If ANYTHING would be capable of creating such a thing, it would indeed be God. But I don't believe that's how we came about having all the life we see today. I believe whatever created life was intelligent and created numerous forms of interdependent life... some of it evolved, some of it went extinct. I don't need to define the Creator and it doesn't need to be the Biblical God.



What you need to do is edit posts so your older nonsense is not in them.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> LOL, and the pattern of increased complexity with time? Fish to amphibians to reptiles to vertebrates? Related organisms on different continents that can only be explained by plate tetonics & others clearly different for the same reason?



Again, there is evidence for microevolution. I've never denied that. There may even be evidence for macroevolution some day-- god's pretty amazing. As it stands, there isn't any valid evidence to show evolution across genus taxonomy. 



MarkDuffy said:


> We have lots of those. You demand dots that are close together but evolution does not work that way. When evolution occurs, it is fast not slow like Daddy Chuck hypothesized.



Oh, this is absolutely priceless! How many times have we been told that evolution takes millions of years to happen? It sounds pretty "convenient" for it to also happen very quickly. Maybe evolution is like the collapsing wave function, where it normally happens slowly but if it's being observed, happens quickly? *snickers*  

For the record, about 80% of what "Daddy Chuck" hypothesised has been completely debunked by modern science. He comes from a time when they still believed in spontaneous generation.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> From Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...
> 
> *Boss said:
> Humans are NOT apes. If we were, we could breed with apes. The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about. I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that! *
> ...



No, not technically... *FACTUALLY.* 

You are drawing implications that weren't made.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> Because you're full of shit dude. I have been telling you this from the beginning. You pick the opposite side to argue in a thread, even if you don't agree with it, and argue it forever for giggles. Maybe to make yourself feel smart or engage some mental muscles. But you don't stop after obvious dismissals. You change your story and the intention of the OP to something that suits your never-ending ego and need for attention. And obviously others here realize that too. And we're also obviously happy to give you what you want. Otherwise it would be boring here...
> 
> You're fun to pick on!



I'm sorry that I am smarter than you and it makes you feel inferior. I don't argue for giggles, nor do I pick the opposite side to argue in a thread even if I don't agree. SOMETIMES, I will engage in what we call "playing devil's advocate" on a topic, in order to challenge intellectually. I guess that must be what you keep referring to but it happens very rarely and I usually say that right up front. 

You're not qualified to dismiss me. That's why you are having to create an imaginary group.. "obviously others here realize that too... and we..." You see, when people do that it's because they are insecure. It's a psychological reaction you are having because you know that I am smarter than you. 

What's fun for you is to come here and relieve your anxiety by attacking me personally. Normally, I would just kick your ass and send you home crying to your mother, but on a message board, that's not possible and you know that. Faced with the realization you're no match for me in the arena of thought, you resort to childish little games and name calling. I should respond by just putting you on ignore but you're too dang entertaining sometimes.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, and the pattern of increased complexity with time? Fish to amphibians to reptiles to vertebrates? Related organisms on different continents that can only be explained by plate tetonics & others clearly different for the same reason?
> ...



You IDers make me laugh. You don't even understand that to surrender to microevolution, you also surrender to macroevolution. It's like you claim it is possible to be a little bit pregnant!



MarkDuffy said:


> We have lots of those. You demand dots that are close together but evolution does not work that way. When evolution occurs, it is fast not slow like Daddy Chuck hypothesized.
> 
> 
> 
> > Oh, this is absolutely priceless! How many times have we been told that evolution takes millions of years to happen? It sounds pretty "convenient" for it to also happen very quickly. Maybe evolution is like the collapsing wave function, where it normally happens slowly but if it's being observed, happens quickly? *snickers*



A million years is pretty fast! You expect an organism to show up in the fossil record with 1/4 of an eye. Then 1/2 of an eye. Then 3/4 of an eye. Finally an eye! Those are your missing links. You won't ever see that.



> For the record, about 80% of what "Daddy Chuck" hypothesised has been completely debunked by modern science. He comes from a time when they still believed in spontaneous generation.



80% eh? Wow, that's a lot. What should I use to destroy the pedestal we have put him on? A micro or macro-sledgehammer?

Moving onto another question you will do everything but try to explain.

What made you deny the Christian God? It appears you do deny the Bible. I take it you used to be religious but that finally God got too much for even you.


----------



## Hawkins (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> You IDers make me laugh. You don't even understand that to surrender to microevolution, you also surrender to macroevolution. It's like you claim it is possible to be a little bit pregnant!



It's you who are laughable. Science is about how to bring the theoretical process predictable. Microevolution bears a good chance to be made predictable but not macroevolution.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> You IDers make me laugh. You don't even understand that to surrender to microevolution, you also surrender to macroevolution. It's like you claim it is possible to be a little bit pregnant!



Well, sorry... One is proved by observation and the other is not. Small changes (micro) happen within a genus taxon, producing new species. This has happened continually. What isn't apparent in the fossil record or through any experiment is cross-genus speciation. It fucking just doesn't happen. Now maybe it DID happen and we've just not found the evidence yet? I'll agree that's possible. But let's be clear, even THAT doesn't disprove intelligent design. It just makes the intelligent designer more clever. 

What bugs me to no end is Atheists who cling to a FAITH in something they cannot prove. AND... acting as if they have proven it! You're actually worse than any fundamentalist creationist that ever came down the pike.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Hawkins said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > You IDers make me laugh. You don't even understand that to surrender to microevolution, you also surrender to macroevolution. It's like you claim it is possible to be a little bit pregnant!
> ...


Evolution is not predictable.

Evolution is random mutation and other processes acted upon by non-random selection.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> A million years is pretty fast! You expect an organism to show up in the fossil record with 1/4 of an eye. Then 1/2 of an eye. Then 3/4 of an eye. Finally an eye! Those are your missing links. You won't ever see that.



You see... you have a severe reading comprehension problem. Given your propensity for also not understanding basic English definitions, you might be slightly mentally retarded... have you been checked? 

I didn't say "a million" ...I said "millions" as in MORE THAN ONE! Idiot! 

And no... a 1/4 eye is not functional. The human eye requires ALL it's parts to work. It is totally useless as an eye without ALL it's parts. Again... MANY years ago, science thought the eye had evolved from a simpler photovoltaic cell but in studying and further understanding how the optic nerve works, we discovered this is not possible. 

What I won't see is what you don't have evidence to support. I don't take your word for things, I need to see the evidence and evaluate it for myself. That's how I form my beliefs.


----------



## Hawkins (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Hawkins said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Any claimed science behave the same. Any scientific claims will have to be backed up by a successful predictable model.

That is, you have to predict what could possibly happen genetically in the case of a micro/macro evolution, say, you should be able to predict under what random selections that a heart or a brain or an eye can possibly be formed through the theoretical process.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > No evidence?
> ...



"The fossil record shows species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing. There are very few examples of transitional fossils "

 Nobody who knows anything about this topic at all would ever say something so ridiculous.  I think it is now fair to question your motives, after having said something so misguided.


For example, we have extensive fossil record of the evolution of the eyeball.  We know how it evolved, gradually, over 100s of millions of years. 

I can understand you saying these things out of ignorance, but I am no longer very apt to give someone the "ignorance pass".  If you have the time and wherewithall to post on internet forums, you have enough of both to do the most basic of research into this topic to learn about it.  I suggest you do so, because you are saying things that we know are false.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> What made you deny the Christian God? It appears you do deny the Bible. I take it you used to be religious but that finally God too much for even you.



I don't deny the Christian God or the The Bible. I just don't believe in them. I never have. 

I find it hard to believe God has humanistic attributes... Love, caring, compassion, anger, jealousy, desire and need. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being need these attributes? I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to that question, therefore, I don't believe in such a God. 

I believe that man has to invent a God he can relate to and this is why God has these attributes. MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity. It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it. 

However.... I do believe that our spirits will ultimately be judged based on our earthly deeds. Why do I believe this? Because Spiritual Nature seems to steer us on a particular path and course of goodness and righteousness. I believe there is a purpose for this. Perhaps our mortal existence is a test of our souls to see if we are ready for a higher plane of existence?


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Not seeing any evidence here. I'm just seeing you refute what I said based on nothing but your opinion.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > You IDers make me laugh. You don't even understand that to surrender to microevolution, you also surrender to macroevolution. It's like you claim it is possible to be a little bit pregnant!
> ...



Not more clever, rather very busy. He needs to keep on begetting. I wonder why that simple fact is not in the Bible. He claimed he was done on Day 6.



> What bugs me to no end is Atheists who cling to a FAITH in something they cannot prove. AND... acting as if they have proven it! You're actually worse than any fundamentalist creationist that ever came down the pike.



We must being doing well if we got you all to surrender to microevolution!

_This is the way it's been done for billions of years. Small moves, Ellie. Small moves._
_
_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Hawkins said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Hawkins said:
> ...



"That is, you have to predict what could possibly happen genetically in the case of a micro/macro evolution, say, you should be able to predict under what random selections that a heart or a brain or an eye can possibly be formed through the theoretical process."

I'm not sure i understand what this means, but I can tell you that we have confirmed , via empirical observations, every single mechanism of evolution, including natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. Also, while mutations may be random, selection most certainly is not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




"Not seeing any evidence here."


Of what... transitional fossils?  Then you are blind.  I'm not going to retread old ground.  I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before.  Unless  have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic.  In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.


----------



## Hawkins (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "That is, you have to predict what could possibly happen genetically in the case of a micro/macro evolution, say, you should be able to predict under what random selections that a heart or a brain or an eye can possibly be formed through the theoretical process."
> 
> I'm not sure i understand what this means, but I can tell you that we have confirmed , via empirical observations, every single mechanism of evolution, including natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. Also, while mutations may be random, selection most certainly is not.



In terms of science this is as hollow as we have empirical observations, every mechanism of chemistry, including <whatever chemical> that chemical reactions do occur.

Predictability on the other is that,

before lab I predict that,
 2H2O = 2H2 + O2

after lab shows that the above prediction is 100% realized. If not you deserve a Nobel Prize!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > A million years is pretty fast! You expect an organism to show up in the fossil record with 1/4 of an eye. Then 1/2 of an eye. Then 3/4 of an eye. Finally an eye! Those are your missing links. You won't ever see that.
> ...


and you ignored my question. This is why you edit posts.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Not seeing any evidence here."
> 
> 
> Of what... transitional fossils? Then you are blind. I'm not going to retread old ground. I have not a doubt in my mind that you have been shown why you are wrong before. Unless have this all wrong, and you are a very young person in a remote area of the world who is new to this topic. In which case, I would simply point you to some resources to get you started o this topic.



I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject. I'm not blind, there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils. Every claim I have ever seen of one can be falsified. This is precisely why most "smart" evolutionists will try to maintain the argument that micro and macro evolution are the same thing. They are fully aware they have no argumentative basis for macroevolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Hawkins said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "That is, you have to predict what could possibly happen genetically in the case of a micro/macro evolution, say, you should be able to predict under what random selections that a heart or a brain or an eye can possibly be formed through the theoretical process."
> ...


I have no idea what you mean by this.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "Not seeing any evidence here."
> ...


"I guarantee you can't show me anything I haven't seen on the subject."

Yes, exactly what I said.  So, really, the proper counter to your nonsensical argument is thus:

"I defy you to show me a fossil that is NOT a transitional fossil."

Then, you can flail away forever in the ether of fallacy, and leave the rest of us to it.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



I don't edit posts. I didn't ignore any question.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > What made you deny the Christian God? It appears you do deny the Bible. I take it you used to be religious but that finally God too much for even you.
> ...



Interesting and thank you finally for that much! I agree with this so far.



> MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity.



Those are physical not spirit, but I get the point. You could call that Nature or even Mom Nature. 



> It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it.



Now you are talking God, just a different God. I conclude from this that there can be communication like prayer? Your spirit has just become a being with consciousness. 



> However.... I do believe that our spirits will ultimately be judged based on our earthly deeds. Why do I believe this? Because Spiritual Nature seems to steer us on a particular path and course of goodness and righteousness. I believe there is a purpose for this. Perhaps our mortal existence is a test of our souls to see if we are ready for a higher plane of existence?



Judged? It sounds like you are talking God without all the fairy tales. What happens if we fail the judgement?


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Again, you are demonstrating a problem you have with words and the context in which they are being used in a conversation. I really wonder if you may have ingested lead paint chips as a child or something. I'm repeatedly having to stop and take time to correct you on things you've misinterpreted. 

When I say "transitional fossils" it means transitioning from one genus to another. Where is the fossil of the fish with half-formed legs transitioning into a reptile? It doesn't exist. Where is the fossil of the half horse-half giraffe? It fucking doesn't exist! You have horses with shorter legs becoming horses with longer legs. All your fossils show transition within their genus taxon. Where are the trillions of examples showing cross-genus speciation?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"When I say "transitional fossils" it means transitioning from one genus to another. "


How very arbitrary of you. You make up these arbitrary conditions, do not well-define them, then act as if it is everyone else's fault for not knowing exatly what you mean.

Again: EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, and I defy you to show me one that is not.

Have fun chasing your tail!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Hawkins said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Hawkins said:
> ...



You confuse the physical sciences and the biological. I had the same problem switching from my first major astrophysics to evolutionary biology. Biology is much more fun cuz it is not predictable. As a matter of fact, the reason I switched to biological was that biology was a mess and needed some physical science applied to it, specifically chemistry. Taxonomy was a mess. When I was doing my thesis, my limpet changed genus THREE times!



> That is, you have to predict what could possibly happen genetically in the case of a micro/macro evolution, say, you should be able to predict under what random selections that a heart or a brain or an eye can possibly be formed through the theoretical process.



Evolution doesn't work that way. We can only look backwards to see what did happen.

Evolution responds mainly to environmental changes. Like extinction events that killed off most life with the asteroid impact.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



*You could call that Nature or even Mom Nature.*

And many people DO! 

*Now you are talking God, just a different God. I conclude from this that there can be communication like prayer? Your spirit has just become a being with consciousness.*

Is nuclear energy and electricity a God? Consciousness is an enigmatic thing that we don't fully understand. It's not really a physical thing. The process can be physically described but we don't really understand how and why it works.  

*Judged? It sounds like you are talking God without all the fairy tales. What happens if we fail the judgement?*

Well, I don't know.... didn't claim to know. IF what I believe is true, your soul wouldn't transcend to the higher plane. Perhaps it returns to re-live a mortal existence until it meets the requirements? As I explained, I believe there has to be a purpose behind spiritual nature guiding us toward goodness and away from evil.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Again, you are intentionally taking what I said out of context to make an inane point. 

It's not arbitrary at all. Words in a conversation have context. Every fossil doesn't show one genus transitioning into another genus.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, it's arbitrary, as you could have meant species, family, etc.  But you , arbitrarily, chose genus.

Yes, every fossil is a "transition fossil" (which is actually a nonsensical term, avoided by scientists) under your own conditions, as evolution is working on all species at all times. Every species which has ever lived was and is "transitioning".  Evolution is not something that can be stopped, no matter how hard we try.

So, again: show me a fossil that is NOT a "transitional fossil".


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, it's arbitrary, as you could have meant species, family, etc. But you , arbitrarily, chose genus.
> 
> Yes, every fossil is a "transition fossil" (which is actually a nonsensical term, avoided by scientists) under your own conditions, as evolution is working on all species at all times. Every species which has ever lived was and is "transitioning". Evolution is not something that can be stopped, no matter how hard we try.
> 
> So, again: show me a fossil that is NOT a "transitional fossil".



No, I did not arbitrarily choose genus, that's what we were discussing. I have already stated that microevolution within a genus is factual. So the entire debate is surrounding evolution across genus taxon. In THAT context, "transition" can only mean one thing. And you have exactly ZERO fossil evidence showing one genus transitioning to another genus. You also have no example of any living thing that is part one genus and part another genus because it is in a state of evolutionary transition.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "Not seeing any evidence here."
> ...


You appear to be stuck on the term genus. You admit speciation, but not at the genus level, nor higher taxa.

First, individual organisms do not evolve. They are born, live & then die. It is the species that evolves. It does this through changes in population genetics, the sum of all individual genotypes. If the genus separates into separate populations that do not interact, the populations will gradually differ in population genotypes. If the species remains interbreeding, they evolve together ~ no speciation ~ BUT they might no longer be able to breed with ancestors of the same species. So as far as time goes, homo sapiens today might not be able to breed with homo sapiens in the far past. We call ourselves the same species, but we might not be in reality. Do you understand this much? We have no clue whether or not homo sapiens and homo erectus were actually different species. They looked different, so it is convenient to call them different species. 

There are two types of evolutionary biologists ~ lumpers and splitters. I am a lumper. I call Neandertals a subspecies, others call it a separate species. 

Once the two separate populations have evolved away from each other enough, they might not be able to interbreed even if they come in contact again ~ speciation. As time goes on the differences become so great we put them into different genera. Higher taxa occurs the same way. 

You IDers expect higher taxa to pop up in an environment totally filled with creatures who are already finely tuned to their environment. There is no room for them any longer. Selection NOW works against such macroevolution. 

Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.



I've seen NO evidence of it thus far.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 7, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils



there may not be a physical proof of transition from one being to another as it occurs by a sequence of commands executed in a single event without leaving a physical trace for inspection, spiritual transformation - the transformation from one to another in metamorphosis, the cicada below is an example of a physically traceless transformation. 








the same process can occur from one species to a new species when the necessary sequence over years of development is completed, the spiritual transformation becomes a single physical event producing a new species without a physical intermediate transition.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's arbitrary, as you could have meant species, family, etc. But you , arbitrarily, chose genus.
> ...


As I have said many times before, even if we show you the missing link you would claim we didn't. You would then tell us we just caused two new gaps, one on each side of the new missing link.

We have and you did!

It is one of the running jokes in evolutionary biology.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yes you do. I'm not saying you change posts. You remove parts and only respond to parts. It destroys anyone's ability to follow the subthread w/o going back to original posts.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.
> ...


LOL, yes that's your story and you're sticking to it.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...



You are illustrating a process of life. This is not evolution. You are conflating it with evolution for some odd reason. In your wacky theory, things just pop into existence when they are "spiritually ready" or something. That's way out there man.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 7, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> You are illustrating a process of life. This is not evolution. You are conflating it with evolution for some odd reason. In your wacky theory, things just pop into existence when they are "spiritually ready" or something. That's way out there man.




may I remind you this is the religion forum ... the shocking thing for me is your denial of spirituality for all beings but yourself and your singular conection to it you likewise deny other beings were they even spiritual.


_*This is not evolution ...*_


you know perfectly well others have claimed the same response, and this is about spirituality, I expect the atheist to not see the connection but for you it is almost criminal.

that process is the Almighty's display of refined spiritual purity and is the playground for the future deny it all you want it's not going away for them only by Humanity and for their final extinction.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> may I remind you this is the religion forum ... the shocking thing for me is your denial of spirituality for all beings but yourself and your singular conection to it you likewise deny other beings were they even spiritual.
> 
> 
> _*This is not evolution ...*_
> ...



Breezy.... Man.... really now.... your hatred and vitriol for me has gone on far too long to be healthy. You would think, given our personal views, we'd kinda be on the same page regarding spirituality. I mean, I read your posts and find a lot of things to agree with you on when you are conversing with the Atheists. But for some mysterious reason, you like to attack me and say things that are just absolutely not true about my views. 

I have not denied a spiritual aspect to other beings. In fact, I once told you that you made a good point and actually caused me to think differently about that. Other living things might indeed make spiritual connections and we may just not be aware of that. I've tried to be very careful since then about how I phrase things so as to leave that possibility open. But apparently, whatever your beef is with me, it's not good enough... you must find some way to contest anything I say. 

I don't understand it... never will.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




Until I see some fucking science to prove otherwise... YES!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's arbitrary, as you could have meant species, family, etc. But you , arbitrarily, chose genus.
> ...



" I did not arbitrarily choose genus, that's what we were discussing."

You absolutely did.  And that's fine, because your argument is just as bad no matter what arbitrary definition you choose.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




I wonder how all virtually of the people who dedicate their lives to science have agreed that they have "seen" enough science (a nonsensical phrase, really) to be convinced have missed what you, apparently, have discovered by reading creationist blogs?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...



 You should do some scientific research to prove your idea.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



No, I absolutely didn't arbitrarily choose anything. We're having a conversation. Words mean things in context of what is being discussed. The word "set" has 157 different meanings, depending on what is being discussed. It's not arbitrary, it's contextual. Perhaps you were never properly educated on this and that's why you have so much trouble with context? Or maybe you have a severe learning disorder? In any event, it's not MY problem.


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Okay, what you are doing now is called "_argumentum ad populum_." You need to know, this is NOT science and is actually the antithesis of science. It does not matter to science how many people believe something. That factor is not in the scientific method, and for good reason. It's sort of why Science was invented. Science allows us to observe, measure, test and evaluate without regard for what popular opinion may be. I would say that probably 98% of what Science has discovered is a contradiction of what was prevailing common assumption of the time. Even when the common assumption was based on previous scientific work. 

I don't read creationist blogs. I don't agree with creationist theory for the most part. I will make the philosophical argument that we are ALL believers in creationism. How so, you may ask? Well... we do exist, right? If we exist, we had to be created somehow. You believe in creation through physical happenstance and I believe in an intelligent designer... but we both believe in creationism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...







Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I just made a casserole! Looks like I am a creator! I never knew I believed in creationism!


By the way, that was another example of you insisting upon your own, arbitrary definition of a term. Can I play, too?


----------



## Boss (Sep 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I just made a casserole! Looks like I am a creator! I never knew I believed in creationism!
> 
> 
> By the way, that was another example of you insisting upon your own, arbitrary definition of a term. Can I play, too?



Sure... you go right ahead and play "I'm a retard who doesn't comprehend context!" You're winning so far!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > I just made a casserole! Looks like I am a creator! I never knew I believed in creationism!
> ...



No, it's a completely fair mocking of the attempt to equate all as creationists.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > may I remind you this is the religion forum ... the shocking thing for me is your denial of spirituality for all beings but yourself and your singular conection to it you likewise deny other beings were they even spiritual.
> ...


.


Boss said:


> Breezy.... Man.... really now.... your hatred and vitriol for me has gone on far too long to be healthy.



that's a joke bossy is the best I can say for that opinion ... you might ask yourself though about your avatar do you often play with knives.




Boss said:


> But for some mysterious reason, you like to attack me and say things that are just absolutely not true about my views.



your a rightwinger that preys on the innocent, you trample the Free Spirit in others, then play innocent, blade like I said this is the religion forum such behavior is reprehensible, believe it or not.


----------



## RWS (Sep 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> I believe that man has to invent a God he can relate to and this is why God has these attributes. MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity. It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it.
> 
> However.... I do believe that our spirits will ultimately be judged based on our earthly deeds.



By whom?


----------



## RWS (Sep 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > From Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...
> ...



Stop changing your story.

Your statement said what it said. It speaks for itself. And it's recorded so you can no longer change it. So you're going to change your story again?

You say things that are factually incorrect constantly and then continue to argue them to save face, and then contradict your original statements when faced with truth. When busted, you change your story every time, to continue your fallacy. You owe me a few cookies btw...

But of course, the way you roll, you would need to buy Keebler, to hand out enough cookies to compensate for your false arguments...


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that man has to invent a God he can relate to and this is why God has these attributes. MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity. It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it.
> ...



I don't know... something. Probably whatever Spiritual Force gave us souls. 

As I explained (apparently you ignored it), I believe this because rationality tells me there must be some fundamental reason our spirits are guided toward goodness... good things... good deeds... love... as opposed to the opposite. Now, maybe I am wrong? I'm willing to take the chance that I'm not wrong and attempt to live a moral and ethical life while nurturing my soul. But honestly, from the bottom of my heart... I couldn't give one rat's ass whether you do that or not. That is MY personal belief and that's all.


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



I didn't change my story.


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> your a rightwinger that preys on the innocent, you trample the Free Spirit in others, then play innocent, blade like I said this is the religion forum such behavior is reprehensible, believe it or not.



What is a "rightwinger?"


----------



## RWS (Sep 8, 2017)

So you believe homo-sapien-sapien may have descended from other apes?


----------



## RWS (Sep 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Who gets to decide what is considered "good"? For the majority of people, what's good for others is not good for them. So who gets to judge them, if you believe in an energy god that doesn't give a shit? 

Btw, you got that from me... jus sayin'. 

The difference is that you're saying there is an imaginary being that gets to decide what is good and bad. And decides who gets sent into the "dark energy" or whatever, if they do things that you declare bad... And to be clear, you think you are that imaginary being that gets to decide, Boss. That's why you think you're the boss. You think you're the judge. 

But from my experiences with you, I do not usually agree with what you consider to be good as being "good". And therefore, I think you're a really bad judge. 

You're an online bully with internet muscles, and a non-stop need for attention, and won't accept anything but people bowing down to you. 

That's how you roll, dudette. Like I told you before, you're not as smart as you think you are.

Insert next temper tantrum here...


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

RWS said:


> So you believe homo-sapien-sapien may have descended from other apes?



Homo sapiens are Hominids. It's *possible* we had common ancestry at one time with apes. If that is true, and it's only a theory at this time, it is an example of MICRO evolution. Our genus taxon is Hominid. We are not apes. 

Now... Let's go from here and have an objective look... Obviously, humans are far more advanced, civilized, intelligent and accomplished than great apes. What do you think is responsible for that? If you say it is brain development, why didn't the great apes evolve with more developed brains? What made our species so lucky? We're made of the same stuff... we belong to the same genus... yet there is a profound difference in our evolutionary path. What is responsible for that? 

Here is what I think... at some point, there was some outside intervention from something that bestowed human spirituality on our species. Made us spiritually aware and conscious. And it is because of that we developed better brains, more intelligence, ability to form civilizations, languages, creative inspiration, etc.


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

RWS said:


> Who gets to decide what is considered "good"? For the majority of people, what's good for others is not good for them. So who gets to judge them, if you believe in an energy god that doesn't give a shit?
> 
> Btw, you got that from me... jus sayin'.
> 
> ...



I didn't get anything from you. Have no idea what you're talking about. 

If you don't comprehend what "good and evil" are, I can't help you... go live in the zoo with the apes. Most humans are intrinsically aware of good and evil. 

I didn't ever say that "I Declare" what is good and bad. I merely relayed MY viewpoint. I know that you want to twist and distort and outright LIE about what I said so that you can lump me in with the religious people you hate but I'm not going to allow you to just LIE your ass off about things I said. You should know that by now. 

Spiritual Nature is not an imaginary being. It's not supernatural. It doesn't reside someplace else. 

Addressing your silly argument that I am some sort of bully who seeks attention and wants people to bow down to me... let me just say, if THAT is what I am after here, I am surely disappointed on a daily basis because that's NEVER happened! I catch hell from all sides most of the time. Hell, Breezy is a Spiritualist like me and his posts read like he thinks I'm fucking Hitler! So your assertion is just plain silly and ridiculous. Where the hell are all these people who are bowing to me and adoring everything I say?


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 8, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> Hell, Breezy is a Spiritualist like me and his posts read like he thinks I'm fucking Hitler!




maybe to some -

h and boss, two peas in a pod ... champions of propaganda.


.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > So you believe homo-sapien-sapien may have descended from other apes?
> ...



Priceless. Boss surrenders again. It is macroevolution

We ARE apes



> Now... Let's go from here and have an objective look... Obviously, humans are far more advanced, civilized, intelligent and accomplished than great apes.



In human terms yes



> What do you think is responsible for that?



Random luck



> If you say it is brain development, why didn't the great apes evolve with more developed brains?



They did. We call the endpoint of that evolution ~ wait fer it ~ man


> What made our species so lucky?



Time & a big asteroid



> We're made of the same stuff...



Everything is made of the same stuff



> we belong to the same genus...



Who is this we, Pilgrim? Not all apes belong to the same genus.



> yet there is a profound difference in our evolutionary path. What is responsible for that?



Need I repeat myself?



> Here is what I think... at some point, there was some outside intervention from something that bestowed human spirituality on our species. Made us spiritually aware and conscious. And it is because of that we developed better brains, more intelligence, ability to form civilizations, languages, creative inspiration, etc.



Oh goodie, today's new Boss Story! Before ~ we were born with spirit. Now ~ spirit has to be given to us.

The fossil record you love to ignore clearly shows the brain came first, your misunderstanding of spirituality came after.

How do you feel about the simple fact that Neandertals had spirit while we did not?  Spirit didn't help them much. Kinda looks like spitituality is a primitive characteristic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 8, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Boss rejects evolutionary theory, yet can't bring himself to state it outright, even on an anonymous message board.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > your a rightwinger that preys on the innocent, you trample the Free Spirit in others, then play innocent, blade like I said this is the religion forum such behavior is reprehensible, believe it or not.
> ...


Isn't "El Jefe" Spanish for "Boss"?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 8, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I actually give him more credit than that. He actually believes in every principle of science that does not conflict with his being a spirit walker. In that case, science is wrong.

Boss has chosen poorly but his soul can be saved from being a savage. 

We can rebuild him. We have the technology


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


*Priceless. Boss surrenders again. It is macroevolution*

You're right, it would be macroevolution because Hominid is the taxon family and not genus. Our genus is Homo. Still, it is possible that cross-genus evolution happened. We have no direct evidence of it but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. And I know that you get a kick outta claiming I've "surrendered" when I clarify something but that's not me surrendering. In this case, I was wrong and I admitted it. Most of the time, it's you misinterpreting something that I have to correct. 

*We ARE apes*

You need to prove that. 

*They did. We call the endpoint of that evolution ~ wait fer it ~ man*

First of all, you've not proven we're descendants. Secondly, apes still exist. My question is, why have they not developed advanced brain function like humans? You popped off some smart assery about asteroids but asteroids didn't hinder evolution for apes. 

*Who is this we, Pilgrim? Not all apes belong to the same genus.*

All apes belong to the Hominid family. 

*Oh goodie, today's new Boss Story! Before ~ we were born with spirit. Now ~ spirit has to be given to us.*

I didn't say that. 

We DO have spiritual awareness. This is apparent in humans dating back to the oldest civilization of humans we've ever discovered. It seems to coincide with our "rise" and my belief is that something bestowed that on us. There is a distinct correlation with our advancement and our spirituality. I can't prove this, never claimed I could. It's just what makes sense to me personally. 

*How do you feel about the simple fact that Neandertals had spirit while we did not?*

Well this is simply not true. The evidence shows, for the most part, Neanderthals were not practicing spirituality for most of their existence. (They also never formed civilizations.) There has been some recent evidence that European Neanderthals, near the end of their existence, practiced crude spiritual rituals. We don't know why but it's strongly suspected they were merely trying to survive by mimicking their homo sapien counterparts. Apparently, it was too little, too late for the Neanderthal.


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss rejects evolutionary theory, yet can't bring himself to state it outright, even on an anonymous message board.



I don't reject it, I just don't believe in macroevolution. There's no evidence of it and I don't have that kind of faith. Microevolution happens all the time, I've never disputed that. You guys just desperately want to put me in the same box with Christian fundamentalists because that's who you're comfortable ridiculing and mocking. You don't know how to deal with someone like me because I am challenging you to think and you don't do that very well.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The Primates: Humans

*



			They did. We call the endpoint of that evolution ~ wait fer it ~ man
		
Click to expand...

*


> First of all, you've not proven we're descendants. Secondly, apes still exist. My question is, why have they not developed advanced brain function like humans? You popped off some smart assery about asteroids but asteroids didn't hinder evolution for apes.



Large brain requires the invention of more sweating to cool it off.

Bipedalism came before that. We were not a gorilla who went smart. We were fully bipedal ape who went smart.

The Naked Truth

You will not see it as a satisfactory answer, but why would evolution produce two species competing for the same ecological niche with the same characteristics? It is like you expect humans to replace gorillas & gorillas to disappear. It doesn't always work that way. Gorillas stayed in the forests. We did not.

I also have my own pet hypotheses and it works for a lot of primitive humans and ape-men. We are the killer ape. We see something that kinda looks like us, we get jealous & kill it.

*



			Who is this we, Pilgrim? Not all apes belong to the same genus.
		
Click to expand...

*


> All apes belong to the Hominid family.
> 
> *Oh goodie, today's new Boss Story! Before ~ we were born with spirit. Now ~ spirit has to be given to us.*
> 
> ...



We did not show spirituality. The guess is we either ignored our dead or burned them like trash. No burials.

As for civilization, no one had that until the invention of farming 12,000 years ago. We are talking a long time before that. Perhaps Neandertals taught us their spirituality.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You didn't get the asteroid part? We think the dinosaurs had to die before advanced primates could conquer the world. They owned our niche.


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



But it's not a guess. Again, the archeological discoveries of the oldest human civilizations show signs of ceremonial ritual burials using red ocher. There is no rational explanation for why you bury the dead in a ceremonial ritual other than spiritualism. Especially, given the fact that red ocher has been used for spiritual rituals throughout history. 

So as long as we have any evidence of human civilization, we see evidence of human spirituality. Religions are a completely different matter. They didn't come along until thousands of years later. 

As for your diatribe about the gorillas... you still haven't presented factual evidence we're descendants. You assume we are based on a theory. And your explanation as to why apes didn't evolve like humans with remarkably exceptional brain function is very weak. I never claimed humans should've replaced apes, I asked why the apes failed to evolve naturally as their human counterparts? It just seems to me, if this were a natural order of evolution, we should see relatively intelligent apes who followed basically the same path as humans. Did evolution not take? What's the explanation? 

I think there is a profound and direct correlation between human intelligence and human spirituality. I believe it was through our unique spiritualism, we were able to develop civilizations, languages, technologies, etc.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



*Paleolithic burials[edit]*
The earliest evidence of religious thought is based on the ritual treatment of the dead. Most animals display only a casual interest in the dead of their own species.[34] Ritual burial thus represents a significant change in human behavior. Ritual burials represent an awareness of life and death and a possible belief in the afterlife. Philip Lieberman states "burials with grave goods clearly signify religious practices and concern for the dead that transcends daily life."[16]

The earliest evidence for treatment of the dead comes from Atapuerca in Spain. At this location the bones of 30 individuals believed to be _Homo heidelbergensis_ have been found in a pit.[35] *Neanderthals are also contenders for the first hominids to intentionally bury the dead.* They may have placed corpses into shallow graves along with stone tools and animal bones. The presence of these grave goods may indicate an emotional connection with the deceased and possibly a belief in the afterlife. Neanderthal burial sites include Shanidarin Iraq and Krapina in Croatia and Kebara Cave in Israel.[36][37][37][38]

The earliest known burial of modern humans is from a cave in Israel located at Qafzeh. Human remains have been dated to 100,000 years ago. Human skeletons were found stained with red ochre. A variety of grave goods were found at the burial site. The mandible of a wild boar was found placed in the arms of one of the skeletons.[39] Philip Lieberman states:
"Burial rituals incorporating grave goods may have been invented by the anatomically modern hominids who emigrated from Africa to the Middle East roughly 100,000 years ago".[39]
Matt Rossano suggests that the period between 80,000–60,000 years before present, following the retreat of humans from the Levant to Africa, was a crucial period in the evolution of religion.[40]

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia



> So as long as we have any evidence of human civilization, we see evidence of human spirituality. Religions are a completely different matter. They didn't come along until thousands of years later.



I think you have that backwards or you are an easy grader on civilization. I equate spirituality with religion and they came waaay before civilization.



> As for your diatribe about the gorillas... you still haven't presented factual evidence we're descendants. You assume we are based on a theory. And your explanation as to why apes didn't evolve like humans with remarkably exceptional brain function is very weak. I never claimed humans should've replaced apes, I asked why the apes failed to evolve naturally as their human counterparts? It just seems to me, if this were a natural order of evolution, we should see relatively intelligent apes who followed basically the same path as humans. Did evolution not take? What's the explanation?



If you cannot see how close we are anatomically & genetically, then it cannot be proved to you. 

We all are neotenous apes. The other apes and us look almost identical as infants and the normal features develop during childhood (neoteny)

Chimpanzees and Neoteny

It sounds like you claim intelligence is something all life should strive for; that evolution has both a purpose and a destination. It doesn't. I would say we are very lucky we got intelligence in ONE species. It looks like intelligence was starting to take off in dinosaurs (raptors) before they were slaughtered, but they have the useless arm/hand issue.  



> I think there is a profound and direct correlation between human intelligence and human spirituality. I believe it was through our unique spiritualism, we were able to develop civilizations, languages, technologies, etc.



Well, as I have said before, what you call spirit, I call consciousness. So here you get a big DUH!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 8, 2017)

I'm done for today. A teaser for tomorrow.

I will teach  you why it was girl power we have language.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 8, 2017)

.


MarkDuffy said:


> The other apes and _*us*_ look almost identical as infants and the normal features develop during childhood ...











just curious Duffy have they told you yet who your parents really were ... the CIA have done just wonderful things over the past years, * (hint) - your one of them.


----------



## Boss (Sep 8, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> I think you have that backwards or you are an easy grader on civilization. I equate spirituality with religion and they came waaay before civilization.



No, I don't think I have anything backwards, nor have your proven such. Your grading of my intelligence is irrelevant and is simply a part of your bullying technique in the arena of debate where you are poorly qualified. It's a shame because you seem relatively well-learned but what you're lacking is objectivity and honesty. You continue to try to enforce your opinions as facts and denigrate anyone who disagrees with you. 

We don't know precisely when organized religions began. I've read accounts that vary from 20,000~10,000 BC but this is just the evidence we've discovered, there may have been earlier religions that we've yet to find evidence of. In any event, human spirituality existed 100,000 years ago when humans at Qafzeh were using red ocher and ritualistically burying their dead. 



MarkDuffy said:


> If you cannot see how close we are anatomically & genetically, then it cannot be proved to you.
> 
> We all are neotenous apes. The other apes and us look almost identical as infants and the normal features develop during childhood (neoteny)



How something looks has not a damn thing to do with ancestry OR science. That would fall in the category of "conventional wisdom" and science has made it's bread and butter on disproving that. What you need and don't have is solid evidence, not speculation based on conventional wisdom. 



MarkDuffy said:


> It sounds like you claim intelligence is something all life should strive for; that evolution has both a purpose and a destination. It doesn't. I would say we are very lucky we got intelligence in ONE species. It looks like intelligence was starting to take off in dinosaurs (raptors) before they were slaughtered, but they have the useless arm/hand issue.



LMAO... Well instead of going by what it "sounds like" why don't you go by what I fucking SAY? That would avoid me having to constantly address your misconceptions and misinterpretations. I didn't make any of the arguments you're imagining here, I simply asked a question, which you conveniently avoided and resorted to yet another personal attack and interjection of your unfounded and unsupported opinion. 



MarkDuffy said:


> Well, as I have said before, what you call spirit, I call consciousness. So here you get a big DUH!



Well okay, explain human consciousness? 

It is one of the most familiar and most mysterious aspects of our lives. We have struggled to comprehend the nature of it or even define it's essential properties. We can't explain it mechanistically or even determine if non-humans have it or how to recognize it if they do. 

So there is something just a little problematic with substituting spirituality for consciousness because you are simply exchanging one enigma for another of equal value.


----------



## RWS (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Evolution favors those organisms that don't try to kill each other constantly. That explains the "good" that you attribute to a supernatural entity.

Only humans regularly try to kill each other, and they do it over their blind beliefs in a human-created religion or political system, and that's why we probably won't survive.

I live a moral and ethical life, without the need to follow Santa Claus. I do think there may be some sort of central force that combines us all, but I have no idea what it is, nor will I argue for it. It could just be some sort of quantum entanglement. Who knows? I only argue to get some sense into people, so that they stop killing each other over beliefs, and so that we don't become extinct due to bullshit.

But you're very passive/aggressive, so I don't think you're following the "good" path right now. Jus sayin.

First, you need to stop thinking you're the smartest thing on the planet and curb your arrogance. Because you're part of the problem at this point. That's the same way that religious fanatics think.


----------



## Boss (Sep 9, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Dude? Don't you ever watch Animal Planet, Nat Geo, Wild Kingdom... Lion King? Other animals kill each other all the time! I could actually make the argument that because of our spirituality, we are LESS likely to kill each other! I know that may sound bizarre to you but think about it... at some point, some cave man had to lay down beside another cave man of a different tribe and trust he wasn't going to kill him and his family in the middle of the night and steal his stuff. A mutual spirit greater than self would help provide that kind of trust and faith. 

You SAY that you have a moral and ethical life but I've never known any human to say anything different. Obviously, some humans are lying, don't you agree? If you don't have any accountability for your morality and ethics they are only as strong as your character in a given situation. In other words, your morals can change depending on circumstances. 

As for your comments about me following the good path... wait a minute Chester, I'm a peaceful man. In my personal life, I am benevolent, tolerant, kind and accepting of others. I do selfless acts almost daily and don't expect anything in return. I'm quite a different person than I come across here sometimes. The reason I post like I do is because, if you don't, you get run over and bullied. I've been posting on forums a long time and I've developed certain habits and a certain way of posting. If I come across as arrogant it's usually because I am responding to arrogance. I don't think I am the smartest person on the planet but I have confidence I am reasonably intelligent. I would say, 90% of the people here who don't like me, it's because at some point in the past, I've pissed them off by refuting their arguments with fact and logic and that embarrassed them. If there is one thing about me in real life that's the same as me here, it's that I am a straight shooter... I'm going to tell you what I think.


----------



## Boss (Sep 9, 2017)

RWS ...I forgot to address the previous exchange we were having about "judgement" and I wanted to clarify something. I realize that word triggered you a bit. What I want you to do is set aside the religious connotations of a Christian God sitting in judgement on His throne.... just lock that thought away for a minute, okay?  Now... I want you to instead, think about "judgement" more in terms of a natural culling.... like natural selection.  In a sense, doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct. I believe your soul follows the same "spiritually natural" course. It will either meet it's requirements or it won't. If it doesn't, it's going to be culled and not allowed to pass on to a higher plane of existence. The only difference is your soul is eternal and can't go extinct.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS ...I forgot to address the previous exchange we were having about "judgement" and I wanted to clarify something. I realize that word triggered you a bit. What I want you to do is set aside the religious connotations of a Christian God sitting in judgement on His throne.... just lock that thought away for a minute, okay?  Now... I want you to instead, think about "judgement" more in terms of a natural culling.... like natural selection.  In a sense, doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct. I believe your soul follows the same "spiritually natural" course. It will either meet it's requirements or it won't. If it doesn't, it's going to be culled and not allowed to pass on to a higher plane of existence. The only difference is your soul is eternal and can't go extinct.


Boss just declared gravity to be a spirit God. This God must have been the one who judged my dropped coin and made it always (so far) go down.


----------



## Boss (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS ...I forgot to address the previous exchange we were having about "judgement" and I wanted to clarify something. I realize that word triggered you a bit. What I want you to do is set aside the religious connotations of a Christian God sitting in judgement on His throne.... just lock that thought away for a minute, okay?  Now... I want you to instead, think about "judgement" more in terms of a natural culling.... like natural selection.  In a sense, doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct. I believe your soul follows the same "spiritually natural" course. It will either meet it's requirements or it won't. If it doesn't, it's going to be culled and not allowed to pass on to a higher plane of existence. The only difference is your soul is eternal and can't go extinct.
> ...



You need to seek some mental help. Seriously. You've literally spent days on this thread, faithfully battling the God believers like a good little Atheist warrior but it is making you really crack up. Your attempts to mock aren't even hitting their mark anymore... you just sound like a mentally unhinged moron.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > I think you have that backwards or you are an easy grader on civilization. I equate spirituality with religion and they came waaay before civilization.
> ...


The remains exhibit a mix of traits found in archaic and anatomically modern humans. They have been tentatively dated at about 80,000-120,000 years old using electron paramagnetic resonance and thermoluminescence dating techniques.[5] The brain case is similar to modern humans, but they possess brow ridges and a projecting facial profile like Neandertals. They were initially regarded as transitional from Neandertals to anatomically modern humans, or as hybrids between Neandertals and modern humans.

If the dates are correct for these individuals, then it is possible that Neandertals and early moderns did make contact in the region and it may be possible that the Skhul and Qafzeh hominids are partially of Neandertal descent. 

Skhul and Qafzeh hominins - Wikipedia


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


_Dude? Don't you ever watch Animal Planet, Nat Geo, Wild Kingdom... Lion King? Other animals kill each other all the time!_

They do?

Do you have video links to let's say The Lion Wars?

_ I could actually make the argument that because of our spirituality, we are LESS likely to kill each other!_

Yeah, we are sooo peaceful. The history books full of war. The Bible with God ordering war.


----------



## Boss (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



So fucking what? Neanderthalis and Homo Sapien are both part of the genus Homo! I've repeatedly admitted there is evidence of microevolution (evolution within a genus taxon). So I don't know what you're attempting to prove here. These are the oldest remains of anything like a human and they were practicing some form of spirituality. To argue that spirituality was some sort of "invention" you have to show when and where it was invented. You can't show us that! Every example you find, spirituality already exists. That has been MY point all along... thanks for reinforcing it!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


and he claims I'm the one who insults. LOL

Well, you just turned natural selection into a God that judges, so why not gravity?


----------



## Boss (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



And history is also full of averted wars that were never fought because cooler heads prevailed.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The point is that Neandertals buried their dead and had spirituality first. They died out. Spirituality did not save them. You forgot the argument already?


----------



## Boss (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> The point is that Neandertals buried their dead and had spirituality first. They died out. Spirituality did not save them. You forgot the argument already?


No, they didn't have it first. You've not established that. You are not showing me Neanderthals. The speculation is this particular find may have been a combined species or hybrid. Now there have been finds in Europe of pure Neanderthals practicing spirituality late in the species timespan but this predates that by a good bit.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> I'm done for today. A teaser for tomorrow.
> 
> I will teach  you why it was girl power we have language.


As promised

Where did language come from?

Primitive man is called a hunter/gatherer, but this is really putting lipstick on a pig. We were scavengers, like hyenas. The meat animals ran faster than us and we had clubs. No contest. 

Anyhoo, who was the hunter? Man Who was the gatherer? Woman

Who takes care of the kiddies and teaches them? Woman

Now, let's take a close look at the hunter man. He needed to be sneaky. He needed to be quiet to get close to the prey. Hand signals.

Now let's take a look at gatherer woman. Predators around. Let's make noise to scare them away & more importantly keep them away, cuz the animals know there might be men around with clubs. Notice woman's voice is higher pitched? It carries great distances to yell out for help, for example. So we have a bunch of gathering women making a lot of noise, while we have a bunch of men being very quiet. 

Shazaam!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that Neandertals buried their dead and had spirituality first. They died out. Spirituality did not save them. You forgot the argument already?
> ...


Actual digging of graves as opposed to stuffing a carcass into the back of a cave with jewelry they wore every day.


----------



## Boss (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Actual digging of graves as opposed to stuffing a carcass into the back of a cave with jewelry they wore every day.



Well digging graves has a physical (practical) purpose. It keeps the rotting corpse from smelling and attracting insects or other critters. You have no practical physical purpose for a ritual ceremony using red ocher other than spiritualism.


----------



## Boss (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Now let's take a look at gatherer woman. Predators around. Let's make noise to scare them away & more importantly keep them away, cuz the animals know there might be men around with clubs. Notice woman's voice is higher pitched? It carries great distances to yell out for help, for example. So we have a bunch of gathering women making a lot of noise, while we have a bunch of men being very quiet.
> 
> Shazaam!



Speculative bullshit.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Actual digging of graves as opposed to stuffing a carcass into the back of a cave with jewelry they wore every day.
> ...


You don't have to believe in God to wear jewelry and makeup. The claim of ritual ceremony is a conclusion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



"You need to prove that."

Haha....no. Nobody needs to spend an ounce of energy proving accepted scientific theories and facts to you. Being that they are scientific theories and facts, your belief in them or lack thereof  is your problem alone and has no bearing on the truth of them. You really need to get that through your head.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

*Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving*
Analysis of 215,000 people's DNA suggests variants that shorten life are being selected against.

Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving ~ Nature


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 9, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Boss cracks me up. We need to prove (aka an impossible feat), but he never does. Only he knows the facts & then amazingly claims there are no facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Oh, I know. It's the same thing every time. Now ask him what would constitute "proof" to him. The answers you get will range from absurd to impossible.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 9, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And he believes that because primitive humans believed it must be true.

So our ancestors were superstitious and made shit up.

I bet dolphins are smart enough to ponder this and they believe they are his chosen ones. Out here to rule the seas. And one time they were evil and God sent a great drout

But in bosses mind them believing in God would be even more evidence of god


----------



## RWS (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I grew up on those shows, esp Wild Kingdom. Other animals of the same species do kill each other at times, but it is rare, because obviously evolution does not favor that trait. But humans kill each other at a phenomenal rate. And the big purges are due to wrong beliefs in human-created religions or politics.



> You SAY that you have a moral and ethical life but I've never known any human to say anything different. Obviously, some humans are lying, don't you agree? If you don't have any accountability for your morality and ethics they are only as strong as your character in a given situation. In other words, your morals can change depending on circumstances.



No, morals don't change. They are stamped into us early during the period of growth and discovery, and many are instinctual. Only religious/political rulers can get you to do something against your morals. Like killing strangers, because you're told to. And there's a lot of mental health issues that come from having to follow those orders. Morals are trying to stay the same. Having to break those morals based on an order, has a big consequence on what evolution has established.



> As for your comments about me following the good path... wait a minute Chester, I'm a peaceful man. In my personal life, I am benevolent, tolerant, kind and accepting of others. I do selfless acts almost daily and don't expect anything in return. I'm quite a different person than I come across here sometimes. The reason I post like I do is because, if you don't, you get run over and bullied. I've been posting on forums a long time and I've developed certain habits and a certain way of posting. If I come across as arrogant it's usually because I am responding to arrogance. I don't think I am the smartest person on the planet but I have confidence I am reasonably intelligent. I would say, 90% of the people here who don't like me, it's because at some point in the past, I've pissed them off by refuting their arguments with fact and logic and that embarrassed them. If there is one thing about me in real life that's the same as me here, it's that I am a straight shooter... I'm going to tell you what I think.



I am the same way. Except, what you consider straight shooting is more of a masse shot.







And on your next post you said:

* doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct.
*
That's evolution. There was no judgement cast. Nobody said that that life form was right or wrong. It just couldn't keep up and died out.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 10, 2017)

.


> boss: doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct.






RWS said:


> That's evolution. There was no judgement cast. Nobody said that that life form was right or wrong. It just couldn't keep up and died out.



_*
- If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct.*_

how could the bold be related to "nature cast judgement" - so promising a beginning to finish in virtual agreement with RWS.



both quotes are more a statement or justification for the influence of humanity on nature than the true natural effects of Garden Earth and the equally shared aspirations of all living beings.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


And when this planet is uninhabitable for us but large works and clams still live at the bottom of the ocean where photosynthesis doesn't reach this will become the planet of the trilobites. Gods truly chosen species


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Even atheists believe primitive man was spiritual as soon as we were smart enough to wonder how we got here. Bfd. That proves we made up how we got here.

And no don't bother trying to prove anything to him because he will argue the science because science is never settled. So he will argue facts aren't facts. Or he will ignore mountains of facts.

Anyways yesterday I YouTube how life got started. Evolution is absolutely the way.

And what brought life here? First generation stars did. They blew up and spread hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and most important carbon. Carbons the key. So life came via meteors and commits. Over 3 billion years ago.

Hydrogen bacteria. Single cell bacteria that multiplies. Dna. Acid. Snotites. This is where we come from. We know because of science. 

If you only read Genesis you would think god made the world in 7 days. 100 years ago people mocked science.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



There are over 1,700 recorded wars in human history. Only 142 were over religion. Most of the time, they are over power and control of resources. 

You're totally wrong about evolution, that's exactly what it favors and that's a vital aspect to natural selection. Survival of the fittest... have you never heard that phrase? For MANY species, the foundation of their "social society" is rooted in dominance by the alpha male who kills his challengers. 



> > You SAY that you have a moral and ethical life but I've never known any human to say anything different. Obviously, some humans are lying, don't you agree? If you don't have any accountability for your morality and ethics they are only as strong as your character in a given situation. In other words, your morals can change depending on circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> No, morals don't change. They are stamped into us early during the period of growth and discovery, and many are instinctual. Only religious/political rulers can get you to do something against your morals. Like killing strangers, because you're told to. And there's a lot of mental health issues that come from having to follow those orders. Morals are trying to stay the same. Having to break those morals based on an order, has a big consequence on what evolution has established.



Morals DO change, especially if they have no foundation. It's very easy to proclaim that you're not a liar but I'll bet that at some point in life, you have indeed told a lie. That means you ARE a liar in spite of your moralistic claim to the contrary. People with no spiritual moring will often abandon their moral principles for the sake of their own personal needs. 

How many devoutly spiritual people do you reckon get abortions? I would be willing to bet it is very, very few. Abortion is a good example of people abandoning their morals for the sake of vanity and convenience. They literally justify killing another human being and have convinced themselves there is nothing morally wrong about that. 



> And on your next post you said:
> 
> * doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct.
> *
> That's evolution. There was no judgement cast. Nobody said that that life form was right or wrong. It just couldn't keep up and died out.



Yes, nature judged a species no longer met minimal requirements of survival. The judgement cast was extinction.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Anyways yesterday I YouTube how life got started. Evolution is absolutely the way.



Evolution does NOT explain origin. Sorry.... it just doesn't. It's not even in the nature of the word itself. Look it up! For any evolving to happen, something HAS TO FIRST EXIST! If something doesn't exist, it can't evolve. You can find all kinds of things on YouTube but you are in some serious intellectual trouble if that's your basis of knowledge. Just sayin'.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


_You're totally wrong about evolution, that's exactly what it favors and that's a vital aspect to natural selection. Survival of the fittest... have you never heard that phrase? For MANY species, the foundation of their "social society" is rooted in dominance by the alpha male who kills his challengers. _

LOL, kills his challengers even! Whew doggies that's a bold assertion. How many babies does your alpha male have?  Boss claims a species survives by killing itself. The big and the bold get the headlines in the newspaper, but they are not the ones creating all the babies. 

*MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.*

*CORRECTION: *In evolutionary terms, _fitness_ has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation. The more fertile offspring an organism leaves in the next generation, the fitter it is. This doesn't always correlate with strength, speed, or size. For example, a puny male bird with bright tail feathers might leave behind more offspring than a stronger, duller male, and a spindly plant with big seed pods may leave behind more offspring than a larger specimen — meaning that the puny bird and the spindly plant have higher evolutionary fitness than their stronger, larger counterparts. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.

*MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.*

*CORRECTION: *Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the "fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.

Misconceptions about evolution


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 10, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> For any evolving to happen, something HAS TO FIRST EXIST!



there has never been a time when something has not existed ... evolution can be anything including the lifespan of a boulder.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



For those just now tuning in... What we're seeing here is what happens with arrogant blowhards who can't support their arguments. Whenever they are defeated, they have to run find some trivial little detail to start an entirely new argument with. When that argument is defeated, they'll find another trivial detail to argue. It's a never-ending argument style. It doesn't really matter if they have to lie and distort what someone said to create their new argument, as long as it detracts from the previously defeated old argument. The objective is to appear they've not lost the argument. 

I've seen people who are very good at this. They can surf almost seamlessly from one trivial argument to the next and you hardly even notice they've completely changed the topic. McDuff isn't one of those posters.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...




But the boulder has to exist before it can evolve. 

*there has never been a time when something has not existed*

When did you start believing in God?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 10, 2017)

The Rut - Elk Network

Very rarely does anyone die. You don't survive as a species if the #1 kills off #2 #3 #4 and #5.

#1 might be strong and sterile.

Bottom line, the woman gets her man. The man "thinks" he is in charge.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Survival of the fittest

When we see this phrase, it is always time for an evolutionary biologist to jump in with reality

and stop whining, it just makes you look even weaker


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


_How many devoutly spiritual people do you reckon get abortions? I would be willing to bet it is very, very few. Abortion is a good example of people abandoning their morals for the sake of vanity and convenience. They literally justify killing another human being and have convinced themselves there is nothing morally wrong about that. _

Oh brother, here we go.

I am pro choice cuz I am pro life. I do not want an extended family to suffer from an unwanted baby. This is the extended family too. Single motherhood is hard on everyone, even if the baby is healthy.

You would sentence a couple to a terrible future just for what? So you could claim to be the "boss" of their life?

No wonder you picked that forum name. Mr. Macho, the imbecile.

In other species, unwanted babies are either killed or abandoned. They do it for life!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 10, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



You may be incorrect, aliens have already left their home base, Stormfront, and our now occupying this message board.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 10, 2017)

I'm still laughing at Boss's

_There are over 1,700 recorded wars in human history. Only 142 were over religion._

He has the count down to 142, not 141 nor 143.

The spirit God must have told him that


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> _How many devoutly spiritual people do you reckon get abortions? I would be willing to bet it is very, very few. Abortion is a good example of people abandoning their morals for the sake of vanity and convenience. They literally justify killing another human being and have convinced themselves there is nothing morally wrong about that. _
> 
> Oh brother, here we go.
> 
> ...




You actually just made my point. 

You have justified killing another human being as a moral act. Your morals are based on your perception of what is moral. That's a subjective evaluation by the individual and it can (and does) change.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Anyways yesterday I YouTube how life got started. Evolution is absolutely the way.
> ...


You go by what makes sense to you even if it makes no sense to anyone else. It makes sense life got here during the great bombardment. Hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and most important carbon. Carbons the key. We know single cell bacteria multiply.

It was Nova. Do you really challenge Nova? I'll go with the information they're giving over your bullshit.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Sorry it doesn't make sense to you but I can assure you that things cannot evolve until they exist. You mention a theory of "the great bombardment" but that isn't evolution. IF microbial life came here from the cosmos, then it already existed and you've not explained origin. Bacteria multiply because they are living. 

I seriously doubt Nova made the claim you've made but if they did, I refute them as well. Evolution doesn't explain origin.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The elements are in meteors and commits. They came from first generation stars.

See, there is so much you don't know. That's why you doubt. And you clearly don't watch Nova and you don't like the science. It makes you uncomfortable

What does it matter? Even if what I say is true you'll just believe God the creator did it. It doesn't disprove your creator who cares so relax


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'm not talking evolution I'm talking about how life started and humans were not poofed into the planet along with all other land animals they must have evolved. And they're finding carbon in meteors and comets. It makes sense. 

What's your origin theory? I want to hear what you believe


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Dinosaurs didn't ride in on comets and meteors


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> The elements are in meteors and commits. They came from first generation stars.
> 
> See, there is so much you don't know. That's why you doubt. And you clearly don't watch Nova and you don't like the science. It makes you uncomfortable
> 
> What does it matter? Even if what I say is true you'll just believe God the creator did it. It doesn't disprove your creator who cares so relax



I know everything about the elements but the elements are not living organisms. I actually like watching Nova and other science programs. I have no problem with science. I have a BIG problem with idiots who don't understand science and think they do. And it matters that what you say is true because when you lie and claim science says things it doesn't say, that insults science and destroys all your credibility. Science and your credibility ought to mean more to you than bullshitting people on a message board into thinking you know what you're talking about... which you don't.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The elements are in meteors and commits. They came from first generation stars.
> ...


You're the one missing the point. They have a pretty good theory on how life got started. But before we talk about it tell me your theory again


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The elements are in meteors and commits. They came from first generation stars.
> ...


You don't even believe in evolution so you have zero credibility. I'm sorry I teased a retard


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You said "Evolution is responsible for origin of life." That is FALSE! 
Evolution cannot explain the origin on life... EVER! 

Carbon is an element. It is inorganic. That means it is not living. It's not surprising to find it in comets or meteors since it's one of the most abundant elements in the universe. Carbon is a fundamental element in all living things but carbon is not living. 

I've been clear on MY theory and I've explained it to you before. I believe an omniscient and intelligent force outside of physical nature is responsible for the  design and origin of physical nature and life because it cannot create itself. I can't PROVE that... if I could, we wouldn't be discussing this and I'd have a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> You're the one missing the point. They have a pretty good theory on how life got started. But before we talk about it tell me your theory again



Well thank you for admitting that they don't really KNOW how life originated but to be honest, they don't really have a pretty good theory either. Abiogenesis is a theory that contradicts Biogenesis and there are about 157 varieties of abiogenesis theory, many of which are in conflict.


----------



## Boss (Sep 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> You don't even believe in evolution so you have zero credibility. I'm sorry I teased a retard




Well I do believe in microevolution. That's ANY evolution within a genus taxon. I don't believe in cross-genus or macroevolution because there is no evidence for it and we can't make it happen in any lab experiment. Now that can be YOUR faith and belief and that's fine... but you're not going to shove that down our throats as a FACT.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Life is made up of hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon. Nova said carbon was the key. 

Anyways, if I still believed in God I would have no problem with evolution. God made the first generation stars that led to our planet and the seed god planted may have come via comet and then single cells multiplied into the diverse life we see today.

Makes a lot more sense than yours.  Yours requires suspending reality


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 10, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You don't even believe in evolution so you have zero credibility. I'm sorry I teased a retard
> ...


I think you mean macro evolution. Micro means we all came from one source.

I'm open to the idea that one meteor planted the single cell mammal bacteria dna and another comet might have planted the reptile seed.

Science doesn't think so but you and I know they could be wrong


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Life is made up of hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon. Nova said carbon was the key.



So does basically every 7th grade science book. Telling me the ingredients of life doesn't explain the origin. And yes, since all life is known to contain carbon, it appears carbon is the key.... that still isn't explaining origin.



sealybobo said:


> Anyways, if I still believed in God I would have no problem with evolution.



My problem with MACROevoultion is not belief in God. It's a lack of Science. Until I find evidence it happened, I don't believe it. IF you want to believe something without evidence, that's up to you, but you can't pass it off as fact. 

As I've said, if anything could've created something so miraculous to spring forth the trillions of life forms we have from some ambiguous single cell, it would be God! I simply can't accept it because I find no evidence to support it. 



sealybobo said:


> God made the first generation stars that led to our planet and the seed god planted may have come via comet and then single cells multiplied into the diverse life we see today.
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than yours. Yours requires suspending reality





sealybobo said:


> I'm open to the idea that one meteor planted the single cell mammal bacteria dna and another comet might have planted the reptile seed.



So now, you believe in magic seeds... like Jack and the Beanstalk? Let me ask you... where did these "seeds" come from? Because, all the seeds I'm familiar with come from something living. Do you have ANY example of seeds that came from something inorganic? 

Again... If these magic seeds of life came from the comets, you've still not explained origin of life. You may be telling us how it came to Earth but it already existed somewhere. But as a matter of physics, I don't agree with this theory anyway. While life can be resilient to extreme conditions, there is no evidence life could endure the vast coldness of deep space AND survive the tremendous heat entering the atmosphere of Earth. So, aside from not explaining origin of life, your theory isn't supported by our basic understanding of life and physics. You are the one suspending reality!


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Life is made up of hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon. Nova said carbon was the key.
> ...


Yes you fall back on must be god when you don't know.

God of the gaps.

And even if we found the answer you'd still believe in God so no point filling in the gaps because we will never answer all your questions


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Life is made up of hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon. Nova said carbon was the key.
> ...


The sun. It's not living? Stars don't die? Stars aren't born? This is easy.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Life is made up of hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon. Nova said carbon was the key.
> ...


Tardigrades can survive space. So a single cell bacteria with dna did fly in. They found carbon in the rocks.

Maybe one meteor brought mammals and one brought amphibians and one fish but science says no. We're all related


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> The sun. It's not living? Stars don't die? Stars aren't born? This is easy.




Let's avoid being silly please?


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Yes you fall back on must be god when you don't know.
> 
> God of the gaps.
> 
> And even if we found the answer you'd still believe in God so no point filling in the gaps because we will never answer all your questions



In a sense, you are right but you destroy your own complaint. It doesn't matter what answers are found, God still did it. It's not a "fall back" position, it's just a given for someone who believes in God. No one is claiming they aren't interested in discovering HOW God did it. Unless that's YOUR perspective... you're saying "no point in filling in the gaps" as if your entire point of science exploration is to disprove God and if you can't do that, why bother? 

Well guess what? Some people aren't exploiting science to push their anti-god agenda and are generally interested in discovering answers. They approach these questions with genuine curiosity and objectivity while maintaining a robust belief in something greater than self.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Tardigrades can survive space. So a single cell bacteria with dna did fly in. They found carbon in the rocks.
> 
> Maybe one meteor brought mammals and one brought amphibians and one fish but science says no. We're all related



Tardigrades and bacteria cannot survive very long in the conditions of deep space. They also can't survive temps over 300 degrees and entering the Earth's atmosphere on a comet would require survival of temperature in the many thousands of degrees. But here is the big kicker... Tardigrades are already living, so they can't possibly explain the origin of life. Same is true for single cell bacteria, it's already living, you haven't explained how it originated. 

DNA is not an element found in nature. It is an acid that contains genetic code for something living. So if IT came from outer space, it came from something already alive.... you see the problem here? You still haven't explained origin of life. 

THEN... there's also the scientific fact that no one has ever reproduced multi-cellular life from single cell life.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ...but science says no. We're all related



Science "says" no such thing. Science doesn't "say" things. Science forms hypothesis, tests, measures, evaluates, observes and formulates theory. It doesn't draw conclusions and "consensus" is not a scientific term. 

I know that some have speculated that we're all related but you need to show some evidence of this so we can discuss it. Just making an ignorant proclamation that "science says" isn't rational debate.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The sun. It's not living? Stars don't die? Stars aren't born? This is easy.
> ...


I'm not kidding and the fact that you think I'm kidding tells me you aren't smart or intellectually honest enough to have this conversation.

Where did all the stars come from?  Something must have given birth to them.  Did a daddy and mommy star fuck?  Must be god, and his wife aka goddess.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes you fall back on must be god when you don't know.
> ...



Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbitsand numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

Number 18 answers your questions

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Tardigrades can survive space. So a single cell bacteria with dna did fly in. They found carbon in the rocks.
> ...



In the early 1980s, astronomer Carl Sagan hosted and narrated a 13-part television series called "Cosmos" that aired on PBS. On the show, Sagan thoroughly explained many science-related topics, including Earth's history, evolution, the origin of life and the solar system.

His statement sums up the fact that the carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms in our bodies, as well as atoms of all other heavy elements, were created in previous generations of stars over 4.5 billion years ago. Because humans and every other animal as well as most of the matter on Earth contain these elements, we are literally made of star stuff, said Chris Impey, professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona.

"All organic matter containing carbon was produced originally in stars," Impey told Life's Little Mysteries. "The universe was originally hydrogen and helium, the carbon was made subsequently, over billions of years."

*How star stuff got to Earth*

When it has exhausted its supply of hydrogen, it can die in a violent explostion, called a nova. The explosion of a massive star, called a supernova, can be billions of times as bright as the Sun , according to "Supernova," (World Book, Inc., 2005). Such a stellar explosion throws a large cloud of dust and gas into space, with the amount and composition of the material expelled varying depending on the type of supernova.

The material from a supernova eventually disperses throughout interstellar space. The oldest stars almost exclusively consisted of hydrogen and helium, with oxygen and the rest of the heavy elements in the universe later coming from supernova explosions, according to "Cosmic Collisions: The Hubble Atlas of Merging Galaxies," (Springer, 2009).

"It's a well-tested theory," Impey said. "We know that stars make heavy elements, and late in their lives, they eject gas into the medium between stars so it can be part of subsequent stars and planets (and people)."

So, all life on Earth and the atoms in our bodies were created in the furnace of now-long-dead stars, he said.

I don't know what else to tell you Boss.  You need to talk to a scientist if you still have a problem.  And there may be things you are asking me that we don't know the answer to.  Doesn't mean your god theory holds any value because it doesn't.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 11, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> THEN... there's also the scientific fact that no one has ever reproduced multi-cellular life from single cell life.




on planet Earth there are no multidissimilar celled organisms there are only singecelled or multi subdivided singlecelled organisms - humans are a multisubdivided _*single celled organism*_, they are never more than the single cell they originated from.

the outer band in the diagram below for each stage of development is the original cell that itself is never multiplied - the scientific fact is only single or multisubdidied single celled organisms exist on planet Earth.









this has been explained to you before, your denial is an example of blatant disregard for facts to promote a fallacious (creationist) agenda.


your leap in evolution to a multi(dissimilar)celled organism is a fallacy and the step to multisubdivided singlecelled organisms is a confirmation of the evolutionary process ... every cell in the organism contains the same information as the original.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You are using a figurative context for the words we are applying to organic life. That's just plain silliness. You are the one attempting (and failing) to be intellectually dishonest here. Suns, stars and planetary bodies aren't living organisms... DUH! 

Now WAY back, you promised to tell me how life originated. You've yet to provide anything you can base in science. You're now resorting to just outright sophomoric silliness. That's the kinda crap that works on 5th graders man, not adults!


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 11, 2017)

Some atheists would not mind if a regiment of angels or a battalion of archangels, came down from Heaven, and "showed us how to live".


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



There is nothing "supernatural" about God. Supernatural is something beyond the laws of nature and God is part of nature. In some sense, God IS nature. 

And again.. no one is using god to fill the gaps. You keep yelping this but it's just not true as evidenced by this thread. We're all having the same open discussion on how life originated. You've failed to present anything scientific to support your magic bean theory or explain in any way, how life originated.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



su·per·nat·u·ral

*1*.
attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Sounds like god to me.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Technically, Boss is correct. Although many speak of abiogenesis as the evolution of life, it is really a misuse of the word.

Evolution occurs AFTER creation. Life changes into different life.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > _How many devoutly spiritual people do you reckon get abortions? I would be willing to bet it is very, very few. Abortion is a good example of people abandoning their morals for the sake of vanity and convenience. They literally justify killing another human being and have convinced themselves there is nothing morally wrong about that. _
> ...


When I was young the Ten Commandments was Thou shalt not kill. They rewrote it into Thou shalt not Murder. Why? Moral killing. 

War, Death Penalty is now morally justified. Onward Christian soldiers


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one missing the point. They have a pretty good theory on how life got started. But before we talk about it tell me your theory again
> ...


You are really stuck on biogenesis. Both appear to be true and biogenesis looks like it will stop abiogenesis if it gets in its way.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Evolution implies a process. Stars evolve and we are pretty sure we understand the process. The origin of life we think was not really a process.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> I don't know what else to tell you Boss. You need to talk to a scientist if you still have a problem. And there may be things you are asking me that we don't know the answer to. Doesn't mean your god theory holds any value because it doesn't.



I talk to REAL scientists all the time. You have no basic understanding of science in general, best I can tell. You get your science knowledge from Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Yes... You don't know the answers! That's my whole entire fucking point! You don't know but you keep insisting you're sure.. that "Science" is certain! You want to argue nonsense like it's proven fact. When you're challenged on it, you want to appeal to popularity or authority and engage in silliness. THEN, attack ME for not living in reality!


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> su·per·nat·u·ral
> 
> *1*.
> attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
> Sounds like god to me.



But God IS nature. God created the laws of nature.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Tardigrades can survive space. So a single cell bacteria with dna did fly in. They found carbon in the rocks.
> ...


Ahem

Can Spores Survive In Interstellar Space?

Space Station Research Shows That Hardy Little Space Travelers Could Colonize Mars

However, just like your spirit God, this begs the origin question.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> When I was young the Ten Commandments was Thou shalt not kill. They rewrote it into Thou shalt not Murder. Why? Moral killing.
> 
> War, Death Penalty is now morally justified. Onward Christian soldiers



Well I hate to break this to you but the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and not English. So there have been numerous translations from the original text and various people and groups hold different interpretive opinions on what it means. That's precisely why there are thousands of Christian denominations. But I am not here to defend ANY interpretation. We were talking about morality. 

Have you ever heard of a guy by the name of Stefan Molyneux? He is an Atheist, you should check him out. He has a very unique take on morals and ethics in the debate of Atheism and religion. He feels that moral foundation is the biggest problem facing the future of Atheism. You have nothing on which your morals and ethics are founded other than self-proscribed claims to be able to adhere to a moral code. Religion offers something you can establish a moral foundation on and Atheism lacks that.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> [
> Ahem
> 
> Can Spores Survive In Interstellar Space?
> ...



The origin question remains unanswered. 

God does not require origin.. God is Spiritual. 
Spiritual, unlike physical, is eternal and everlasting.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Tardigrades can survive space. So a single cell bacteria with dna did fly in. They found carbon in the rocks.
> ...


Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

Multiple times independently!


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Biogenesis remains a true scientific hypothesis until it's disproved. I'm sorry about that... I hate it destroys your conjecture that life spontaneously created itself. If and when you discover science to support your theory, have it peer reviewed and published and we'll see you in Stockholm, Sweden accepting your beautiful award. Until that happens, you're not going to lay claim to truth on the matter. Biogenesis stands.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > When I was young the Ten Commandments was Thou shalt not kill. They rewrote it into Thou shalt not Murder. Why? Moral killing.
> ...


We can only be moral when some big dude in the sky defines it?

OK, that's funny.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm
> 
> Multiple times independently!



Single-cell life has NEVER evolved into multicellular life. There is ZERO evidence it has, other than the mere existence of multicellular life. Evolution of multicellular life is not crossing that bridge, the bridge has already been crossed.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Hey, I am just relaying what an actual Atheist said. Take it up with him!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


LOL, so you claim


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Since you have God on speed dial, can you ask him for a wayback machine for me? Christmas is coming!


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I know he's correct because he's assuming I made a mistake I did not.  I didn't confuse evolution and creation.  Got it?  Thanks.  Don't let Boss put words into our mouths.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > su·per·nat·u·ral
> ...


Who created god?  See?  No need for a god.  Nature has always existed.  If not what did God live in before he created it?  Nature is eternal.  Our universe is just one of many perhaps.  Stop putting god in a box.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, no matter how it is defined, scientists agree that multicellularity has occurred multiple times across many clades. Defined in the loosest sense, as an aggregation of cells, multicellularity has evolved in at least 25 lineages. However, even when defined more strictly -- requiring that cells be connected, communicate, and cooperate in some fashion or another -- it has still notably evolved once in animals, three times in fungi, six times in algae, and multiple times in bacteria.
> ...


Stomping yer feet won't help your case.

I think you admitted to the fossil record. Does your spirit God create & judge every day? How much of the universe is on auto-pilot? I got really really tired at morning prayer that always included "Thank you for waking me up this morning". Some even claimed that every breath required God's intervention.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what else to tell you Boss. You need to talk to a scientist if you still have a problem. And there may be things you are asking me that we don't know the answer to. Doesn't mean your god theory holds any value because it doesn't.
> ...


Nope.  Wrong again.  I never said I was sure but that's what you heard.  Thanks for sharing.  

You are the one certain a god created life.  I think the jury is still out on that.  You do know you are just speculating right?  And based on the fact you have no evidence or answers for your questions so you posit god into any gap you can't fill with science.

So your scientists are better than Bill Nye and Tyson?  Why because they speculate the same bullshit you do?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Yes, without proof he claims with certainty


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Just ask him what number I'm thinking about.  From 1 to 10000000000.  If you get it right I'll believe you talk to God.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Is Boss ever tired of being wrong?

The leap from single-celled life to multicellular creatures is easier than we ever thought. And it seems there’s more than one way it can happen.

One gene may drive leap from single cell to multicellular life


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Boss's spirit God is not nature, even though he claims he is. His God has consciousness and makes decisions. There was a change when his spirit decided to create. Boss also claims his God judges and if we pass the test, we evolve into a higher plane.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I believe this is how evolution works and thus there is no such thing as junk DNA (now the term has been improved to non-coding DNA). In our genome we have all the genes from preexisting ancestral species (more or less) and all it takes is to turn a non-coding section on to get evolution.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



He's a cherry picker.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> I know he's correct because he's assuming I made a mistake I did not. *I didn't confuse evolution and creation.* Got it? Thanks. Don't let Boss put words into our mouths.



*"YouTube how life got started. Evolution is absolutely the way."~sillyboob
*
Someone hack your account?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 11, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...



I consider myself an atheist and I do not want to have any contact with aliens if they do indeed exist and have the technological capabilities to actually travel to our planet.

Would you have wanted to be a Native American if you knew beforehand what would happen  when a technologically superior force landed on your doorstep?

We have no reason to believe any alien race with the capability of interstellar travel will be benign and helpful.  Most likely they'll just wipe us out and take the earth for themselves.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Boss might find this interesting

For the midterm exam of the UCSD/SDSU graduate course Integrative Microbiology that Doug Bartlett and I teach, we gave students the option of answering this Talmudic, open-ended-type question:

_'How would you go about defending the statement that _"all living things are connected to other living things"_ to an educated lay audience? What examples would you present to illustrate how pervasive this is in the living world?’_

We liked the answers, so we decided to post them all 

How All Living Things Are Connected (In An Exam)

Now he can contact these scientists and bore them with his hypothesis'.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I know he's correct because he's assuming I made a mistake I did not. *I didn't confuse evolution and creation.* Got it? Thanks. Don't let Boss put words into our mouths.
> ...



All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

Do you argue with national geographic too?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I know he's correct because he's assuming I made a mistake I did not. *I didn't confuse evolution and creation.* Got it? Thanks. Don't let Boss put words into our mouths.
> ...


The internet rules

We're distantly related, you and I. Somewhere deep in the past, the two of us share a common ancestor. The same can be said for us and chimps. Or chimps and alligators. But what about alligators and sycamore trees? Or humans and _Tyrannosaurus rex_? Are you and I, as paleontology expert Brian Switek puts it, distant (distant, distant, distant) cousins of the great, tyrant lizard?


Yes. In fact, the concept that all life on Earth is related is a central tenet of Darwin's theory of evolution. Even organisms divided into Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya, the three highest taxonomical ranks of life, share ancestors. The big question for scientists now is when that ancestor lived — and more importantly, _how_ it lived. Here's what we know so far.

You want to know how?  Then read mother fucker

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5964672/is-every-living-thing-on-earth-related


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Stomping yer feet won't help your case.
> 
> I think you admitted to the fossil record. Does your spirit God create & judge every day? How much of the universe is on auto-pilot? I got really really tired at morning prayer that always included "Thank you for waking me up this morning". Some even claimed that every breath required God's intervention.



I'm not stomping my feet. Stomping your pathetic weak ass, maybe. 

Admitted the fossil record? What, that it exists? Sure! Can't deny that! Does it "say" what YOU claim? That's a different story and I don't trust your "reading of the tea leaves" on that. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with religion but that isn't a scientific argument. I find nothing in any science book which states emotional trauma is part of the scientific method.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...


We are kinda hoping alien visitors have evolved past their childhood and will just come here for the comedy. "Hey look at them! Remember your history books? The crew from Xavior III is still being worshiped here, so be careful. They even killed the captain. Earthlings are CRAZY!"


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...



And what would we do if we found another species as evolved as humans were during the industrial revolution?  Would we be nice or wait for them to get smart enough to come kill us?  I would think the best thing to do would be control them/rule them/take them over/kill them/enslave them/steal their planet.

Oh and rape their women.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

And would we allow another planet to acquire nukes or would we tell them they can't just like we do North Korea.

Great analogy.  If we can't even trust Iran or North Korea or Russia, why would we trust another creature from another planet?  At least Russia has to worry we will nuke them back.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



And if you read the entire story you discover this is a *hypothesis* and not a proven fact. 

Nevertheless... IF multicellular life evolved from single cell life, then LIFE existed already. You've still not explained the origin of LIFE. How many times does this need to be pointed out to make it through your thick head? Evolution CANNOT explain ORIGIN! It's a fucking LOGICAL impossibility. Things can't "evolve" until they EXIST!


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Stomping yer feet won't help your case.
> ...


First lets make sure you even understood what he said.  Usually when I say something you try to sum up what I said and it's not even what I said. 

And he asked you some questions.


Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So you want to know the origin of the big bang?  Because that's as far back as we can go.  But I can't tell you anything about the universe prior to the big bang.  And your problem is in your tiny mind there was nothing before our universe.  God just sat around in empty space for infinite years before the big bang just twittling his thumbs.  He never had another universe prior to 13 billion BC?  That's weird.

So there is no arguing with you because there is so much you need proof for but none can be given.  So what you do is fall into your god of the gaps routine.  It's getting old.  God didn't do it.  There is no need for a god.

How does life get cooked up in stars?  I don't know.  That's just how life gets cooked up.  I don't know how.  You need to talk to a scientist if you want to know these things.  

Basically you want to know how we got here.  We've been wondering that ever since we had brains big enough to wonder.  We don't know.  YOU don't know.  You think you do but honestly, we don't know.  Don't settle on God.  Better to admit we don't know and keep looking.

Stop saying we claim to know.  We are theorizing. Spitballing.  If that's all you are doing admit it.  But you are not.  You claim to know what created the universe and you talk to it.  It enriches your life.  It helps you.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...



Not a bet I want to make.

technological advancement and benevolence are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss's spirit God is not nature, even though he claims he is. His God has consciousness and makes decisions. There was a change when his spirit decided to create. Boss also claims his God judges and if we pass the test, we evolve into a higher plane.



God IS nature. You haven't disproved it and you can't. 

You've also avoided defining consciousness. Again, you can't. 

Decisions? Decisions are made by rational humans engaging in choice based on thought and contemplation. Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God need to do that? And I explained a perfectly valid physical way in which to consider "judgement" in my previous post. Physical nature "judges" all the time, it's the fundamental basis of Darwin's Natural Selection. So this was explained to you but you can't help but attempt to mock it and ridicule it because you suffer from emotional trauma from a bad religious experience. 

Furthermore, I presented MY viewpoint and clearly qualified it as such, along with the disclaimer that you are entitled to believe otherwise. And I did not say "WE" do anything. Our physical bodies die and decompose... become worm food. The spirit which resides in our bodies is eternal, as all spiritual things are. You don't believe you have a spirit because you don't believe in spiritual things. Therefore, any opinion you might have on what happens to something you don't believe exists, is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...



We are millions of not billions of years away from being capable of interstellar travel so we won't be finding any less evolved alien civilizations.

In fact the sun is going to run out fuel and expand to completely incinerate the interior planets before we develop faster than light travel.  That is if we don't go extinct first of course


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss's spirit God is not nature, even though he claims he is. His God has consciousness and makes decisions. There was a change when his spirit decided to create. Boss also claims his God judges and if we pass the test, we evolve into a higher plane.
> ...



You haven't proven a god exists either.

FYI saying a god did it when you don't know how something happened is not proof of that god


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Boss do you see what we are saying?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Thank You for sharing. Those were excellent!


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> So you want to know the origin of the big bang? Because that's as far back as we can go. But I can't tell you anything about the universe prior to the big bang. And your problem is in your tiny mind there was nothing before our universe. *God just sat around in empty space for infinite years* before the big bang just twittling his thumbs. *He never had another universe prior to 13 billion BC?* That's weird.



Ask yourself.... What is a year? Is it not the measure of time it takes for our Earth to revolve around it's sun? Is the Earth and Sun physical or spiritual? What is fundamentally wrong with your brain that makes you believe this universe operates on the measurement of Earth revolving around it's sun? OR that a Creator God is subject to that measurement? 

Since a Spiritual Entity is eternal and everlasting, the measure of a planet revolving around it's sun means absolutely nothing. That is purely a physical measurement of a physical dimension we call "Time." And this may blow your little mind but OUR measurement wouldn't mean a thing to sentient carbon-based beings on another planet in our universe, if one exists. Their "day" may be 6 hours or 58 hours... their "year" may be 10 months or 500 years. They may not even measure time the same way. Heck, we haven't even always measured time the same way! 

I read your posts sometimes and it fucking amazes me that you are so incredibly naive and stupid. You just continue to make the most childlike points as if you're actually educating us all... it's stunning to me!


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss's spirit God is not nature, even though he claims he is. His God has consciousness and makes decisions. There was a change when his spirit decided to create. Boss also claims his God judges and if we pass the test, we evolve into a higher plane.
> ...



This is what the debate was like before Moses came down from the mountain claiming to know what god wants and that they spoke.  I love it.  I wish we could go back to these days because this is where the debate should be.  Some people believing a creator created us and they have zero evidence but they strongly believe and then there's us non believers who admit we don't have all the answers but we are not convinced an intelligent creator created us.  And organized religions we knew to be man made scams.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So you want to know the origin of the big bang? Because that's as far back as we can go. But I can't tell you anything about the universe prior to the big bang. And your problem is in your tiny mind there was nothing before our universe. *God just sat around in empty space for infinite years* before the big bang just twittling his thumbs. *He never had another universe prior to 13 billion BC?* That's weird.
> ...


A minute to me is a minute to god.  

And I love it that I get under your skin you stupid bitch.  Here we have 3 people telling you ya cra cra and no one ever seems to be on board with your ideas.  

And you think you are smart.  You are clever no doubt but still a primitive chimp.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Stomping yer feet won't help your case.
> ...


Not a single, even attempt, of an answer in your post


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So you want to know the origin of the big bang? Because that's as far back as we can go. But I can't tell you anything about the universe prior to the big bang. And your problem is in your tiny mind there was nothing before our universe. *God just sat around in empty space for infinite years* before the big bang just twittling his thumbs. *He never had another universe prior to 13 billion BC?* That's weird.
> ...


What I try to do is dumb it down for you pal.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> You haven't proven a god exists either.
> 
> FYI saying a god did it when you don't know how something happened is not proof of that god



As I've repeatedly said... IF that is the reason and purpose for all this posting, you're in for disappointment. If I could PROVE the existence of God, there wouldn't be a thread, there wouldn't be any debate. I can't believe rational people actually expect to discover that someone has proven God. Especially to people who are devoutly committed to not believing in God and who refuse to acknowledge spiritual evidence. 

So if that's what you're after, it's not going to happen here. If that's the "argument" you wanted to win, congratulations! 

Now.... the "God Did It!" thing... I've already addressed as well. OF COURSE God did it! For a believer in God, that goes without saying... it's a given that God did it! This doesn't answer any question as to HOW God did it. So to keep trying to make this point is just asinine and dumb. The man who is responsible for mapping the human genome already knew that God did it... he worked on the science anyway. Isaac Newton already knew God did it... that didn't prevent him from unlocking the mysteries of physics. History is full of people who believe "God did it" yet they've made incredible scientific discoveries which are invaluable to our understanding of our universe. Belief that "God did it" doesn't hinder anything.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss's spirit God is not nature, even though he claims he is. His God has consciousness and makes decisions. There was a change when his spirit decided to create. Boss also claims his God judges and if we pass the test, we evolve into a higher plane.
> ...



Creation is a decision by your spirit God. You follow the Right Wing Christian God, you just refuse to admit it so you don't have to deal with the stories

You believe

1) creation only once and in 6 "days"
2) If you are not God's moral, you are screwed & will be judged harshly
3) No abortion
4) No global warming
5) No fossil record



> Furthermore, I presented MY viewpoint and clearly qualified it as such, along with the disclaimer that you are entitled to believe otherwise. And I did not say "WE" do anything. Our physical bodies die and decompose... become worm food. The spirit which resides in our bodies is eternal, as all spiritual things are. You don't believe you have a spirit because you don't believe in spiritual things. Therefore, any opinion you might have on what happens to something you don't believe exists, is totally irrelevant.



I've been asking what YOU believe.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So you want to know the origin of the big bang? Because that's as far back as we can go. But I can't tell you anything about the universe prior to the big bang. And your problem is in your tiny mind there was nothing before our universe. *God just sat around in empty space for infinite years* before the big bang just twittling his thumbs. *He never had another universe prior to 13 billion BC?* That's weird.
> ...



You just gave the bible answer, Mr. Christian. Why do you deny your Christianity?

Life needs energy and that is what determines real time, the time between meals. The time period is short and determined by the laws of physics and chemistry.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> A minute to me is a minute to god.
> 
> And I love it that I get under your skin you stupid bitch. Here we have 3 people telling you ya cra cra and no one ever seems to be on board with your ideas.
> 
> And you think you are smart. You are clever no doubt but still a primitive chimp.



Let me tell you a little story here...

Upon publishing his Theory of Special Relativity, Albert Einstein received word that 500 scientists had signed a statement refuting his theory and proclaiming it worthless. Do you know what his reply was? 

"Why 500 when ONE would do?"

You see.... his point is, that scientific theories only need ONE valid refutation to be invalidated. If ANY of those 500 scientists could've provided scientific evidence to refute his theory, that would've been enough. No need for 500. 

So... I don't really care if there are 3 people or 3 million people arguing against me. Until someone can offer evidence to refute what I've said, it hasn't been refuted. Popularity of thought is NOT a scientific argument... EVER!  In fact, I would argue, that's precisely why Science was invented. It removes objective intelligent thought away from popular conventional wisdom and plants it firmly on the grounds of physical evaluation of testing, measuring and observing.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> Single-cell life has NEVER evolved into multicellular life.




patently false claim by a creationist.


all multisubdivided cellular organisms evolve _*from a single cell*_. there is no quandary in evolution from a single cell to a multisubdivided cellular organism. 

no multidissimilar celled organism exist on planet earth.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Told you he's a cherry picker.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Single-cell life has NEVER evolved into multicellular life.
> ...


Like all creationists, he demands we put some dirt into a petri dish today and have a baby human crawl out tomorrow.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > A minute to me is a minute to god.
> ...



So what are you saying that we can't or haven't refuted?  Maybe it's nonsensical.  

We've all refuted everything you said.  We've told you that you are not stating fact.  You say things like, "how can life be created from nothing?  And we either show you how or we explain to you (and my unintelligent dad) that this does not prove a god exists.

But this is where people like you get stuck.  You ask, "how can all this come from nothing". Well who said it did?  Maybe all the stuff in our universe now came from a black hole?  Maybe our universe is made up from a dead universe.  From the black hole all the contents burn out as the last dead star slips into the black hole and on the other side is a new big bang and new universe.  

You are the weirdest cherry picker I ever met.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


He refuses to call himself a Christian because that is clearly a man made religion and he knows he can't defend it so he has left the church but has started his own Jesus cult of 1.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is no way all living things are related.  Just look how different we all are when we first get started





NOTHING ALIKE!  LOL.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Creation is a decision by your spirit God. You follow the Right Wing Christian God, you just refuse to admit it so you don't have to deal with the stories
> 
> You believe
> 
> ...



So now that I've completely owned that ass in every area of debate in this thread, you're just going to bow up and outright spew LIES about what I've said? 

Again, folks.... go read though the thread and see if I've made any of these claims. McDuff is simply LYING and let me explain why.... 

He is equipped to do battle against Christians. His whole entire shtick is to bash and ridicule Christians into the ground and he likes to use "Science" as his weapon of choice. So he has run across ME, a devout Spiritualist who doesn't believe in a Christian God and has a fairly good knowledge of Science. He's not able to hold his own in a science debate and he's losing badly in a philosophical debate.... so now, he is resorting to dirty tricks, lying and being dishonest. 

It's perfectly okay, I've seen this a million times. I'm used to it. Now he will seethe and rage until he encounters me again on some other topic, and even if he agrees with me, he'll attack me personally and try to destroy my argument.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


They keep telling me that they did not come from monkeys

so I go "How about salamanders?"


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...








_Phallus Sillyboobicus_


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Introduction to the Cephalochordata

Daddy!


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


Boss said:


> Evolution CANNOT explain ORIGIN! It's a fucking LOGICAL impossibility. Things can't "evolve" until they EXIST!




there is no certainty backtracking evolution may not be the solution to how life began, discovering the bridge from inorganic to physiological matter than any other way in the future that will resolve the issue of how life began as it is a scientific endeavor not a purposely undefined religious one.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...






cashew

and we were just saying that you were nuts

must be a spiritual awakening in me 
cashew - Google Search


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> So what are you saying that we can't or haven't refuted? Maybe it's nonsensical.
> 
> We've all refuted everything you said. We've told you that you are not stating fact. You say things like, "how can life be created from nothing? And we either show you how or we explain to you (and my unintelligent dad) that this does not prove a god exists.
> 
> ...



You've yet to explain origin of life. I've been patiently waiting but you keep coming up empty. 

I never asked "how can life be created from nothing?" Life is created from carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, amino acids and numerous other things by an intelligent designer. You haven't disproved that. I can't prove it but you can't disprove it. 

Explaining where the elements came from doesn't tell me anything, I already knew. Telling me we're made of stardust... same thing,... nothing surprising at all... what else would we be made of, pixie dust? You're still not explaining origin of life and you'e admitted you can't explain it and you don't have the answer. 

Not a bit of cherry picking there, just plain old simple fact of the matter.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't proven a god exists either.
> ...


and yet you state that the existence of god has not been disproved.

So you say you can't prove it but you want it to be disproved.

The simple fact that we do not understand a particular phenomenon is not proof that some unseen all powerful magic being is responsible for that phenomenon.

We may never be able to understand the universe's origins for the same reason my dogs can't understand algebra in other words our brains and sensory systems might very well be physically incapable of detecting and processing the information.

The absence of understanding is not proof of a god it is merely proof that we don't know.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 11, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> The spirit which resides in our bodies is eternal, as all spiritual things are.




wishful thinking at best, maybe not your god but the Almighty does not allow an evil spirit in the Everlasting - it is destroyed (thankfully) - being in the Everlasting does not exclude the possibility of death as it is an occurrence for everything in the universe ... proof not withstanding.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Creation is a decision by your spirit God. You follow the Right Wing Christian God, you just refuse to admit it so you don't have to deal with the stories
> ...


Let's start at the top

Why is 1) a lie


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



That's right.  They find whatever evidence they can and then work backwards.  What they conclude is common ancestor.  All of us.  Every living thing.  

They don't think that a single cell organism popped up in Africa that one day would evolve into humans, and another single cell that developed into reptiles, birds, amphibians.  They believe every land animal crawled out of the water.

Now maybe different single cells evolved into humans and maybe another single cell developed into dogs but science thinks that all land animals originally, if you go back far enough, probably evolved from the same single cell.

Boss could be right though.  God could have planted 8.7 million different seeds

About *8.7 million* (give or take *1.3 million*) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species on land and 2.2 million in oceans.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Well I deny Christianity because I'm not a Christian. 
Christianity is a religion of acceptance. You must accept that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and He died on the cross so you could be forgiven for your sins. I believe Jesus was a profound and great philosopher. Son of God? Not so much. But that's just MY personal belief. I have respect for those who are Christians and others who are religious as long as they have strong spiritual character. To me personally, the Church is like Gold's Gym... some spiritual people need it and some don't. I don't need a religious dogma to understand MY Spiritual God. 

As for "time" it's still a dimension of a physical universe. Spiritual Nature doesn't rely on physical dimensions it created.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > So what are you saying that we can't or haven't refuted? Maybe it's nonsensical.
> ...



_You've yet to explain origin of life._

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are not doing well.

Spirit does not have strong character. That is a human Christianlike construct.

By the way, I use Christian cuz we are Americans & that is our major religion.

You also do not need to specifically post words for me to deduce conclusions as to what you are.

Your time response is still a fail.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

We might have to get out serious dental tools to deal with Boss


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Let's start at the top
> 
> Why is 1) a lie



Because I don't even believe the Bible claims creation took 6 days. Not "days" as we define them... 24 hr. periods of Earth's revolution. IF you actually study the pathology, it doesn't even make rational sense. God created the Sun and Moon on Day 3... how can you have 3 days with no Sun? He created the light and dark before day and night. So we can clearly see, upon any kind of objective evaluation, something is amiss. 

We can couple this further with the original Hebrew text which actually has no word for "day" and is called "yom." You've probably heard it used as "Yom Kippur" which is an important day to the Jewish people. But "yom" is actually an unspecified period of time. It CAN mean a day... it was also commonly used to mean an era. It's one of those words where the plural is the same... you don't have "yoms" you have many "yom." Therefore, "6 days" or "6 yom" can be completely different times. 

ALSO.... I don't recall anything in the Bible or any argument I have EVER made that God's Creation was a one-time event. For all I know, God may have created trillions of universes and trillions of incarnations of life and mankind. Time means absolutely nothing to God. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your perception of the reality happening around you.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> You are not doing well.
> 
> Spirit does not have strong character. That is a human Christianlike construct.
> 
> ...



What you understand about spirits is completely irrelevant because you don't believe in them.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> _You've yet to explain origin of life._
> 
> Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.



Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...



How can God "destroy" something that isn't physical? 

Yeah, I guess you could make the philosophical argument that an omnipotent being could do it... I won't deny that. I just happen to think your soul is eternal, one way or another. It might not make it into what you call "The Everlasting" but that doesn't mean it's destroyed... that's a definition of something physical.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Let's start at the top
> ...



You edited the post so I have to backtrack again. Here is what I said

_1) creation only once and in 6 "days"_

I put days in quotes for just this reason. Almost no Christian actually calls them days. I went with the Bible flow. I'm surprized you even went down that rabbit hole with more than three words.

You responded with universes! LOL I am talking about just ours (like in the Bible). How many times has God created in this universe, specifically this planet. You have never actually responded to the fossil record except to say it exists. You have a problem with what you call macroevolution (which makes me chuckle). The fossil record requires for your god to be creating every second with no rest on the last day, cuz you allow no macroevolution.

How long did original creation take? Perhaps 4.5 Billion - 6,000 years?

Did god create all the current life during original creation, or has the biota changed?

If the biota changed, what caused it?

Why do we see in the fossil record much evidence for evolution. Less to more. Small to Large. Primitive to complex. Water to land to air.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > You are not doing well.
> ...


Not true, Hoss.

I can speak in spiritual terms just as well as anyone. You don't own spirituality.

Besides, you make claims about evolution that you don't believe in.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > _You've yet to explain origin of life._
> ...


We have much evidence of macroevolution. We have lobfinned fish who crawled out of the water. We have lungfish who can breath air. We have determined the phylogeny of every fish gill slit to advanced land structure. We have dinosaurs with feathers.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


Boss said:


> How can God "destroy" something that isn't physical?



you've leaped to where you seem to be claiming your spirit is free of your physiology, is that true you can float in space, obviously there are limitations and also refutes the spirit can not be physical how else are you restrained.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But you cherry pick so much from that man made religion.  You're like my dad telling me about heaven and hell.  How does he conclude such places exist if he understands all religions are man made up?  

The same reasons why primitive man made them up.  Bad people must go to the bad place.  Otherwise there is no justice.  And good people must be rewarded.  

And since humans can't stand the idea of them dying, their souls live forever in this heaven.

Boss, you're a moron.  Don't ever talk shit to me like I'm stupid when you believe in fairytales and bullshit.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


What about my dog?  God I love that thing.  It's so lovable and loyal.  I want to believe it's soul never dies too.  Why would your soul not die but the dogs does?  You think you are special?  

How do you come to these conclusions without a religion?  You must be cherry picking the parts you like.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > _You've yet to explain origin of life._
> ...



29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

*29+ Evidences for Macroevolution*
*The Scientific Case for Common Descent*


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Boss's spirituality evolved backwards.

We argue we don't need a God. He argues that the Christian God is a lie.

And the funny part? That makes me more Christian than him.

LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



How is it possible for people to believe in Micro Evolution and not Macro Evolution?


I have a simple answer. It’s because they were told to.

The distinction between the possibility of micro- and macro- is only made by creationists; evolutionary biologists dumped it a century ago. When too much evidence for recent microevolution emerged to ignore, creationists retreated and redirected their attack towards macroevolution, for which there was far less (they claimed _no_) evidence.

The rationale is the plausible-sounding declaration that, for example, a dog will never give birth to anything but another dog. This is true for a single generation, but over millions of years one family of dogs could breed shorter and wider until their descendants were more similar to wombats than to current dogs. At some stage before that they would lose the ability to mate with other dogs, and it would be high time to declare them a new species.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The main reason they talk macroevolution is cuz as soon as they admit it, they have to include man. 

The smarter believers accept ALL of evolution, just that man is special creation ~ wait fer it ~ just like in the bible. A very good case for that can be made.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well I can't take a guy like this seriously.  It's frustrating and confusing.  You either believe the organized religions or you don't.  He does sometimes and sometimes doesn't.  Then calls me the idiot because I speculate sometimes wildly.  

It's ok for him to think there is a "creator" that created everything we see.  No harm in that.  Especially if he admits it's something that never has and never will be proven.  You don't have to believe in him.  You might want to be a good person just in case but he never sent a rule book.  IE 10 commandments

There is no hell for bad people right boss?  If you believe there is where the fuck did you get that idea from?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



So even though Boss won't admit to being a christian, we see it in his stupid arguments.  

Reminds me of the priest in our church.  I brought up global warming and my sister in law said "father mike doesn't believe in global warming".

No shit.  He also believes gays are bad and muslims are evil.  This is what pisses me off about right wingers.  Clearly the priest is a conservative guy who's buying into every position that conservatives believe.  But ask him if he's a Republican and he will deny it just like Boss denies being a christian.

Boss knows Christianity is man made but he believe if man made it up it must be true because we wouldn't have made something up for no good reason and we would have dropped the belief a long time ago if it weren't true.

Not true at all because religion as fake and ridiculous as they all are, provide people with a lot of comfort.  So it doesn't matter if its real or true.  It provides people with something they want.  They want answers we don't have.  And Boss doesn't like their answers so he makes up his own.  Occasionally cherry picking from them because if they've been believing it for this long there must be some truth to it.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)

How god created man


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 11, 2017)




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Excuse you...you are the arrogant blowhard....time after time you have been corrected on the completely incorrect things you have said, for example, about the theory of evolution. Not once have you admitted your errors. Not once have you discarded your false premises, and the arguments you make from them. You honestly believe that you present a  challenge to the most well founded the sort in the history of mankind by saying, "Nuh-uh!". All of that is the height of arrogance and the very definition of "blowhard". So, yet again, you accuse others of doing exactly what it is you are doing, as you do it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The elements are in meteors and commits. They came from first generation stars.
> ...



"I know everything about the elements "

No sir, no "blowhards" here....


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Again... Time is a physical dimension that is meaningless to a spiritual God. Your deductions that it would take God so much time, therefore it would be impossible, is totally meaningless. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your brain to process it's perception of present reality. In the time it took you to read my last sentence, God could have created and destroyed a trillion universes. I don't know how else to make the point to you that time is a useless variable to God. 

The Biblical story of creation is not a science documentary. It's impossible for it to be told as an observer's perspective. The purpose and intent of the story is not to accurately describe the actual process but to present the reader with the knowledge that God systematically created everything. But the bottom line is this... it wouldn't matter how the Bible outlined the creation story because you would still refuse to believe it. 

You asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability as a non-Christian, then you accused me of editing your post. I didn't edit a damn thing.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



That's not evidence of anything other than how awesome God is. Sorry.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Talkingorigins.org is a hack website designed to promote your anti-Christian dogma. 

There is no valid scientific evidence macroevolution ever happened. NONE!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


right, because all evidence is subjective, and your opinion of whether it is evidence is just as valid as anyone else's.  yes, I gathered that from about the first 3 posts I ever saw from you. Boss, while you may have convinced yourself of this goofy idea long ago, you really aren't convincing anyone else or putting any dents in well-founded scientific theories.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss's spirituality evolved backwards.
> 
> We argue we don't need a God. He argues that the Christian God is a lie.
> 
> ...



I think you may be more Christian. You seem to believe in a Christian God more than myself.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> right, because all evidence is subjective, and your opinion of whether it is evidence is just as valid as anyone else's. yes, I gathered that from about the first 3 posts I ever saw from you. Boss, while you may have convinced yourself of this goofy idea long ago, *you really aren't convincing anyone else* or putting any dents in well-founded scientific theories.



Replies: 760
Views: 14,500

So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread? 

Amazing! 

_argumentum ad populum:_ In argumentation theory, an *argumentum ad populum* (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> Replies: 760
> Views: 14,500
> 
> So now you have clairvoyant powers and can speak for 14,500 people who have mostly not replied to this thread?




there may be a deeper meaning to that boss you've not considered ... a lack of correspondence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > right, because all evidence is subjective, and your opinion of whether it is evidence is just as valid as anyone else's. yes, I gathered that from about the first 3 posts I ever saw from you. Boss, while you may have convinced yourself of this goofy idea long ago, *you really aren't convincing anyone else* or putting any dents in well-founded scientific theories.
> ...


You, for the second time in this thread, have used the term "ad populum" incorrectly.  In the first case, it was only you wielding an ad populum argument, as you were calling evidence "all subjective", and therefore judging its merit on consensus..  In this latest case, i did not argue that you were wrong because you have not convinced anyone .  So that was another incorrect use.  maybe you should stop using terms you do not fully understand.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Replies: 760
> ...



Hey, I'm just responding to his proclamation that no one was being convinced. I'm not sure how he could know that since it appears many of them aren't replying. Again, this was a weak and pathetic attempt at _argumentum ad populum_.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"Hey, I'm just responding to his proclamation that no one was being convinced. "

yes, I know, because that is what desperate people do.... they seize on pedantic, non-germane points to beat to death when they are losing badly.  You got me.  i cannot possibly know the minds of everyone on the planet. I admit, I was incorrect to pretend I did.

Looks like you were right that all evidence is 100% subjective.  *rolls eyes


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I made the correct statement that all evidence is subjective and I cited numerous examples to support my argument. You've not refuted my argument because you can't.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You got me. i cannot possibly know the minds of everyone on the planet. I admit, I was incorrect to pretend I did.



LOL... Now, bow and kiss my ring!  

Not only can you not know the minds of everyone on the planet, you can't know the minds of 14,500 USMB thread viewers who mostly haven't bothered to reply with their opinions in this thread.  Hell, you seem to have lost your own mind most of the time. You should worry more about keeping up with that than how many people I might be convincing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > You got me. i cannot possibly know the minds of everyone on the planet. I admit, I was incorrect to pretend I did.
> ...



You're not very honest. What you have attempted to do here is not to prove that all evidence carries a degree of subjectivity , but rather that all evidence is therefore equally subjective. This is, of course, ridiculous and false. I have deconstructed your attempt to do this and have laid bare your motives for doing it. Thank goodness we invented the scientific method, to drag ourselves out of this murk you are bathing yourself in. You are wrong, you will always be wrong, and thank goodness for that.

What I find kind of annoying is that people like you enjoy the fruits of your own philosophy being proven to be absurd and incorrect. Yet here you are, on your quantum machine, peddling your nonsense over electromagnetic waves carried by satellites fully reliant on the theory of relativity, enjoying a longer lifespan thanks to a field of science completely reliant and based on a theory which you shit all over.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


So it's not just me who thinks this about boss?

And I love it that he says he talks to real scientists all the time. I wonder if he ever listens?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Plenty of evidence. They admit they don't have the full picture of origins but from what we know your creation theory is junk. And yes they pretty much know all living things are related


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You're not very honest. What you have attempted to do here is not to prove that all evidence carries a degree of subjectivity , but rather that all evidence is therefore equally subjective. Rhinos, of course, ridiculous and false. I have deconstructed your attempt to do this and have laid bare your motives for doing it. Thank goodness we invented the scientific method, to drag ourselves out of this murk you are bathing yourself in. You are wrong, you will always be wrong, and thank goodness for that.



No... What you have done is perverted science to use as a tool against Christians who you hate. 

Thanks for publicly admitting evidence is subjective like I said. I never made the claim of "equality" because, again, that is a subjective term. Therefore, it is redundant. In this context, you're attempting to use "equal" to elevate your subjective evidence above other subjective evidence. But as I said, you're just being redundant. All evidence is subjective and whether it is equal, greater than or less than, is also subjective.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Plenty of evidence. They admit they don't have the full picture of origins but from what we know your creation theory is junk. And yes they pretty much know all living things are related




You keep flip flopping, sillyboob! You admitted they don't know.... now they "pretty much know." 

You have still not presented any valid scientific evidence for origin of life. None. Zero. Nadda! 

You've also presented nothing to refute creation theory. Just your personal proclamation.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Plenty of evidence. They admit they don't have the full picture of origins but from what we know your creation theory is junk. And yes they pretty much know all living things are related
> ...


Bullshit! All it takes is a quick internet search to uncover so much evidence it's overwhelming. You are being will fully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

No they don't have the full picture but the evidence we have does not lead to anything you're saying.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Yes the most basic building blocks of life can get cooked together then Frozen in deep space and land on planets like earth and life flourishes. I saw a quick 7 minute YouTube explaining how simple atoms and protein and molecules and carbon hydrogen bla bla ultimately single cell turns into complex life.

Why can't we survive temperatures like tardigrades? Why don't we live longer than trees? Why aren't we as fast as cheetahs? Why can't we fly? Or eyes like an eagle? Hearing like a deer? God could have done better with us.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Bullshit! *All it takes is a quick internet search to uncover so much evidence it's overwhelming. *You are being will fully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.
> 
> No they don't have the full picture but *the evidence we have* does not lead to anything you're saying.




Just for shits and giggles, I did a few quick inquiries...


*evidence sealybobo is a genius:* 6 results

*evidence for abiogenesis:* About 125,000 results

*evidence a UFO crashed at Roswell: *About 301,000 results

*evidence elvis is alive:* About 381,000 results

*evidence dick cheney is a reptilian:* About 494,000 results

*evidence boss is awesome: *About 623,000 results

*proof we faked the moon landing:* About 1,150,000 results

*evidence demons are real:* About 4,660,000 results

*evidence 9/11 was an inside job:* About 5,000,000 results

*evidence god exists:* About 8,160,000 results

*evidence reality is an illusion:* About 15,000,000 results

*evidence of spiritual nature:* About 45,200,000 results

Wow... all it took was a quick internet search and look at all the evidence I found!


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit! *All it takes is a quick internet search to uncover so much evidence it's overwhelming. *You are being will fully ignorant and intellectually dishonest.
> ...


I go with the top 3 most popular ones.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Yes the most basic building blocks of life can get cooked together then Frozen in deep space and land on planets like earth and life flourishes. I saw a quick 7 minute YouTube explaining how simple atoms and protein and molecules and carbon hydrogen bla bla ultimately single cell turns into complex life.
> 
> Why can't we survive temperatures like tardigrades? Why don't we live longer than trees? Why aren't we as fast as cheetahs? Why can't we fly? Or eyes like an eagle? Hearing like a deer? God could have done better with us.



What you didn't see was scientific evidence to prove your conjectures because you haven't presented any.


----------



## Boss (Sep 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> I go with the top 3 most popular ones.




Wow... Even with the knowledge that popularity is not a scientific argument?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 11, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the most basic building blocks of life can get cooked together then Frozen in deep space and land on planets like earth and life flourishes. I saw a quick 7 minute YouTube explaining how simple atoms and protein and molecules and carbon hydrogen bla bla ultimately single cell turns into complex life.
> ...


Now I know others see what I see about you you're kind of funny


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 12, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > You're not very honest. What you have attempted to do here is not to prove that all evidence carries a degree of subjectivity , but rather that all evidence is therefore equally subjective. Rhinos, of course, ridiculous and false. I have deconstructed your attempt to do this and have laid bare your motives for doing it. Thank goodness we invented the scientific method, to drag ourselves out of this murk you are bathing yourself in. You are wrong, you will always be wrong, and thank goodness for that.
> ...


Haha, there you go again... "My science"...just like "my evidence". As if anyone is conduct in science or accepting scientific knowledge aimply to stand in opposite of Christianity. What an embarrassing bit of nonsense.

Let's have a reality check....the only person perverting anything is you, as you misrepresent science and lie to pervert science in favor of christianity. Once again, you are the only one guilty of the accisations you contrive, which you contrive as you are committing the offense.

It must be a source of great frustration for you that science and scientists really do not care about Christianity when performing pure science. Meanwhile, you are left to equivocate and lie as you try to debase their simple, honest work to suit your goofy, bronze age superstitions. I remember being obsessed with a girl in 7th grade who didn't give me a single thought. I imagine that's your life, every day, all day, as you vainly pound away at the wall of facts and scientific theories. How depressing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 12, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I go with the top 3 most popular ones.
> ...


No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.


----------



## Boss (Sep 12, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.



Now we know you're science illiterate. The scientific method doesn't say something is true based on how much sense it makes. Evidence can mean whatever they hell you want evidence to mean... it's entirely subjective. Hypothesis are not validated on how well they explain evidence. It's the other way around and the hypothesis becomes a theory that is always assailable by new evidence. 

There's also nothing in the scientific method about chubbys in the 3rd pew on Sunday and I never claimed any kind of stupid thing like that... but this is what you've been reduced to in this thread. You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say, and hope that some idiot stumbles in late and doesn't notice the epic ass kicking I've given you. Because that's just the kind of mentally weak and pathetic little punk you are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 12, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.
> ...


I never said that. When you have to lie amd misrepresent others to have a point, you don't really have a point. And this flailing and whining by you is embarrassing and futile. It doesn't matter that I am one who respects evidence-based knowledge, or that you are a lying charlatan trying to place your magical faith on the same shelf as evidence-based knowledge. It stands, regardless of my opinion or of your goofy, bronze age beliefs. No, you have brought no real challenge to any accepted theory. You have merely equivocated and lied yourself into a pasty white little pretzel, forever frustrated that science doesn't fellate your nonsense.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 12, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> You're not gonna be honest anymore, you're gonna do everything you can to lie about and distort everything I say,



I'm not judging the outcome but that none of the combatants are above the above quote. and that includes boss who's implication of innocents is undoubtedly their weakest link.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No, with the knowledge that the top hypotheses are not chosen for how they make someone get a chubby in the 3rd pew on Sunday morning, but by how much sense they make and how well they explain the evidence.
> ...


Boss this person is destroying you. It's your evidence that is subjective. 

Stop calling other people science illiterate. You pervert twist and spin fact with fiction. No wonder your church has only one member. 

And no you don't talk to any scientists who are experts in this area. You talk to other religious people who are used to agreeing with other religious people no matter what nonsense they say.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


It's like boss has read up extensively on evolution and he knows all the evidence that's out there but maybe he's found 5 or ten of 1000 pieces of evidence he doesn't fully believe but honestly no theory he comes up with no matter how true does not prove a creator exists. If he had a good theory he'd be famous. Instead he's stuck here being mocked by us.

So it doesn't matter how much science he learns because he's wasting it looking for a god that doesn't exist.

Boss, ask God what number I'm thinking of 1- 1 million


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Boss is  wielding an overly general argument, and it is its own downfall.  He tries to undermine the concept of evidence itself by saying it is "all subjective", and implying it is all equally so.  This is complete nonsense, and nobody could actually function in life this way. Clearly it can not be so that Boss actually believes all evidence is equally subjective ("Either something is subjective , or it is not"), else he might be prone to jumping off of his roof, thinking he will fall up .... or staring right at the Sun during an eclipse... or drinking bleach. Therefore,  he's not even being honest when he presents this philosophical dud as the reason he doubts scientific theories which do not suit him.  But, it sounds fancier than, "Because I say so", so here we are.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Nailed it. God I appreciate people like you who come along and say it better than I can


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Thank you for the kind words


----------



## Boss (Sep 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss this person is destroying you. It's your evidence that is subjective.
> 
> Stop calling other people science illiterate. You pervert twist and spin fact with fiction. No wonder your church has only one member.
> 
> And no you don't talk to any scientists who are experts in this area. You talk to other religious people who are used to agreeing with other religious people no matter what nonsense they say.



You know how I know this person is NOT destroying me? Because you had to interject your opinion. 

ALL evidence is subjective. I've given numerous examples. I even took his examples and proved it. Now he's coming back with this caveat of "equally subjective" but "equality" is also subjective. He admitted that all evidence has a degree of subjectivity but then turned right around and tried to claim that it's not "equally subjective" which is not an argument I ever made... and how would we determine that anyway? We all have different opinions on "equality"  ...it's one of our biggest social problems at the moment. There is no universal measure of equality when it comes to subjectivity. It all relies on the perceptions of the individual. 

I talk to everybody. I don't isolate myself from anyone. Scientists who are "experts in this area" don't impress me as far as validity of information because the so-called "experts" have often been totally wrong. I'm also not a "religious person" and you know that but you continue to throw that in my face because you think that helps your arguments. Nothing helps your arguments, sillyboob. You expose yourself for the idiot you are every time you post.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 12, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


This is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have seen from you and that is usually what you post. 

Who cares what a year is to God?

I asked you, not God. Stop pretending you are God cuz you are not. 

I posed FOUR questions and you answered ZERO.


----------



## Boss (Sep 12, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss is wielding an overly general argument, and it is its own downfall. He tries to undermine the concept of evidence as "all subjective". This is complete nonsense, and nobody could actually function in life this way. Clearly it can not be so that Boss actually believes all evidence is equally subjective ("Either something is subjective , or it is not"), else he might be prone to jumping off of his roof, thinking he will fall up .... or staring right at the Sun during an eclipse... or drinking bleach. Therefore, he's not even being honest when he presents this philosophical dud as the reason he doubts scientific theories which do not suit him. But, it sounds fancier than, "Because I say so", so here we are.



Overly general arguments are the best arguments to wield. 

I don't doubt scientific theories which have credible evidence to support them. I doubt empirical conclusions of fact based on scientific theories. This place is full of little shitstain Atheists living in momma's basement, teeing off daily on Christians for fun. They PRETEND to be scientists and try to present science theory as proven fact. I have a degree in Science and can pretty much hold my own in any science discussion. Although I am not religious, I also have a strong background in Comparative Religious Studies, and can hold my own in those type of debates as well. I'm also a Psychology major who loves to dabble in philosophy. In short, I'm a fairly smart mother fucker. This bugs the shit outta little twerps like you who are used to smearing and denigrating regular Christian folks because your condescending crap don't work on me. 

I actually enjoy having honest dialogue and debate with people who have an opposing view. We can completely disagree and I'll have a beer with you at the end of the day. Sometimes, I will actually learn things and maybe even change my viewpoint after debating with someone I share mutual intellectual respect with. (Don't worry... that's not you or sillyboob.)

That said, I am a bit of a smart ass. When I encounter some internet blowhard who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, I can't help but rain on his little parade. It's fun to dismantle his silly arguments and watch him slowly devolve into a sniveling little troll and his little buddies jumping in to defend him. Sometimes I think I ought to feel guilty about that but I don't.


----------



## Boss (Sep 12, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Well apparently I don't know what you're asking. I thought I answered. You seemed to be having trouble with time and didn't seem to understand that God created time... it's a meaningless parameter to Him. It means something to us because we're physical creatures operating in a space-time continuum. I also don't know where you get that I'm pretending to be God. I'm just trying to answer your questions about God.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss this person is destroying you. It's your evidence that is subjective.
> ...


You're definitely frustrating to me. That other guy explains it perfectly how and why you are fos. I know that's subjective too.

All I know is it's no fun after awhile with guys like you so it's nice to see others think your hypothesis is just as ridiculous as I do.

Explain to us all again what you believe please. It's easy to forget what your theory is.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


How do the aliens know there is no God?

I'm an atheist and I don't want aliens to visit. I'm scared of anything advanced enough to pull off that feat. We can't even go to Mars so maybe you don't want to learn dad has another family


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 13, 2017)

.
evolution / the genome of life combine to prove beings are the product of design of one type or another. a committee led by an Almighty through morality is the most likely explanation by the evidence available. creators of life, not necessarily the universe.


----------



## Boss (Sep 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> You're definitely frustrating to me. That other guy explains it perfectly how and why you are fos. I know that's subjective too.
> 
> All I know is it's no fun after awhile with guys like you so it's nice to see others think your hypothesis is just as ridiculous as I do.
> 
> Explain to us all again what you believe please. It's easy to forget what your theory is.



Oh, this is funny. So you like the other guy explaining things to me how I'm full of shit, you think my hypothesis is ridiculous.... but you can't recall what my theory is? That's rich!   

Neither you or other guy have presented any valid science to show how life originated. Fun bags tried to argue for  2 pages that evidence isn't subjective. You both want to try and claim science theories are basically proven facts. Neither of you seem to be able to wrap your minds around the fact that science doesn't conclude and when you've drawn a conclusion you've stopped practicing science and have adopted a faith. 

Yep... you two are birds of a feather, you deserve each other. Get a room!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 13, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss is wielding an overly general argument, and it is its own downfall. He tries to undermine the concept of evidence as "all subjective". This is complete nonsense, and nobody could actually function in life this way. Clearly it can not be so that Boss actually believes all evidence is equally subjective ("Either something is subjective , or it is not"), else he might be prone to jumping off of his roof, thinking he will fall up .... or staring right at the Sun during an eclipse... or drinking bleach. Therefore, he's not even being honest when he presents this philosophical dud as the reason he doubts scientific theories which do not suit him. But, it sounds fancier than, "Because I say so", so here we are.
> ...


"Overly general arguments are the best arguments to wield. ""


No, they are the worst, for precisely the reason I gave. And, the irony is that you just did it again. Of course, you have no idea you are doing it, just as you had no idea you were doing it earlier.  This had to be pointed out to you.

 They reveal that you are dishonest and will say literally anything to forward a point you cannot otherwise support.  It's like  a dog lover who says he hates spiders because, 'I hate all animals".  They make you look dishonest or stupid.  Pick your poison.  And I know you will.  You have already proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you will hang onto your precious claims and arguments, even after they are shown to be false and fallacious.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 13, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> evolution / the genome of life combine to prove beings are the product of design of one type or another. a committee led by an Almighty through morality is the most likely explanation by the evidence available. creators of life, not necessarily the universe.


"a committee led by an Almighty through morality is the most likely explanation by the evidence available."

 Well then, I guess we can discard all of these non-magical explanations that explain all the evidence, because.... well... because Shaman BreezeWood said so?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 13, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You're definitely frustrating to me. That other guy explains it perfectly how and why you are fos. I know that's subjective too.
> ...


"you think my hypothesis is ridiculous"

You have no hypothesis.  You have nothing but authoritative claims.  You have not once managed to form anything resembling a formal argument.  You have left everyone else to puzzle the argument out of your stream of statements and explain it to you, and explain to you how utterly absurd the arguments you try to imply, but just can't seem to form and state, are.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 13, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Circular argument. If you make a good point they just bring up another argument and eventually they'll make the original argument again.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 13, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's why I want him to say it again. I know it has something to do with believing in something greater than self. But he also has a relationship with it and cherry picks from the Abraham religious.

I ask every anti evolutioner to explain to me that god poofed fully formed land animals into existence


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 13, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well then, I guess we can discard all of these non-magical explanations that explain all the evidence, because.... well... because Shaman BreezeWood said so?




evolution or change over time to living organisms is a reality both physically and spiritual / mental, the change is accomplished from one generation to the next through a mechanism that has yet to be identified but certainly is a relay from what exists to what will next be changed after the death of the initiating being, a connection from what is to what is going to become. Spirituality is proven by evolution whether skeptics recognize it or not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 13, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


"the change is accomplished from one generation to the next through a mechanism that has yet to be identified"

That's not true at all.  We know the mechanisms of evolution.  And nothing in what you said proves spirituality, especially considering the one premise you used is completely false.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 13, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's not true at all. We know the mechanisms of evolution. And nothing in what you said proves spirituality, especially considering the one premise you used is completely false.



talking about a thoughtfully meaningless post, without a bit of information, yours takes the cake ... good luck.
_*

We know the mechanisms of evolution ...
*_

have you thought of one yet ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 13, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Yes.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Overly general arguments are the best arguments to wield. ""
> 
> 
> No, they are the worst, for precisely the reason I gave. And, the irony is that you just did it again. Of course, you have no idea you are doing it, just as you had no idea you were doing it earlier. This had to be pointed out to you.
> ...



You've not shown a damn thing I've said to be false or fallacious. Seems to me like what you want to do is demagogue the thread and try to lie your way to victory. I guess you figure a lot of stupid fuckers will stumble in here on Page 17 and see your proclamations of success and miss the epic ass kicking you've taken throughout this thread. Hey, it's probably not a bad strategy to try and bury your brutal schlonging like a bad cat turd, maybe no one will see it? 

And look, Fun bags, you made a new friend outta all this... sillyboob is about ready to ask you on a date and I think that's great. He needs a companion of his intellectual level and you fit the bill perfectly. You guys will be happy together in your bliss of stupidity.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> That's why I want him to say it again. I know it has something to do with believing in something greater than self. But he also has a relationship with it and cherry picks from the Abraham religious.
> 
> I ask every anti evolutioner to explain to me that god poofed fully formed land animals into existence



I don't really care what you believe, at some point, life poofed into existence. You don't have a physical explanation that doesn't defy your own scientific theories. My theory is, it was created by something outside of the physical. 

You can join Fun Bags and try to lie and demagogue your way to victory but you're wasting our time. Why not just fall back on your default position that you don't fucking know and don't have an answer? Seems like that would be the easiest thing to do but you seem to want to dance around and make false claims you can't support, like it somehow makes you smart.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We know the mechanisms of evolution.



No you don't. 

You know how microevolution works... you think. But you have no clue how macroevolution happened and you can't reproduce your hypothesis in a lab environment, therefore, your theory is not valid. So stop lying about this.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And nothing in what you said proves spirituality



Darwin's Theory of Evolution proves Spirituality. 

Humans have a fundamental behavioral attribute the species has had for all of it's civilized existence. There is no example of any living thing past or present, which has a meaningless fundamental behavioral attribute. According to Darwin, these are discarded for more favorable or beneficial attributes as a part of natural selection. 

Now we can argue about what is spirituality's purpose or what does it mean... but to claim it doesn't exist in human as fundamental attribute, is stupid. Even Darwin would tell you that.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "Overly general arguments are the best arguments to wield. ""
> ...


Funny no one has ever jumped in and agreed with you on this subject and you've been making your arguments for a long time.

Interesting that so many creationists hate macroevolution. Even ones like you who could marry god and evolution you insist on believing God poofed living things into existence. Why?

Why can't you guys believe God planted one seed and everything living came from it?

But even if it were proven tomorrow on Saturday you would just shift your arguments. You wouldn't be contrite.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I want him to say it again. I know it has something to do with believing in something greater than self. But he also has a relationship with it and cherry picks from the Abraham religious.
> ...


I don't know. Neither do you.

The difference is you believe something outside the physical poofed us. Thank you for admitting it. Poofed! Something outside the physical! And no one gets you but I'm the fool. Got it, fucking retard


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > We know the mechanisms of evolution.
> ...


Duck billed platipus. We know.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > And nothing in what you said proves spirituality
> ...


And we are slowly shedding this behavior. But it happens so slow you don't see it. Even though I can show you in your lifetime atheism may have went from 10% to 50% of the population not being religious at all. 

So we are losing our religion. If not we should be out numbered on these threads.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...


Why would it silence anybody if it's still not proven?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...



Boss and I come to different conclusions.  He thinks because all humans have always been superstitious that means there must be something to it.  If there wasn't then we would have shed it a long time ago.

That exposes his ignorance of evolution of course because we all know it takes a long time for things to change.  And humans are actually losing their religion at a very fast pace.  So fast you can see it happening.

Now that doesn't mean Muslims in the middle east won't still be praying to Allah 7 times a day in 1000 years.  They might be.  But that doesn't give it any credibility.  Boss has deduced that because so many humans believe despite there being no evidence, that this means god must be real

Of course he's also ignoring the fact that most of us are brainwashed from birth or at a young age when we are impressionable.  Or the fact that organized religions fear people into fake belief.  

And we know people don't like not knowing all the answers to life's questions so people want to believe.  Who doesn't want to believe there is a heaven where we live happy for eternity?  My dad talks about how my mom is in heaven watching us.  Sure she isn't.  LOL.  But he hopes that is true.  He hopes so bad he's willing to suspend logic and reason.  It's called wishful thinking.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Hes been doing that irrational "spiritual proof" song and dance for years now. Its goofy footed.


----------



## Blackrook (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's good for you that you got this all figured out, that there is no heaven and there is no hell.

And if you're wrong, you won't mind me saying "I told you so."


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Its better than being spoon fed things as a control mechanism, Id gather.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Let's be clear. Regardless of whether you believe in God, logic dictates "something" poofed life into existence. Life exists. It hasn't always existed. Therefore, it had to originate. POOF! One second there's no life-- next second--- POOF-- LIFE! 

So you can mock and make fun of "poofing" all you like, there is no other logical explanation. It's simply a matter of whether the "poofing" was the result of physical nature or spiritual nature. I've seen no evidence in physical nature and it actually contradicts what we know... biogenesis.. life comes from life. 

You promised us pages ago that you would explain your theory of origin but you haven't. The closest you came was your Magic Bean theory, where some ambiguous "seed" came here riding on a comet and "poofed" life into existence here. But physical nature doesn't produce inorganic magical seeds... seeds come from something living. Ergo: You still have not explained origin. 

I believe life came from God because I am rational. It's beyond physical nature's capability to create life just as it's beyond physical nature's ability to create itself.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


actually, logic doesnt dictate that. life could have always existed, outside this universe, and in a place where theres not even space time rendering "begin" a null and void concept because the 4th dimension is required 1st before something can "begin"


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss and I come to different conclusions. He thinks because all humans have always been superstitious that means there must be something to it. If there wasn't then we would have shed it a long time ago.
> 
> That exposes his ignorance of evolution of course because we all know it takes a long time for things to change. And humans are actually losing their religion at a very fast pace. So fast you can see it happening.



This is simply not true. You are misinformed badly. Only 5% of the human species profess belief in nothing. (Nihilist) This number has not changed over time. Religions come and go. Devout religiosity seems to spike whenever there are cataclysmic events.  We've not had one of those in a while. Even in the most Atheistic country on the planet (Denmark), where 66% of the population define themselves as Atheist, only half of them go so far as to say they don't believe it's possible for anything outside the physical to exist. And even YOU have professed a belief in something metaphysical... you called it "Karma." 

I believe an objective evaluation of superstition is actually a supporting case for validity of human spirituality. Superstitions held popular sway for many years, until science came along and disproved them. They've largely fallen by the wayside now and are simply a novelty from a past time. Spiritual belief is a different matter. There have been countless years of war and persecution dedicated to stamping out human spirituality and it still remains strong in humans. It's still our most defining attribute as a species. Despite many attempts, you've never been able to stomp spirituality out of the heart of mankind and you never will.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I would assume that the fact of belief would have to have positive selective pressure. It appears to have been invented in all cultures. It is most likely in our DNA as I have posted before. Evolution is about what works, not about whether it is actually true and more importantly BETTER (good enough works for evolution). However, with the invention of science, belief is no longer necessary. That also means it will take a long time to evolve God out of our DNA.



> That exposes his ignorance of evolution of course because we all know it takes a long time for things to change.  And humans are actually losing their religion at a very fast pace.  So fast you can see it happening.



I would argue that science is changing belief. Even Boss still believes in a God w/o the Bible trappings. The last Gallup poll I saw said most Americans believe in a God. They are not so happy with religions.



> Now that doesn't mean Muslims in the middle east won't still be praying to Allah 7 times a day in 1000 years.  They might be.  But that doesn't give it any credibility.  Boss has deduced that because so many humans believe despite there being no evidence, that this means god must be real
> 
> Of course he's also ignoring the fact that most of us are brainwashed from birth or at a young age when we are impressionable.  Or the fact that organized religions fear people into fake belief.
> 
> And we know people don't like not knowing all the answers to life's questions so people want to believe.  Who doesn't want to believe there is a heaven where we live happy for eternity?  My dad talks about how my mom is in heaven watching us.  Sure she isn't.  LOL.  But he hopes that is true.  He hopes so bad he's willing to suspend logic and reason.  It's called wishful thinking.



Science is winning the war indeed!


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



The platypus is unique. It's the only egg-laying mammal and the only venomous mammal. Like humans, it is the sole species remaining in it's genus taxon. It is found only in Eastern Australia. Lots of strange critters reside in Aussie Land because it's an isolated continent. It simply doesn't prove macroevolution.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> actually, logic doesnt dictate that. life could have always existed, outside this universe, and in a place where theres not even space time rendering "begin" a null and void concept because the 4th dimension is required 1st before something can "begin"



Now you're defying logic by creating universes you cannot prove the existence of. How is that ANY different than saying God Did It!?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > actually, logic doesnt dictate that. life could have always existed, outside this universe, and in a place where theres not even space time rendering "begin" a null and void concept because the 4th dimension is required 1st before something can "begin"
> ...


Saying they possibly exist doesnt say they do, sherlock.

So uh...what defies logic is your reading capabilities.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> However, with the invention of science, belief is no longer necessary.




That's funny... seems like there are an awful lot of believers in faith here. 



MarkDuffy said:


> Science is winning the war indeed!



Nice to see you admit that you're extorting science to wage a war on religion. We already knew that but it's nice of you to confirm it. Physical Science will NEVER supplant human spirituality. It remains, and always will, a fundamental human behavioral attribute. I know you don't like to hear that but it's a fact.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



The same applies for saying it's possible God exists.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Another way of looking at it is that belief is part of creativity and imagination which I think we all would agree are VERY positive human attributes. If we cannot invent a God, then we also cannot do science.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


theres a difference between when you say its possible.... to when you say its the only explanation, and thats where your logic fails


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Another way of looking at it is that belief is part of creativity and imagination which I think we all would agree are VERY positive human attributes. If we cannot invent a God, then we also cannot do science.


That theres 365+ reasons we could gather that humans have spiritual thoughts means that humans having spiritual thoughts cant logically be used as proof of anything.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Another way of looking at it is that belief is part of creativity and imagination which I think we all would agree are VERY positive human attributes. If we cannot invent a God, then we also cannot do science.
> ...


Agreed


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > However, with the invention of science, belief is no longer necessary.
> ...



I have faith in my religion of science



> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Science is winning the war indeed!
> ...



"Physical science" is redundant. Science is enough. However, I do like your phrase "human spirituality". It means something that does not exist outside of humanity, ie human invention.

I have no issues with a God or a religion that is in good karma with science.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



*I have faith in my religion of science*

I know. That's my main problem with you. Some of us understand science is a disciplined study of our physical universe and isn't there to establish conclusions of faith as facts. It continues to question it's findings, testing and falsifying it's results. Then there are those who pervert it and exploit it to wage war against God. 
*
"Physical science" is redundant. Science is enough. However, I do like your phrase "human spirituality". It means something that does not exist outside of humanity, ie human invention.*

Nonsense. Human merely qualifies the subject of spirituality. Go study your English grammar. It does not mean it doesn't exist outside of humanity, if anything, it distinguishes it from non-human spirituality which may also exist. 

It is not a human invention until you can definitively prove it is and you have not. From the oldest civilizations you can find, it appears to be a behavioral attribute. If it were an invention you could pinpoint a date it was invented... like tools, for example. Furthermore, it actually contradicts Darwinian Theory that it's a man-made invention. No species has ever invented a fundamental behavioral attribute. Even the dumbest, most stupid animal on the planet, doesn't engage in behavior for no reason.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

I have a philosophical question for all the "non-believers" here...

Do you hope you are right or hope you are wrong?


----------



## April (Sep 14, 2017)




----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I'm just confident you aren't right so yes, I don't mind you telling me I'm wrong if I"m wrong just like you won't mind if Mohammad or Jehova or Joe Smith doesn't let you into the pearly gates.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


There could be a place called heaven and a place called hell.  I get how and why man made that up.  You would think that if there is a god bad people are punished and good people are rewarded.  I totally get how and why man made this stuff up.  

You want me to buy into Christianity.  That aint gonna happen.  I know a bullshit story when I hear one.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> I have a philosophical question for all the "non-believers" here...
> 
> Do you hope you are right or hope you are wrong?



That depends.  If you mean do we hope all non Christians go to hell?  No we don't hope that.  But if you mean do we hope there is a heaven then of course we hope there is one if we get in.

And we hope there is a hell for Hitler but we don't want there to be a hell for us.

And no.  I'm not a sadistic fuck like God to burn someone in hell for all eternity.  Only something eveil would do that to someone.  So no I don't hope anyone burns for all eternity.  Not even you boss.  I'd like you to burn for a day and Hitler for 10 years.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> I have a philosophical question for all the "non-believers" here...
> 
> Do you hope you are right or hope you are wrong?


What makes that philosophical....


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have a philosophical question for all the "non-believers" here...
> ...



I don't want you to answer for "WE" ...it's a personal question for YOU.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have a philosophical question for all the "non-believers" here...
> ...




Because it is, dumbass.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Not unless it comes along with goofy implications that arent really there except for in the narrative in your brain theyll build.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Can you not answer the question?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Its malformed.

Non believer in what? god? which god? define god...

define non believer....


passive lack of belief, or assertive 


etc etc


I am agnostic - it means "i dont know" 

Thats not a belief, its a fact that I dont know. Its literal, god has not been proven or disproven to me.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I hope I'm right because if I'm right, guys like me get into heaven if a such place exists.  And if I'm right and there is no heaven then I didn't waste my life waiting for an afterlife.  I didn't cope with a shitty life in hopes that an afterlife would be better.  I knew this was it and so I made the most of it.  

Arrestive Development sang it best

The reason I'm fishin' 4 a new religion
Is my church makes me fall asleep
They're praising a God that watches you weep
And doesn't want you to do a damn thing about it
When they want change the preacher says "shout it"
Does shouting bring about change ? I doubt it
All shouting does is make you lose your voice
So on the dock I sit in silence
Staring at a sea that's full of violence
Scared to put my line in that water
Coz it seems like there's no religion in there
Naively so I give it another go
Sitting in church hearing legitimate woes
Pastor tells the lady it'll be alright
Just pray so you can see the pearly gates so white
The lady prays and prays and prays and prays
And prays and prays and prays and prays it's everlasting
"There's nothing wrong with praying ?" It's what she's asking
She's asking the Lord to let her cope
So one day she can see the golden ropes
What you pray for God will give
To be able to cope in this world we live
The word "cope" and the word "change"
Is directly opposite, not the same
She should have been praying to change her woes
But pastor said "Pray to cope with those"
The government is happy with most baptist churches
Coz they don't do a damn thing to try to nurture
Brothers and sisters on a revolution
Baptist teaches dying is the only solution
Passiveness causes others to pass us by
I throw my line till I've made my decision
Until then, I'm still fishin' 4 religion


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have a philosophical question for all the "non-believers" here...
> ...


Bravo!


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You have repeatedly professed you don't believe in God. You are here in this thread, literally mocking and ridiculing human spirituality. It's FAR too late to claim you aren't sure or you don't know what you believe. It seems you are now trying to backtrack so you don't have to answer my question.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Well, this is a lie.

I mock the religious.

I say spirituality being provided as proof is ridiculous.


That in no way, shape or form speaks to my agnosticism and uhhh, you dont get to decide those things control FREAK


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




So do you hope you're right or hope you're wrong?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> I have a philosophical question for all the "non-believers" here...
> 
> Do you hope you are right or hope you are wrong?



Ain't no hope to it

I KNOW I am left


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


about what


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> I hope I'm right because if I'm right, guys like me get into heaven if a such place exists. And if I'm right and there is no heaven then I didn't waste my life waiting for an afterlife. I didn't cope with a shitty life in hopes that an afterlife would be better. I knew this was it and so I made the most of it.



I don't think you've fully considered the consequences of Atheism. For the record, I don't believe you're really an Atheist. I think you're living in denial of what you instinctively know is the truth. You have simply bowed to social pressure because you think that makes you cool and hip.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have a philosophical question for all the "non-believers" here...
> ...




Ahh.. Another Atheist afraid to answer my question!


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




What you believe.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I'm right because if I'm right, guys like me get into heaven if a such place exists. And if I'm right and there is no heaven then I didn't waste my life waiting for an afterlife. I didn't cope with a shitty life in hopes that an afterlife would be better. I knew this was it and so I made the most of it.
> ...


The consequences of believing one way or another should DEFINITELY not inform your reasoning.

Thats absurd!!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Do I wish I knew instead of not knowing? 

uh fuck yea


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Do I wish I knew instead of not knowing?
> 
> uh fuck yea




So you hope you're wrong?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Assumes facts not in evidence counselor


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> The consequences of believing one way or another should DEFINITELY not inform your reasoning.
> 
> Thats absurd!!




Really? What you believe always ultimately informs your reasoning.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




The fact is you've avoided answering my question.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yes!

are we having fun yet?

EDIT: forgot boss is a dumbass so more detailed on the way

Yes I can not (refuse) answer the question!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What question is that?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Do I wish I knew instead of not knowing?
> ...


How can I be wrong about what my own brain knows or doesnt know...

thats why for an agnostic, your question is malformed


and boss, you can go back through YEARS of g.t. posts and find that ive always been agnostic. 

not once did i affirm god doesnt exist.

i mock false evidences that he does.....because i find them absurd, and to be born of folks' ego, fear and gullibility.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

This reminds me of the old man/woman map joke

Woman ~ You are lost

I've never been lost, just a bit confused at times.

Pull over and ask for directions

No way, that's no fun


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well my question is for "non-believers" as I stated. By adopting the "Agnostic" label you automatically disqualify yourself as a "non-believer" because you are stating you are uncertain. The problem is, we often find you arguing vociferously against what you claim you're uncertain about. You can't really have it both ways... You can't say "I don't believe God exists but I don't know if God exists or not!" This is a contradiction of yourself.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...




The one I asked which you quoted several times.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


uh, no its not its your lack of discernment is what it is

i am consistent.

im sorry for your error.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> This reminds me of the old man/woman map joke
> 
> Woman ~ You are lost
> 
> ...




You remind me of a joke.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I'm not in error.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You sure are if youre trying to claim my inconsistency on the 1 issue I know, study, read and debate most about.


Im more consistent on the Universal First cause issue than the Giants are at losing.


Just because you misinterpret and assume over and over ad nauseum....doesnt mean I am whatever your bloviations babble. 

It doesnt work like that.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You clearly don't listen.  I don't believe in the god you are talking about either but could there be a creator?  Sure there could be.  But it never visited and any speculation about heaven and hell are just humans wishful thinking.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 14, 2017)

.


G.T. said:


> I say spirituality being provided as proof is ridiculous.



_*
I say spirituality being provided as proof is ridiculous ...*_








the cicada transforms itself from one being to another, whatother method could be employed than a spiritual one during the _*transition*_.

whatever "transitional" fossils there are only represent the intermediary step during a proving period before in a single step an entirely new example emerges from a parent of entirely different composition that then reproduces the new example from that point forward. the process is spiritually composed _to_ _transfer from each generation to the next._

all beings, Flora and Fauna poses the initiating spirituality of life and the enabling of ever expansive results that life itself represents. the physiology is the resultant physical example.

humanity if devolving spiritually from its origination as may be possible will prove spirituality by the inevitable outcome of extinction.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're like the pope.  Infallible.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I'm right because if I'm right, guys like me get into heaven if a such place exists. And if I'm right and there is no heaven then I didn't waste my life waiting for an afterlife. I didn't cope with a shitty life in hopes that an afterlife would be better. I knew this was it and so I made the most of it.
> ...



Well I'm an agnostic atheist.  I truly don't believe.  Even though you think because I believe in karma that I do.  Because I'm starting to doubt karma too.  I have repeatedly mocked religions for years and I just got a fat raise and met a nice woman.  That doesn't happen to people who god is punishing, does it?

But what you guys will do is wait for something bad to happen and then say, "see, god's getting you back".


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The consequences of believing one way or another should DEFINITELY not inform your reasoning.
> ...



Well what you WANT to believe shouldn't cloud your judgement but it does.  You want to believe so badly you will spin everything including science.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> You sure are if you're trying to claim my inconsistency




then explain how change in evolution is transferred from one generation to the next before it becomes apparent ...


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You sure are if you're trying to claim my inconsistency
> ...


This should help you


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Well again... it goes back to what I said to GT... you can't have it BOTH ways! You cannot LOGICALLY say: I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS ...._AND_... at the same time-- I'M NOT SURE IF GOD EXISTS!  One statement contradicts the other. IF you don't believe God exists, you are an atheist, if you're not sure, you're agnostic. 

You claim to be both which means you're agnostic but you enjoy acting like an atheist smart ass.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> You clearly don't listen.  I don't believe in the god you are talking about either but could there be a creator?  Sure there could be.  But it never visited and any speculation about heaven and hell are just humans wishful thinking.



If it's possible there is an omnipotent Creator, why is anything else impossible?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


actually, theyre not contradictory at all weirdo.

saying you dont believe is not saying yyou know for certain.....thats so obvious that im not sure youre serious, being super honest.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I just go by what you post. It doesn't sound like you aren't sure whether God and Spirituality exist. Everything I've seen you post indicates you are sure God doesn't exist and Spirituality is made up nonsense, and anyone who believes in such things is a joke. Now, I have no way of knowing what you truly believe or what's inside your heart, only you do. But I would suggest, if you honestly don't know whether God exists, you start acting like that instead of casually pretending to be an Atheist until your Atheism is challenged.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


its not my fault youre a fuckin idiot


i challenge false proofs
i challenge false religions

thats not affirming or denying a god

its denying false proofs, and false religions

if you dont get the difference, then youre not worth a conversation anyhow because youre too dense and obstinant. an on purpose annoyance


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Saying you don't believe isn't saying you don't know for certain. 

Let's be clear, NO ONE KNOWS!  Not even Billy Graham himself! Until you die, you can't KNOW. This is why FAITH is required. If you are honestly questioning whether or not God exists, it doesn't seem appropriate to be running around proclaiming belief in God is silly and made up. 

I have often said, "Atheists" are very often bigger believers in God than some "Christians." The quote marks are significant.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




But I'm not a fucking idiot or you wouldn't be addressing me. 

IF you are "not sure" how can you proclaim anything false?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


of course its silly and made up without having proof.

thats how to reason.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


i am sure about religions and false proofs  wtf cant you seperate that from a lack of knowledge of an actual creator? thats so weird that you cant.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> i am sure about religions and false proofs wtf cant you seperate that from a lack of knowledge of an actual creator? thats so weird that you cant.



Again... How can you proclaim anything false if you don't know? 

You cannot say "1+X=2 is FALSE!" As long as X remains uncertain, you can't make this argument.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > i am sure about religions and false proofs wtf cant you seperate that from a lack of knowledge of an actual creator? thats so weird that you cant.
> ...


i do KNOW that religions are false.

do you need remedial reading courses???


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> i do KNOW that religions are false.
> 
> do you need remedial reading courses???



You cannot know and not know at the same time.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > i do KNOW that religions are false.
> ...


uh, you really have issues.

i KNOW religions are false.

i dont also NOT know.

i simply KNOW.


a creator of this universe or multiverse =/= our manmade religions.

have a donkey explain the difference


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well I'm not a believer in organized man-made religions either but I can't say they are false because I really don't know. I can say I don't believe they are true or I don't believe they are absolutely true, but I don't know... I can't know for certain. 

When you state that you KNOW, that's a statement of definitive fact, not a doubt or question. You're literally trying to argue that you know but you don't know for sure. That's simply not rational.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


no, you are wrong.


its your incapability of seperating a discussion about the first cause and a discussion about manmade religion

im agnostic on a first cause.


im certain manmade religions are false.

those are not opposing ideas, and if you cant figure out how that could be you have a LOT of studying to do. usmb aint gunna help ya.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> no, you are wrong.
> 
> its your incapability of seperating a discussion about the first cause and a discussion about manmade religion
> 
> ...



We're probably not too different in our beliefs regarding religion but I can't say they are false because I don't know. I can say I *believe* they are false, but that's not what you're saying at all. 

I've done a remarkable amount of studying on this issue. I'm actually educated in it.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > no, you are wrong.
> ...


it doesnt sound like it.

you conflate agnosticism on the 1st cause with a position on manmade religion

theyre not the same whatsoever....it shouldnt have taken like 6 posts to explain that...jeeeebis man wtf


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> ...


"the cicada transforms itself from one being to another, whatother method could be employed than a spiritual one during the _*transition*_."

No it doesn't . The cicada nymph is genetically identical to its adult form. The transition requures no spirituality to explain it, and is completely explained by physical pocesses. Pointing at something and calling it "spiritual" explains exactly nothing. Describing the physical processes explains it completely. The only person who needs to introduce spirituality is you, because you want it to be there. Yet whether we inject it or not has zero effect on the process or on the explanation of it, which is a strong hint that its goofy, useless nonsense.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



No, I'm not conflating anything. I am simply articulating philosophical logic of your arguments. It's fine to say you're agnostic but that means you don't know. If you don't know then you *don't know*. Again... 1+X=2.... I can't say that I'm *sure* it's true or false because I don't know what X is. Only if I know the value of X can I determine if it's true or false. 

So if you are saying you don't believe man made religions are true, that's fine... we can agree. It's your statement of absolute certainty that I have an issue with because you've stated that you don't know.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


no, youre not applying logic.

you are conflating agnosticism of a first cause with agnosticism of man made religion.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

G.T. said:


> no, youre not applying logic.
> 
> you are conflating agnosticism of a first cause with agnosticism of man made religion.




No... stating you are *certain* man made religions are false is not agnostic.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > no, youre not applying logic.
> ...


agnosticism of a belief in a first cause has nothing whatsoever to do with a belief or non belief in man made religion.

glad i could finally clear that up for you

when someone says "agnostic" it doesnt apply to every topic ever, sorry...and youre conflating 2 seperate ideas.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Agnostic atheist.

At least you admit no religions are the truth and you just choose to believe in something that's never visited and profit including Jesus

I lean towards believing there is no God and it wouldn't care if you believed. If it did it would visit.

I honor it by being the best person I can be. It gave me empathy before faith for a reason


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Perhaps the reason you are having difficulties is that it was a dumb question. Perhaps it also needed more words/options than just a typical republican binary?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


_You cannot LOGICALLY say: I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS ....AND... at the same time-- I'M NOT SURE IF GOD EXISTS!_

Are you really this stupid?

I am the definition case for this. I do not believe God exists, but as a scientist I cannot deny the possibility.

This also has several corollaries

1) If God exists, it is most likely not your God nor anyone else's.

2) The existence of such a God begs the origin question, it does not answer it.

2a) If I allow magic, then reality is pointless & science is an exercise in futility


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



We've been through this before, you cannot be an agnostic atheist. You can be an atheist or an agnostic. It seems to me like you are stubbornly trying to maintain both positions, which is totally illogical. Of course, we can expect this from you because you're an idiot. 

When you say "I lean towards believing..." What the fuck does that mean? You either believe something or you don't. Saying you "lean towards it" simply means you believe it but you don't have the courage to defend your beliefs. Then, the very next sentence you claim you "honor it" ...what? The thing you don't believe in? THEN.... you go on to actually openly acknowledge what "IT" gave you! You're just flip flopping around all over the place... you believe, you don't believe, you might believe, you might not believe... you can change in mid sentence! 

As I stated earlier, I don't believe you're an Atheist. I don't even think you're certain you are agnostic! I think you really, deep down inside, believe in God... but you have been ridiculed by your peers and made to feel inferior, so you've coped with this by denouncing your own spiritualism. You think that's okay because you proclaim yourself to be a "good person" but it's not difficult to adhere to your own self-proscribed moral code that you can define on the fly as it suits you. So, aside from being a moron, you have a weak and pathetic character and a cold, shallow soul.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



If you're not an Atheist, that's okay, the question wasn't for you.  If you believe it's possible God exists, you're not an Atheist. An Atheist doesn't believe God exists. My question was for "non-believers" in God. You seem to be an Agnostic but you want to present the argument of an Atheist, then run hide behind your agnosticism. 

If you're an Atheist, I say own it bruh... step up and be a man! Don't be afraid to state your true belief! Answer my question... do you hope you're right or do you hope you're wrong?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You define on the fly


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I hope I'm wrong and a god I like exists and it lets me into heaven to be a god myself because only gods live forever.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Boss is a god and he was born. After he dies his soul lives forever in paradise and he will never get sick or be sad.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



First of all there was no subject in your question. The only subject was in the line above the question ~ "for you non-believers" perhaps referring to some God. As I have said, I am a believer in science, so I am not a non-believer. This was not clear, hence my previous post "about what?".

We as observers of your postings realize you like to play with words in the most anal way, so we are careful.

Next is the simple fact I do not respond to orders very well, especially from the likes of you.

I also added more information to my post later to clarify. Perhaps you should go back and read it.

Belief comes from both reason and evidence. I have neither for God, I actually have reason & evidence against a God, therefore I  am classified as an atheist. In another thread the OP provided definitions and I picked de facto atheist as opposed to atheist.

Agnostics have no opinion at all.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I sat in church thinking how utterly ridiculous the whole thing was but then I thought boy it sure is amazing all the events that had to happen that led to me being here now. So I said, "whatever started the universe, thanks for happening".

Boss knows what I mean when I say there is no God. Jesus wasn't god and Moses and joseph and Mohammad didn't talk to God. This god doesn't exist. Athiest

But could there be a creator? One that cares? We have no proof but sure I guess it's possible.

So I'm as close to atheist as you can get but boss wants me to say I'm certain there is no God so he can ask me how I know. He doesn't get the nuance to my answer. It can't be he thinks.

He's not intellectually honest.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I have concluded he is a Right Wing Christian who tries to defend it via some science that allows him not to be defined by the Bible.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


_So, aside from being a moron, you have a weak and pathetic character and a cold, shallow soul._

Wow, just noticed this.

Matthew 16:23 ~ But he [Jesus] turned, and said unto Peter [Boss], Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Well, I apologize for not making myself clearer when I said "non-believers." I assumed we all understood that I meant those who don't believe in a God. I didn't realize some of us have a third grade comprehension level and need to have things explained to them as if they were children. My bad. 

I do not play with words. What I do, is make sure everyone understands what specific words mean because, again, we seem to have some who operate on a third grade level of communication with regard to meanings and context. I would recommend your parents enroll you in a special education program or perhaps some remedial reading comprehension course so that you an obtain the tools you are going to need to communicate with adults in life. This would do you considerably more good than, say, posing as a "scientist" and being a belligerent little ass hat on a message board. 

All that said, you seem to be back to your bold denunciation of God and profession of your Atheism. Which makes me wonder why you haven't answered my question? As an Atheist who doesn't believe in God, do you hope you are wrong or do you hope you are right?  It's not a trick question, there is no right or wrong answer, it simply tells me a lot about how much thought you've given to your Atheistic beliefs. However, if you cannot answer a simple question, it goes without saying you haven't given much thought to your beliefs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 14, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"What I do, is make sure everyone understands what specific words mean"

Yes, we know. Thank You for your service.


----------



## Boss (Sep 14, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> I have concluded he is a Right Wing Christian who tries to defend it via some science that allows him not to be defined by the Bible.



People who profess conclusions about others without presenting any evidence to support them, aren't very good people in general. It's virtually impossible to have meaningful discourse with such people because they can't be honest. In spite of my numerous attempts to have a reasonable dialogue with you, it is apparent you are committed to attacking me because I disagree with your worldview. 

Here, you have concluded (based on no evidence whatsoever) that I am a "Right Wing Christian" in spite of my repeated testament that I am not a Christian. Now.... let me explain how utterly foolish this is.... IF I am, in fact, a Christian as you claim, then I have committed the only unforgivable sin of rejecting my Christian God. My actions as a Christian, no matter what my intents were, are a one-way ticket to Hell. Do you honestly believe I would condemn myself to eternal damnation just so I could pull one over on some message board dopes? 

Now, for those who are late to the party... let me explain why McDuff wants to label me "Right Wing Christian." It's because that is who he is intellectually armed to do battle against. We see this evidenced in Poast #913 above, where he hits me with a Biblical passage. And so, McDuff is just your garden variety anti-Christian bigot who doesn't like Christians probably because they oppose his views on things like gay marriage and abortion. Game, set, match!


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


I've answered his question. His god? Harmless and good so i hope I'm wrong. But if god sends agnostic atheist non believers to hell I hope I'm right


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > I have concluded he is a Right Wing Christian who tries to defend it via some science that allows him not to be defined by the Bible.
> ...


You can deny Jesus 3 times we still know you are cherry picking from organized religions.  Usually it's Christianity.  But you give props to all the religions so no you aren't a Christian.  As far as they are concerned you're going to hell with us.  

Can I ask you a philosophical question?  What if you are are wrong about the Muslim faith?  Do you want to be right about them or do you want to be wrong?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Avatar sez Alabama, a very red state

Are you a republican?

Who did you vote for for president?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 15, 2017)

Nevermind!



Boss said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> I picked Trump.  I didn't vote for Trump in the general because I disagree with several of his policy positions but I have been very impressed with his performance as president so far. He has done better than I expected. Particularly, the way he is handling an eviscerating media who is clearly on a mission to destroy his presidency.
> 
> I was a Ted Cruz supporter, and I love Ted Cruz... still believe he would make an awesome president. But I don't know if Cruz could've handled the leviathan the leftist media has become... I don't know that anyone other than Trump could. Cruz is a great guy but he is lacking something... maybe it's persuasiveness?  For some reason, he doesn't resonate well with some. He's great from my perspective but this is something I have observed with others.
> 
> Now Trump isn't perfect. He takes heat for his bombastic and petty tweeting but honestly, he is simply responding to his petty detractors. Some will say that's not mature... not presidential... but I think about George W. Bush, which is where this petty left-wing attacking and sniping began. He would never lower himself to dignify their attacks with a response and they eventually eroded away all of his popularity. Much the same thing happened to McCain and Romney during their campaigns. Rather than going after the petty detractors, they refrained and took the proverbial "high road" and it destroyed them in the trendy pop culture of the day. I think Trump understands this better than any Republican since Reagan. Maybe even better than Reagan. If you're going to be a petty vindictive ass munch, he's going to be your huckleberry.



Nailed by science in action

blows smoke off the end of the barrel and reholsters


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 15, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No it doesn't . The cicada nymph is genetically identical to its adult form. The transition requures no spirituality to explain it, and is completely explained by physical pocesses.


_*
The cicada nymph is genetically identical to its adult form.
*_
the being has transformed themselves from a land creature to an avian, they are not the same within the genetics that is obviously a separation, legs / wings. the suspension between the physiological forms is maintained by the spirituality of the individual that created the transformation - the CNS is disolved and replasced.

*
The transition requures no spirituality to explain it, and is completely explained by physical pocesses.
*
another example as perhapse your entire post of saying nothing to make your point.

the spirituality is how the individual was able to create the process that in time became a reality. from one being to another.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Same DNA. The difference between larva form and adult has to do with which genes are turned on & off. Same with development of the human embryo.

Further, this process is another example against Intelligent Design. Overall, having a larval stage is a pretty dumb way to create an adult. A total waste of energy by basically destroying the larva and rebuilding it into something completely different.

Evolution can easily explain the larval stage. The larva was an ancient ancestor.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 15, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



A lot of butthurt in this clown.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.
again you are replying without addressing the issue - same as happy Indiana


Caterpillars "Melt" Almost Completely Before Growing Into Butterflies in the Chrysalis
_
In order for the change from a caterpillar to a butterfly to take place within the pupa, the caterpillar begins releasing enzymes that literally digest nearly all of its own body.  What’s left inside the chrysalis is mostly just a very nutrient rich soup from which the butterfly will begin to form.

It was thought until very recently that the caterpillar was completely converted to goo, excepting certain special cells necessary to create the butterfly body parts.  This idea has recently been debunked with researchers at Georgetown University proving that moths retain at least some of the memories they had when they were caterpillars.  For this to be the case, at least some of their memory storing neurons must survive the enzyme digestion process.  Further, these neurons must somehow be incorporated into the moth or butterfly’s brain, which is quite a bit larger and more complex than a caterpillar’s brain._





BreezeWood said:


> the suspension between the physiological forms is maintained by the spirituality of the individual that created the transformation



the point being what is the _*guidance*_ while in suspension between the two physiological forms ... its cause and resultant conclusion. does the CNS do that, I'm sure will be your immediate atheist reply.

do you regulate your heartbeat. is that regulator what you are when you wake up in the morning ...


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> You can deny Jesus 3 times we still know you are cherry picking from organized religions. Usually it's Christianity. But you give props to all the religions so no you aren't a Christian. As far as they are concerned you're going to hell with us.
> 
> Can I ask you a philosophical question? What if you are are wrong about the Muslim faith? Do you want to be right about them or do you want to be wrong?



The reason you think you see "cherry picking" is because spirituality is the inspiration for religions. I'll be happy to address any specific examples but you never give any. You're like McDuff, you want to tie me to Christianity because that's what you're prepared to do battle against. You are all anti-Christian bigots who hate Christians because of their political views. 

To answer your smart ass question: I don't consider Muslim a faith. It's an anti-Christian hate group. I want to be wrong about them but I know I am right.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You can deny Jesus 3 times we still know you are cherry picking from organized religions. Usually it's Christianity. But you give props to all the religions so no you aren't a Christian. As far as they are concerned you're going to hell with us.
> ...


im an anti christian bigot who doesnt hate anybody but i enjoy putting mirrors on liars


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Avatar sez Alabama, a very red state
> 
> Are you a republican?
> 
> Who did you vote for for president?



What does ANY of this have to do with the topic of discussion? I am actually a libertarian-conservative who is pretty much a centrist. I voted for Darrell Castle.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Metamorphosis - Wikipedia

CNS = central nervous system?

I doubt that is really involved. More like the organism reverts back to an embryonic cell mass within the goo and starts over. However there is research that some characteristics remain so it is more complex than that in different organisms.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Half the members are good people.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


hell they all could be

and we all have flaws and im not perfect

but being religious is a flaw, and its one thats enjoyable to discuss because the mindwashing is fascinating


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2017)

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


I do find the bosses of the world fascinating. I can't have this conversation with my friends and family. Not the ones who are religious. So I love to pick theists brains. Many believe but haven't and don't give it much thought. I get them. But boss has been told everything you can say and he still believes even though we've explained ad nauseum how it's all in his head. 

Now that's faith. God will reward boss unless Christians are right then boss will be burning in hell with me


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > You can deny Jesus 3 times we still know you are cherry picking from organized religions. Usually it's Christianity. But you give props to all the religions so no you aren't a Christian. As far as they are concerned you're going to hell with us.
> ...


Islam is another religion you just haven't met any real Muslims yet. 

Every religion says why they are right and everyone else is wrong. Christianity says everyone else is going to hell. Muslims think the same thing. Coincidence?


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> I do find the bosses of the world fascinating. I can't have this conversation with my friends and family. Not the ones who are religious. So I love to pick theists brains. Many believe but haven't and don't give it much thought. I get them. But boss has been told everything you can say and he still believes even though we've explained ad nauseum how it's all in his head.
> 
> Now that's faith. God will reward boss unless Christians are right then boss will be burning in hell with me



Yeah, it's all in my head-- which explains why neither you or McDuff will come out and proudly proclaim your Atheism! 

Trying to convince me there is no Spiritual Nature is like me trying to convince you that your mother never existed. I have my own evidence and proof so your arguments don't bother me.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I do find the bosses of the world fascinating. I can't have this conversation with my friends and family. Not the ones who are religious. So I love to pick theists brains. Many believe but haven't and don't give it much thought. I get them. But boss has been told everything you can say and he still believes even though we've explained ad nauseum how it's all in his head.
> ...


of course if one understood brain science, they could never say such a thing that their spiritual experiences are as real as one's mother.

brains have flaws, derp


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Nope. Islam isn't a real religion based on spirituality. It was codified as a hate-filled response to Christianity. Have you ever noticed there are no international humanitarian Muslim organizations? They don't exist. Muslims only help other Muslims.


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yours definitely has flaws.


----------



## G.T. (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


all of them do, which is why saying your spiritual delusions are realer than someones mother - as opposed to what, being born from a seed in the ground?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Wasn't Christianity a spin off of judao? Jesus didn't like the church and they killed him.

Southern Baptist started when the church said no more owning slaves and treating blacks like second class citizens.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You are waaay too easy

Hurricane Harvey Emergency - Islamic Relief USA

Muslim groups in Houston are on the front lines of Harvey relief efforts


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You have a childlike view of religion which isn't worthy of my time or discussion.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Back to the subject of aliens. If they came here I would teach them that an appropriate hello on earth is a bj


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Not international groups.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



LOL

Wear three condoms


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Okay, so you're a non-believer in God?  Answer my question: Do you hope you are wrong or right?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


No we blow them


----------



## G.T. (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


no, im a non believer in bullshit without proof


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Have fun!

No I don't wanna watch


----------



## Boss (Sep 15, 2017)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Wow... yet another "Atheist" who will not answer my question! 

Damn... I just seem to keep on converting you "Atheists" into agnostics! Amazing!


----------



## G.T. (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


youre like a 4 yr old girl the way when ppl dont fit into your retard bubble you squirm and build up your strawman view of them

its mildly entertaining.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Worry not, it's just another hallucination


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


You are incorrect. The nymph and the adult are genetically identical. You are also incorrect to say the individual "created the process".

You are also 100% backwards to say I am "saying nothing". The physical processes completely explain the metamorphosis. The scientific explanation says literally everything, while the guy pointing at it and calling it spiritual (you) is saying nothing of substance and explaining exactly nothing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I do find the bosses of the world fascinating. I can't have this conversation with my friends and family. Not the ones who are religious. So I love to pick theists brains. Many believe but haven't and don't give it much thought. I get them. But boss has been told everything you can say and he still believes even though we've explained ad nauseum how it's all in his head.
> ...


"
I have my own evidence and proof"

Wrong again. You have zero evidence and zero proof, else you could use it to compel others. Again, something is not evidence because you think it is evidence or feel like calling it evidence. That has been your error from the beginning.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"Have you ever noticed there are no internationalhumanitarian Muslim organizations?"

100% wrong, as usual: 

HomePage - Red Crescent Islamic Relief for disaster and help for the Human suffering by promoting News and Video globally

See that^^...? That's what ACTUAL evidence looks like.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 15, 2017)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


" I just seem to keep on converting you "Atheists" into agnostics!"

Atheists are agnostics, unless they are Gnostic atheists. Sorry, no cigar.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 15, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are incorrect. The nymph and the adult are genetically identical. You are also incorrect to say the individual "created the process".
> 
> You are also 100% backwards to say I am "saying nothing". The physical processes completely explain the metamorphosis. The scientific explanation says literally everything, while the guy pointing at it and calling it spiritual (you) is saying nothing of substance and explaining exactly nothing.




again no link to support any of your assertions of which is not directly related to the discussion, what exists during the transition from one being to another as the implementer of the process.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


It's not a transition from one being to another. They are both cicadas. Same species. Identical genome. No, I do not provide links, especially to established scientific knowledge. And that's fine, because I don't insist you take my word fot it.

All you have done is try to pry open gaps in our understanding, and then fill them with this undefined, untestable nonsense you call "spirituality". You explain exactly nothing. In fact, all you are attempting to do is say we will NEVER understand.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 15, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's not a transition from one being to another. They are both cicadas. Same species. Identical genome. No, I do not provide links, especially to established scientific knowledge. And that's fine, because I don't insist you take my word fot it.
> 
> All you have done is try to pry open gaps in our understanding, and then fill them with this undefined, untestable nonsense you call "spirituality". You explain exactly nothing. In fact, all you are attempting to do is say we will NEVER understand.




_*- all you are attempting to do is say we will NEVER understand*_.

just where are you quoting to make such an absurd statement, it is you who imply's a knowledge you have yet to verify, you haven't the faintest what is being discussed how is your CNS (central nervous system) responsible for the transition the transition that you claim is not one being with legs becoming an avian with wings.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Yes, "never understand". This is just a reiteration of "god of the gaps". And you're the guy claiming to inderstand the god, though your idea explains nothing, is untestable, and isn't even required to explain what is happening. This old argument is a vestigial appendage of when mankind was more ignorant.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 15, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, "never understand". This is just a reiteration of "god of the gaps". And you're the guy claiming to inderstand the god, though your idea explains nothing, is untestable, and isn't even required to explain what is happening. This old argument is a vestigial appendage of when mankind was more ignorant.




where is the quote from me you are making your allegations from there is nothing in your above quote that makes the least amount of sense.

ill go stupid with you - what is the guidance for the transition during metamorphosis from one being to another.


----------



## skye (Sep 15, 2017)

I'm not an atheist, on the contrary,but I'l love the aliens from outer space to contact us. 

Just saying.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Just chemical signals...same as a growing plant, or a developong fetus. You are askimg questions which were answered decades ago.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 15, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just chemical signals...same as a growing plant, or a developong fetus. You are askimg questions which were answered decades ago.



*
Just chemical signals ...*

that's a different answer than the CNS another factor in the equation, chemical signals but hardly the guiding sequence for the transition or the originator for the process. or the *relay* to the genome of life from one generation to the next and on infinitum through the ages.
_*

You are askimg questions which were answered decades ago.*_

again no link to what you are claiming or the subject matter you are referring to.


----------



## RWS (Sep 16, 2017)

Dang, I'm gone for a few days and there's 30 pages of posts since then! 

Did anybody figure anything out since then?

Or do I have to read those 30 pages.... 

Can anybody just sum up those last 30?


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 16, 2017)

skye said:


> I'm not an atheist, on the contrary,but I'l love the aliens from outer space to contact us.
> 
> Just saying.



Until they feed you to their 100 foot, pet, alien snake like you're a rat being served up in a zoo.


----------



## RWS (Sep 16, 2017)

I'm not going to read 30 pages, so lemme guess, the last 30 pages were spent arguing BS.

Bossboy still is defending whatever the flavor of the day that he/she/it is defending...

MD is still ripping new assholes every time he/she/it posts.

And nobody has any idea what the fuck Breezewood and Fort Fun are talkin' about.... 

Do I have it right so far?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 16, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


"chemicalsignals but hardly the guiding sequence for the transition or the originator for the process. or the *relay* to the genome of life from one generation to the next "

You're just kind of making stuff up now. And you will always do this. Every time we explain something, such as exactly the chemical signals which trigger metamorphosis, you"'ll just attempt to pry open another hole. And when that hole is filled with knowledge, you will do it again. Same thing for hundreds of years now. By the way, this tendency handed down to you through generations doesn't require spirituality. It's just a result of culture and of the tendency of humans to invent explanations for things they don't understand.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 16, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You're just kind of making stuff up now. And you will always do this.




again, you have quoted without a specific response to the subject just a shotgun answer of obvious noncomprehensive ignorance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 16, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


well, that sounded fancy.  I am not quoting you because you are merely repeating yourself, over and over and over.  i have already directly addressed your idea.  You insist spirituality is needed to explain anything everything, which is utterly absurd.  not only does it explain nothing at all, YOU can't even explain it. And, even if you tried, there would be absolutely no way to ever know whether you are right or not.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 16, 2017)

I have said noting in regards to spirituality involving a post addressed to you, fun Indiana. having spent time in Indiana I sympathise your lack of cranial capability common to many in that area of the county.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 16, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> I have said noting in regards to spirituality involving a post addressed to you, fun Indiana. having spent time in Indiana I sympathise your lack of cranial capability common to many in that area of the county.


Yes you have, repeatedly. I guess you had a "spiritual moment" and forgot what day it is.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 16, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > I have said noting in regards to spirituality involving a post addressed to you, fun Indiana. having spent time in Indiana I sympathise your lack of cranial capability common to many in that area of the county.
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes you have, repeatedly. I guess you had a "spiritual moment" and forgot what day it is.




if that were so you would have shown the link, you've only debated yourself no wonder your such a winner.

there is no other explanation than a spiritual component during the transition between beings during metamorphosis and the link to the genome of life from present to future generations the code for their progeny and its fluctuations.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I have all the evidence and proof I need for myself, why do I need to compel others?

Do we really need to pull the dictionary out again to demonstrate what "evidence" means? 

*ev·i·dence*
ˈevədəns/
_noun_

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Gee, I am missing the part where it says evidence has to be approved by Funbags. In fact, in all my 58 years, I've never seen any definition of "evidence" which requires it be accepted by anyone other than the person claiming it's evidence. So yeah... I kind can call anything evidence if I feel like it and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. You can certainly refuse to accept my evidence but that doesn't mean it's not evidence. 

And it's something I will not lose sleep over, that you won't accept my evidence. If I were a Christian trying to win your soul over to God, it might frustrate me... but I'm not so I don't really care. The evidence I have is for me and I am satisfied. But for the record, billions of people are persuaded and compelled by spiritual evidence, it happens all the time.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well no.... Atheists are those who don't believe in God. Agnostics are those who don't know. So if you leave the possibility open that God may exist, you're not an Atheist.  "Gnostic" is just an obsolete word from ancient Greece. We don't have Gnostics anymore. 

I still think it's astounding that I asked one simple question and all of a sudden, everyone is an agnostic and no one wants to admit to being an atheist.


----------



## shockedcanadian (Sep 17, 2017)

As someone who believes in an Almighty Creator, I hope aliens contact us too if they exist.  The way I see it in this vast universe if there isn't any other life forms than that on earth, it strengthens exponentially the possibility of a God.  Based on the number of stars and planets, there should be life forms outside of earth.

Even if aliens do exist, it would still beg the question, how did they come to be?  Who is responsible for their existence?


----------



## G.T. (Sep 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


irs not that profound when folks dont admit what theyre not


----------



## cnm (Sep 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Do we really need to pull the dictionary out again to demonstrate what "evidence" means?


 That which can be seen.
From the word 'evident' I'd say, meaning plain or clear to sight. If you can't show it you don't have it.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 17, 2017)

shockedcanadian said:


> As someone who believes in an Almighty Creator, I hope aliens contact us too if they exist.  The way I see it in this vast universe if there isn't any other life forms than that on earth, it strengthens exponentially the possibility of a God.  Based on the number of stars and planets, there should be life forms outside of earth.
> 
> Even if aliens do exist, it would still beg the question, how did they come to be?  Who is responsible for their existence?


The fun part of aliens is watching both planets proudly proclaim that God created them first.

did so!

did not!

God created US! WE created YOU!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 17, 2017)

*NASA crashed the $4 billion Cassini spacecraft into Saturn. It was awesome.*

*For 13 years, Cassini explored the gas giant and its moons. On Friday, it ended its mission in an elegant dive.*

On Friday, September 15, at 7:55:46 am Eastern time, NASA watched its 20-year-old, $4 billion-plus spacecraft crash into Saturn.

The space agency had no other choice. Cassini was nearly out of fuel and had already been stretched years beyond its intended mission duration. Keeping it going risked potentially contaminating one of Saturn’s moons — like Enceladus, an ice world that has some ingredients for life, or Titan, a dynamic moon where it rains methane — with microbes from Earth.

NASA crashed the $4 billion Cassini spacecraft into Saturn. It was awesome.

We blew our chance to be God


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"why do I need to compel others?"


As you are here doing exactly that, this would be my question to you. Why does the guy who claims his houseplants tell him the world will end next Friday have to stand on the corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn? Maybe you can give us insight into this.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 17, 2017)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really need to pull the dictionary out again to demonstrate what "evidence" means?
> ...


"That which can be seen."

That's not a good definition for evidence. In fact, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable and wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"Well no.... Atheists are those who don't believe in God. "

Neither do agnostics. Atheists are agnostic by default. Only Gnostic atheists claim to know there is no god.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2017)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really need to pull the dictionary out again to demonstrate what "evidence" means?
> ...



That's pretty simple minded. Think of all the things you just ruled out of evidence. I can't see thunder but it's still evidence lightning happened.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




I'm not here to convert you. I don't care if my evidence compels you or not. I can't speak for the guy with the sandwich board or his evidence but I bet he thinks he has some. That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.


----------



## Boss (Sep 17, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. 

An atheist has no belief in God. He doesn't believe in the existence of a God. A theist believes in God. He believes God does exist. An agnostic doesn't know whether God exists or not. He is uncertain. You're trying to claim atheism and agnosticism are the same thing but that's why they are two distinctly different words. I can apply your moronic standard and claim theists are agnostic by default. No one "KNOWS" anything until they die. 

I can also tell you this... Every theist, almost to a fault, has had doubts in their faith at some point. I wonder how many atheists doubt their atheism? I would say that's the indication of a fairly closed-minded person.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Who cares how many believe. You know that.

Let's put it this way. You have zero evidence that would hold up in a court of law or science group


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 17, 2017)

No one ever asked to see evidence only you can corroborate. Maybe some gullible people might buy it and theyre called theists


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 17, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But I lean towards disbelief. I just leave the door open a crack.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Who cares how many believe. You know that.
> 
> Let's put it this way. You have zero evidence that would hold up in a court of law or science group



I don't care how many believe. I only mentioned it because Funbags claimed others couldn't be compelled by spiritual evidence and it happens all the time. 

Duly noted: I have no physical evidence to prove a spiritual entity! Got it! 



sealybobo said:


> No one ever asked to see evidence only you can corroborate. Maybe some gullible people might buy it and theyre called theists



I never claimed anyone asked to see evidence I have. I just claimed I had all the evidence I need and was told I didn't have any evidence. Are you not keeping up with the conversation or something?



sealybobo said:


> But I lean towards disbelief. I just leave the door open a crack.



The fact that you leave the door open a crack means that in your rational thinking, God is a possibility. Believe it or not, I am satisfied with that. See how easy that worked out?


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 18, 2017)

.
physiology is the link between spiritual and physical for the living and is evidence for both.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 18, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


I think aliens may be beaming these stupid thoughts into your head.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> physiology is the link between spiritual and physical for the living and is evidence for both.


As that can be interpreted many ways (most of which do not require adding magic)....no, it is not evidence


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 18, 2017)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares how many believe. You know that.
> ...


And we also leave the door open a crack to the idea that leprechauns ride unicorns in the 5th dimension. Are you also happy about that?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 18, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


There is sooo very much evidence of leprechauns and dracula, we must assume that they are God's angels.


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As that can be interpreted many ways (most of which do not require adding magic)....no, it is not evidence



In the late 1850s, noted biologist Louis Pasteur suggested microbial fermentation, refuting the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation. Do you know what competing biologist Felix Pouchet had to say about Pasteur's claim? He said it was "MAGIC!" The Rouen Museum of Natural History rejected Pasteur's findings as silly and nonsensical. The French Royal Academy of Sciences offered a prize to whoever could settle the dispute through experiment. Eventually, Pasteur prevailed and the rest was history. 

Fifty years ago, I could've suggested that electrons and photons disappear and can appear in two places at the same time. Most physicists would have laughed at that notion and called it "MAGIC!" According to findings at CERN, this happens constantly in every atom of matter. 

In 1926, Max Born proposed his theories of Quantum Mechanics, where he posited that nature, at the atomic level, is completely random. And that, in spite of physics, it was inherently impossible to determine the location and position of every atom (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). This prompted Albert Einstein (maybe you heard of him) to pen the famous quote in refutation of the theory... "God doesn't play dice with the universe!" Guess what? God does play dice! 

We can go through countless examples of where Science and the prevailing scientific ideas of the time were challenged and proven completely wrong... all the while, with "scientific" detractors chortling... "It's MAGIC!"


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 18, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Bull. If it's not evidence to us it holds no value. Don't tell us you have evidence if you have none


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 18, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Think about it this way. Long before the first man lied and said god communicated with him humans could not imagine any other explanation. All of this must have been put here for us. The sun, moon, earth, animals we ruled over everything. We must be gods chosen animal. Even though we're weak, slow, can't take the heat, our hearing and eyes suck.

Anyways I can imagine how and why they made it up.

When the sun went down bad things happened so they prayed for the sun God to come back. For thousands of years.

And even today we see how the moon has to be just right and ozone water, oxygen, carbon dioxide and it's amazing. Almost miraculous. But we know that it's all scientifically explainable.

This thread title is bs because we know if aliens showed up tomorrow we would still have all the major religions.

So why do theists seem to be the ones who believe we are alone? They're still clinging to the belief this is all for us. How ignorant, small thinking arrogance


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 18, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As that can be interpreted many ways (most of which do not require adding magic)....no, it is not evidence



physiology is *not *evidence for what in particular for its own existence ...


----------



## Boss (Sep 18, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



A-GAIN.... (and AGAIN and AGAINnnn....)  *ALL* EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE! 

I can point you to people who firmly believe they have evidence we didn't land on the moon, that Elvis is still alive, that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone, that 9/11 was an inside job, that Dick Cheney is a reptilian! The fact that their evidence doesn't hold any value to you doesn't mean it isn't evidence to them. O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder because a jury didn't value evidence the same as the prosecution.

I don't know why you are all having such trouble with this. Why do you think we have juries?


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 18, 2017)

Boss said:


> Why do you think we have juries?



to evaluate the "evidence" to conclude a non subjective verdict.




Boss said:


> *ALL* EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE!



what is subjective is not evidence. elements are not subjective they are evidence of the universe.


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think we have juries?
> ...




Well... no. 

Verdicts are subjective to the jury's evaluation of the evidence. Their evaluation is always subjective. Elements are non-subjective evidence of the universe --to YOU! That doesn't mean they are to EVERYONE. People CAN subjectively disagree with you... doesn't mean they are correct... but they can disagree. 

I hear what you're saying, there is some evidence which can't be refuted. I'm here to tell you that EVERYTHING can be refuted. I've heard people argue that reality itself can be refuted and that we live in a simulation. *ALL* evidence is subjective!


----------



## cnm (Sep 19, 2017)

Boss said:


> That's pretty simple minded. Think of all the things you just ruled out of evidence. I can't see thunder but it's still evidence lightning happened.


You're back to front. Lightning is evidence thunder happened.


----------



## cnm (Sep 19, 2017)

Boss said:


> In fact, in all my 58 years, I've never seen any definition of "evidence" which requires it be accepted by anyone other than the person claiming it's evidence.


It's almost as if courts don't make judgements on evidence.


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2017)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > That's pretty simple minded. Think of all the things you just ruled out of evidence. I can't see thunder but it's still evidence lightning happened.
> ...



LOL... Except when you see lightning, thunder hasn't happened. Ooops!


----------



## Boss (Sep 19, 2017)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, in all my 58 years, I've never seen any definition of "evidence" which requires it be accepted by anyone other than the person claiming it's evidence.
> ...



Doesn't change the fact that all evidence is subjective.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 19, 2017)

Boss said:


> Doesn't change the fact ...




you've gone over the edge boss if it is irrefutable evidence then who faults that evidence is the one in error not the evidence. 

there is a path to the Everlasting, discovering the true evidence for its existence is how the destination is achieved that's how it works.

and no there is no delay to reality the physiological restraints have nothing to do with its perception.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 19, 2017)

g5000 said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...


Well, to be fair, God was an illegal alien.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 19, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



_So why do theists seem to be the ones who believe we are alone?_

You know why. The same reason why they refuse evolution. They cling to man being special, the original, the only.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 19, 2017)

cnm said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > That's pretty simple minded. Think of all the things you just ruled out of evidence. I can't see thunder but it's still evidence lightning happened.
> ...


Lightning started it all!

Poof a bolt comes down from heaven and what does it do?

Shazaam ~ Sets a bush burning.

FIRE, magical fire! It's cool. It's warm. It gives off light. You can cook food with it. Yummy!

Where did fire come from? GOD!

and the rest is history


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 19, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


I would like the theists to tell me why because I believe that even if aliens showed up tomorrow Christians would still be christians.  I looked it up and they say aliens would not disprove Christianity because the Jesus experience is unique to this world.  

Even proving evolution wouldn't deter them because they would just say the creation story wasn't supposed to be taken literally even though for over 1000 years they told it literally.

*Allegorical* interpretation is an interpretive method (exegesis) which assumes that the *Bible* has various levels of meaning and tends to focus on the spiritual sense (which includes the *allegorical* sense, the moral (or tropological) sense, and the anagogical sense) as opposed to the literal sense.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 19, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



*Allegorical interpretations of Genesis* are readings of the biblical Book of Genesis that treat elements of the narrative as symbols or types, rather than viewing them literally as historical events. 

The opening chapter of Genesis tells a story of God's creation of the universe and humankind as being accomplished over the course of six successive days. Some Christian and Jewish schools of thought (such as Christian Fundamentalism) read these biblical passages literally, that each day of creation was 24 hours in duration. Others (such as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestant denominations) read the story allegorically, and hold that the intent of the biblical account is to describe humankind's relationship to creation and the creator, that it does not describe an actual historical event, and that the six days of creation can simply represent a long period of time.

Genesis 2 records a second account of creation. In chapter 3 a talking serpent is introduced, which many Christians understand to be Satan in disguise. This symbolism is accepted even by Christians who believe the story as a whole is based on an actual historical event.[_citation needed_] Many Christians in ancient times regarded the early chapters of Genesis to be true as both history and allegory.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 19, 2017)

However, the Russian Orthodox hieromonk Fr. Seraphim Rose has argued that leading Orthodox saints such as Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and Ephraim the Syrian believed that Genesis should be treated as a historical account.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 19, 2017)

Bottom line is most Christians probably view the Creation story in Genesis as an allegory.  In other words not a historical story of what happened.  So why do they have a problem with science?  Because up until just recently they said the bible was fact.  They can't do that anymore because no one is buying it.  Too much to not believe.  So they have to say it's a story book.


Well us atheists already knew that.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 19, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Well yeah of course. Science keeps backing them into a corner so modern believers are getting more scientific all the time.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 19, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Well us atheists already knew that.



and what through history have you been able to accomplish where have the atheist been to right the wrongs of the desert religions, it is you who pussyfoots christianity it is the spiritualist that have stood their ground against them.






that's not any of you atheists sitting in that chair ... the ones in this thread anyway.


the physiology of the aliens will be their calling card for universal spirituality as it exists though which kind, good or evil will be the dilemma.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 19, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No it isn't, you're wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong. And if you don't believe me, hold your breath for 30 minutes . Jump off your roof and let me know if you fall down or up. Place your tongue on a red hot stove coil. Go outside and try to lift your car by the back bumper. Just stop with your ridiculous fantasies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 19, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Well us atheists already knew that.
> ...


"where have the atheist been to right the wrongs of the desert religions,"

Stupid question. The correct question is to ask what "non-spiritual" info was used to that end. And one had to look no further than the reformation of religions by scientific enlightenment and classical liberalism.


----------



## RWS (Sep 20, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So you agree and we finally have that straight. You create your own evidence based on your own argument. And not based on science. Which is what I've been proving over and over again.

You create your own reality based on your own belief, and make up the evidence, and then present it to us to argue over, while you have shits and giggles, and verbally masturbate on your replies, since you know how it's going to roll...

That's not cool, man. That's like being a sick troll.


----------



## RWS (Sep 20, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > As that can be interpreted many ways (most of which do not require adding magic)....no, it is not evidence
> ...



"Magic" has been shown to be wrong in each claim, and science shown to be right.

Your "magical" claim of creation and spirituality that you have been arguing is based on your made up evidence and non-stop changing-of-subject when pressed.

It's not "magic". It's you, following others that believe in magic, and trying to sound smarter about it by copy/pasting edited science articles into your magical belief posts.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 20, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Are you talking about the type of magic wherein the universe created itself and life came from nothing and then morphed into what we are today, that type of magic?


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 20, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



The science is on the side of a creator.  Why do you think atheist philosophers are inventing ludicrous theories on how the universe created itself?  It's because the philosophical and ideological consequences for the acknowledgment of a creator is too great for those atheists.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Well said


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Nope. We are looking for alternative answers because your hypothesis that a god must have done it doesn't survive the scientific method. 

Theists decided it must be god cause they couldn't imagine any other explanation. Science has a better imagination


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Well us atheists already knew that.
> ...


Bullshit.  Many atheists sit in the pews every Sunday.  They like the community but don't believe the premise.  I myself am dating a couple theists right now.  I'll go to church with them to get in their pants.  I'm going to a musical this Saturday to get into some pants so why not a church?  They don't know I don't believe in god.  I told them agnostic.

How come no one answers my questions?  Why do Christians insist we are the only life in the universe?  And if they are wrong, does that mean their religion is made up?  Does your religion say if we are alone?  I wish it did say that so one day it could be proven wrong again. 

If your religion says we are the only life in the universe, please show me where it says that.   

Imagine this.  Long before Earth was in the Sun's sweet spot Venus was.  And the people on Venus thought god made the universe for them.  This was billions of years before earthlings.  

Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World

Maybe the people of Venus knew their world was dying and our world would be habitable next so they planted the life seed.  It is a possibility.  May sound crazy but so does your creation story.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 20, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Bullshit. Many atheists sit in the pews every Sunday. They like the community but don't believe the premise. I myself am dating a couple theists right now. I'll go to church with them to get in their pants. I'm going to a musical this Saturday to get into some pants so why not a church? They don't know I don't believe in god. I told them agnostic.




You lie about who you are to get laid?  The real you isn't good enough?  

Thats fucked up.  

What are you a 12 year old virgin?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. Many atheists sit in the pews every Sunday. They like the community but don't believe the premise. I myself am dating a couple theists right now. I'll go to church with them to get in their pants. I'm going to a musical this Saturday to get into some pants so why not a church? They don't know I don't believe in god. I told them agnostic.
> ...


It's just too much for you theists to take.  You can't handle hearing someones an atheist.  

Just look at how you Americans feel about atheists.

Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One | HuffPost

I'm not going to get into an argument with someone over a silly thing like god.  They may think gods important but I will discover that like everyone else, god really plays a very small part in their lives.  Maybe they think it's important because they've been brainwashed to believe in heaven or hell but no, I'm not going to be stupid and tell every girl I meet I'm an atheist.

The one girl I'm seeing Friday and Saturday knows I'm agnostic.  Close enough right?  The girl from Belarus is not religious I can tell you that right now.  And the girls I will see on Sunday are probably a bit conservative and no I wouldn't tell them I don't believe in god and I have decided for sure it's all made up.  Most I will tell them is I have my doubts.  That I'm skeptical of organized religion.

Only after I have cum inside her will I then reveal I'm an atheist.  And I mean right after.  Like I haven't even pulled out yet.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 20, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Only after I have cum inside her will I then reveal I'm an atheist. And I mean right after. Like I haven't even pulled out yet.


  You could have just admitted that you were a prepubescent child.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

The interactions between atheists and Christians have been heated, particularly with the rise of the New Atheists in the early 2000s. Michael Bleiweiss, a physicist and atheist from Methuen, Massachusetts, describes the vehemence as a “backlash” due to “Christian militancy.” As some Christians have become more vocal and fervent in attacking evolution and in advocating on social issues, so some atheists have become more vocal in attacking the Christian faith.

How should Christians respond to atheists?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Only after I have cum inside her will I then reveal I'm an atheist. And I mean right after. Like I haven't even pulled out yet.
> ...



I wonder about anyone else's experiences when they told someone about their lack of beliefs? I live in a rural area of North Carolina so I'm interested in how others vary.

The three I remember about telling coworkers vary quite a lot.

When I told my Catholic coworker he was very worried and said things like "Don't say that John."

When I told Muslim coworker he started to insult me saying many things like "Atheists are the stupidest people in the world." which got me rather frustrated because he simply wouldn't stop even though we had many times talked about his culture and religion before.

I think the most touching in a sense was when I told a coworker who I assume is some denomination of Protestant she got really into my business about asking why and she wouldn't accept the simple of answer of "because I don't.", but another coworker who had overheard told her "because he wasn't raised to. You were raised to be a Christian so you are, he came with his idea himself."

People's reaction to learning you're an atheist? • r/TrueAtheism

or

It's weird being an atheist in Greece. If I'm not mistaken, around 98% of Greeks are Orthodox Christians. My family, friends etc. are still nice around me, nothing has changed, but when the conversation goes to religion I am the black sheep. They just don't want to hear my arguments. Here it's okay to believe what you want, as long as you don't bother any Christians and I am kinda used to that to be honest.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Only after I have cum inside her will I then reveal I'm an atheist. And I mean right after. Like I haven't even pulled out yet.
> ...


If I told them I believed in the god of the bible without proof they would know that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"lifecame from nothing "

Who in the world says this?


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 20, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



ABG adherents.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



I think I found their playbook

Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution - RationalWiki


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Cambridge Study Reveals How Life Could Have Started From Nothing

One of the most challenging questions in basic biology and the history of evolution and life stems from the unknown origin of the first cells billions of years ago. Though many pieces of the puzzle have been put together, this origin story remains somewhat murky. But a team of researchers from the University of Cambridge believe they've accidentally stumbled on an answer, and a very compelling one at that.

signs of the metabolic process where, for all intents and purposes, there shouldn't have been. Until now, much of the science community has generally agreed that Ribonucleic acid, or RNA, was the first building block of life because it produces enzymes that could catalyze complex sequences of reactions such as metabolic action. However, Ralser's lab found the end products of the metabolic process without any presence of RNA. Instead, the findings indicate that complex and life-forming reactions like these could occur spontaneously given the right, but surprisingly simple, conditions.

But it's easier to believe god made adam out of sand and eve out of one of his ribs.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Abiogenesis in no way states "life came from nothing". What an odd thing to say. It states that the physical systems we call life organized and evolved from complex, organic chemicals due to time and selection.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 20, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> Bullshit. Many atheists sit in the pews every Sunday. They like the community but don't believe the premise.




_*They like the community ...*_


is that so, as was stated so much so they have never made a difference to openly represent their views through history to prevent any of the atrocities you have mentioned yourself, slavery as a simple example, why is that ... sortof how you appease the gal to leave her to her demise while using her or for your own means as the historical perspective taking advantage of christian brutality for your own profit. though that is an extreme view I do believe there is something there with how you responded.

there is another thread where physiology, tissue is being equated as the intermediary between spiritual beings and physical matter how the aliens appear would be more interesting than their existence the physiology they developed to bring their selves to a physical state.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 20, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



LOL.  And flying unicorns came from Jupiter.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Yes, funny how "God's miracles" always seem to line up perfectly with everything you don't understand.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 20, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



You're making up a fairy tale about how there was no life and then some chemicals formed and, wallah!  It's alive!  LOL.  Replicate life from nothing in a lab and then we can talk, alright?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


"Replicate life from nothing in a lab and then we can talk, alright?

That is an absurd standard which shows you are not a very thorough thinker.  we don't have to form stars in labs to understand how they formed or how they work.  Nor do we have to replicate trillions of chemical reaction which took place over 100s of millions of years to know that it is possible for the components of life to organize via selection from lesser components.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 20, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...



The pathways they detected were glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway, “reactions that form the core metabolic backbone of every living cell,” Ralser adds. Together these pathways produce some of the most important materials in modern cells, including ATP – the molecule cells use to drive their machinery, the sugars that form DNA and RNA, and the molecules needed to make fats and proteins.

If these metabolic pathways were occurring in the early oceans, then the first cells could have enveloped them as they developed membranes.

In all, 29 metabolism-like chemical reactions were spotted, seemingly catalysed by iron and other metals that would have been found in early ocean sediments. The metabolic pathways aren’t identical to modern ones; some of the chemicals made by intermediate steps weren’t detected. However, “if you compare them side by side it is the same structure and many of the same molecules are formed,” Ralser says. These pathways could have been refined and improved once enzymes evolved within cells.

*Detecting the metabolite ribose 5-phosphate is particularly noteworthy, Ralser says. This is because it is a precursor to RNA, which encodes information, catalyses chemical reactions and most importantly of all, can replicate.*

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 20, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Life cannot be created from nothing.  That will remain true a thousands years from now.  You're desperately reaching to go along with _anything_ that avoids admitting the obvious - we have a creator.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


I would also like to take this opportunity to point out the bizarre tack you are using.  Your big "attack" seems to be to call abiogenesis, 'a fantasy we made up".  yet clearly, the same could be said about your silly, bronze age religious myth.  so, here you are, completely unable to elevate any of your magical, faith-y ideas above "childlike fantasy".  so, the only tactic left to you is to try to degrade scientific knowledge and hypotheses, din an attempt to drag them down into the slime where your faith-y ideas reside.  you are all but admitting the absurdity of your own dogma.  oops.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


"Life cannot be created from nothing."

Nobody said it was.... damn, pay attention...


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 20, 2017)

What you're positing is absurd.  But go ahead and keep spewing that garbage.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> What you're positing is absurd.  But go ahead and keep spewing that garbage.


What is absurd? And why? Come on, flesh out a thought. Nobody cares about your Kim Jong Un dictatorial claims. Explan yourself.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 20, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > What you're positing is absurd.  But go ahead and keep spewing that garbage.
> ...



The horse is dead.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 20, 2017)

If life cannot come from nothing, why to you believers keep claiming it?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



I thought while sitting in church, "I wonder what the priest would say if I told him what I believe".  I know many Greeks have gone to the priest and confessed they had doubts and they debated it.  Priests are good bullshitters and it's very hard to tell them the truth.  That they have swallowed a lie and are just repeating it.

OMG the priest and all the holy ritualistic shit that he does every week with his beautiful robe on.  It's all a show!  Re God Damn Diculous.  

And we all know what happened to athiests in the past.  Your churches shunned them and sometimes even murdered them for questioning doctrine.  Don't act like you guys are open to the debate.  You will take it personally well personally has nothing to do with it.  Don't take offense we believe your god was made up by your ancestors.  Just like Mohammad made shit up so did Moses.  So did Joe Smith and the Jehovas.  Get over it.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



How many times has a Christian done something horrible and then Christians say, "well then he's not a real Christian".

Well how many of those types of people are sitting in your churches?  People who say they are christians and go to church but you know they aren't following the way.  Half the Christians in America think they have a go to heaven immediately pass because they believe in Jesus.

I wish I could believe in Jesus and go to heaven.  Unfortunately I know that story has been embellished.  And god doesn't exist.  Never has.  We made it up because we didn't know science.  And no god has ever visited you or sent his son to die/love us.  Stop the madness.  You wonder why and how so many humans are stupid.  Well there is no coincidences here.  They are religious and anti science shit heads.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 20, 2017)

.


sealybobo said:


> How many times has a Christian done something horrible and then Christians say, "well then he's not a real Christian".



amen ...

you know not everyone who is religious including yourself is scriptural ... or believes a deity, were there an Everlasting and is for some there certainly will be an Almighty something it's not necessary to look forwards to meeting them. I'll wait a million years.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> ...



If you aren't scriptural then you are that much closer to understanding god is man made up.  But that's ok if you want to believe that some god created the universe and cares about you and has a heaven where he keeps all our love ones who are just waiting for you to join them in eternal paradise.  

I just happen to understand this is nothing more than wishful thinking.  If you don't believe the bible you are at least cherry picking from it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 20, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Only in your mind....


----------



## RWS (Sep 21, 2017)

I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Here you go.  Knock yourself out! 

What caused life to come into existence?


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

RWS said:


> I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...



I appreciate the humor and there are con artists in the religious world, just like there are con artists in every other walk of life.  I didn't watch all of it.  I presume George is an atheist???  

If you wan to talk about "bullshit", the biggest bullshit ever spread was that the universe created itself and that life came about as a result of some freak accident of chemicals interacting.  I mean, you have to be a DUMB mother fucker to buy that scam.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> ...



Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

Five Christian Athletes Face Felony Charges After Allegedly Sodomizing Student
Read more at Five Christian Athletes Face Felony Charges After Allegedly Sodomizing Student

Wheaton College, the evangelical school in Illinois, will expel you if you have pre-marital sex with your long-time partner.

They will kick you out if you’re in a committed same-sex relationship.

You’re not allowed to watch porn.

Faculty members have to believe in a _literal_ Adam and Eve to keep their jobs.

But apparently, administrators at the school take their sweet time expelling students when it comes to football players who allegedly kidnap a freshman, sodomize him, leave him in an empty field to fend for himself, all while pretending to be Muslim terrorists.



image: http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2017/09/WheatonHazingFootball.png


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...
> ...


The difference being, of course, every piece of evidence we have available points to a deterministic universe in which abiogenesis occurred, while you have not a shred of evidence for magical religious stuff, nor could you ever. That's kind of an important difference.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 21, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.





> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



so, if Earth above was this planet and this planet alone as written no other life could exist anywhere else in the universe that did not first come from this planet, therefore if aliens were to visit they must first have left here before returning. -

will you burn your 4th century bible if any life is discovered anywhere else in the Universe when the evidence is presented to you.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.
> ...



Where did I cite the bible as evidence of a creator?


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.
> ...



I will add that you could use a writing composition course.  Your write like a 12 year-old.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 21, 2017)

.
then why try to refute the atheists without providing your own evidence ...


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> then why try to refute the atheists without providing your own evidence ...



How do you know I haven't provided evidence in this 107 page thread?  Have you read every page?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Actually, all of the evidence supports those theories. That is precisely how they became the accepted theories. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound?


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Accepted theories that the universe created itself and life morphed from a rock into living cells?  LMAO!  Have another hit!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


The hypothesis that the universe created itself is not a scientific theory. And no scientific theory states that rocks became life.

No go on, do that thing you do after being shown you have said something stupid and false...which is, cackle, dance and prance, ignore the fact that what you said was stupid and false, and then regurgitate another dumb creationist talking point.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



You're the folks saying that living matter came from things like rocks.  You guys will believe anything.  By the way, I've got a GREAT deal on a bridge for you!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 21, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Nobody says living matter came from rocks. That's a lie.

So, neither of the scientific theories you mentioned are scientific theories. A rational person would be embarrassed at his own ignorance and dishonesty. But not you, because that's what magical thinking does to the human mind.


----------



## Peach (Sep 21, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God.  God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy?  He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.
> ...



I don't see that happening, it does not impact my faitrh.


----------



## Peach (Sep 21, 2017)

Boss said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...



Their faith demands complete adherence, they would yip louder and more often, sadly.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 21, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.
that's not what I asked and I do not pay that much attention to creationist that only refutes evidence without offering any of their own so I presume you haven't or not noticeably to bring to anyone's attention.

now's your big chance, the cliffhanger that will seal the deal.

just find your type boring.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 21, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



You should check out the past few pages of this thread.  I have offered evidence in this thread, I just don't remember how far back it goes.   

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself


----------



## Boss (Sep 21, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




Maybe we have to go through this slowly a few more times because you're a thick-headed moron? 

"Evidence" is a curious thing. In the 1850s, scientists believed life could spontaneously generate. This was the prevailing scientific theory of the day and it was supported by the "evidence." What WAS that evidence? Mold and fungi! Of course, as it turns out, mold and fungus aren't evidence of spontaneous generation but scientists didn't know that at the time. So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all. 

I have no idea why you want to leap from a debate about "evidence" to proclaiming physical principles and laws as if I am unaware of them. They really have nothing to do with each other. There is no evidence needed to support a physical certainty as it is self evident. Yes, things fall when dropped... that's not "evidence" of gravity, that IS gravity working. 

Your abiogenesis theories are not physical certainties. They are not principles or laws of physics. They are simply THEORIES which must be supportable by evidence. If you can't support your theories with valid, testable and falsifiable evidence, they are invalid theories. "Invalid" ...there's a word you're probably very familiar with!


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 22, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


Boss said:


> So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.




I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason. 

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering  your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 22, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > K9Buck said:
> ...


Why do you give rocks no respect?

You should be kind to your daddy. It's one of the Ten Commandments.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 22, 2017)




----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 22, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


Boss said:


> don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.






Boss said:


> That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.




your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 22, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


Boss said:


> No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.




another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.


----------



## Boss (Sep 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective.  Thank you very much!


----------



## RWS (Sep 23, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...
> ...


Well you didn't watch all of it... that says it all!

Where did you stop?


----------



## RWS (Sep 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It doesn't work that way...

You cannot make up stuff and claim it is true just because you say so.


----------



## RWS (Sep 23, 2017)

And to all of us here, I hope you all survive the impact of Nibiru today!

At the very least, it got a few more people to learn about "Sumer". And the stuff the Sumerians and Assyrian/Babylonians wrote about...


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


Boss said:


> If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.
> 
> You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!




you are not reality that much you have proven.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 23, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Your posts would be easier to read and understand if you used proper grammar and sentence structure.


----------



## Taz (Sep 23, 2017)

So god didn't make the aliens? Then who did?


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 23, 2017)

Taz said:


> So god didn't make the aliens? Then who did?



Mexicans, of course.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> the periodic table is evidence for the universe.


This is amusing... since everything comprising the periodic table is only 4% of the universe.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Sure you can! That's not what I did but that happens all the time. AGW is a good example.


----------



## phaethon (Sep 23, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


Carl Sagan was actually a pious man. There's quite a lot of depth in his book about comets. It's unfortunate that he spread the myth of Christians burning down the library of Alexandria, but there's no use in denying that such a mentality has been exhibited in the past.

Nature and Wonder; by Carl Sagan Here's a sample of his writings, he suggests that the current conception of god is too small for the universe. And this is in fact true. It's purely an expression of self-love to think the creator of the vast universe is always occupied with one species on one planet. The planetary supervisor probably has countless things to attend to, some of it he leaves to eternal laws of science, others to equivalents of what people called "gods", and others he entrusts to what could be considered an equivalent of the "guardian angel" concept.

Just because you can't see it with your two eyes doesn't mean it's not there. You Christians have no problem believing in spirits and demons, so you must also admit that it's possible for such beings to exist on other worlds.

If we split an organism's consciousness into three (physical, mental, emotional) and deprive it of only it's physical form, it still remains, but unseen.

Galileo admitted that he fancied that the regions of the moon were animate yet did not assert that life and motion exist there. But he did say that if they existed there, they would be "extremely diverse, and far beyond all our imaginings."


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 23, 2017)

Blackrook said:


> ...and tell us there's no God.
> 
> That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.
> 
> ...


They can't believe that God exists but they can bring themselves to believe that God is an extraterrestrial.


----------



## K9Buck (Sep 23, 2017)

mudwhistle said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...



They follow ABG theory.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 23, 2017)

mudwhistle said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...




Yeah, what a mess.

There are even some who profess to believe in God and the existence of heavenly creatures from an otherworldly kingdom who can't bring themselves to believe in extraterrestrial beings...lol.... even though God, angels, and even Jesus himself in the form and shape of a man, were all,  by definition,  extraterrestrial beings.

"My kingdom is not of this world", "I have come down from heaven", and all that......


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Technically he didn't make it up. He stole his BS.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 23, 2017)

RWS said:


> And to all of us here, I hope you all survive the impact of Nibiru today!
> 
> At the very least, it got a few more people to learn about "Sumer". And the stuff the Sumerians and Assyrian/Babylonians wrote about...


Naw, we partied hard last night for no reason.

Man who said the world is ending Saturday changed his mind. It isn't actually ending


----------



## MarkDuffy (Sep 23, 2017)

mudwhistle said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > ...and tell us there's no God.
> ...



I can talk on your side of the field in your terms. I have read the Bible cover to cover several times.

Is God an extraterrestrial?


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > the periodic table is evidence for the universe.
> ...


.


BreezeWood said:


> the periodic table is evidence for the universe.





Boss said:


> This is amusing... since everything comprising the periodic table is only 4% of the universe.




you've gone over the edge bossy and prove that with each of your irrational posts ... get back in touch with reality, there may still be time for you to recover.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 23, 2017)

K9Buck said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


K9Buck said:


> Your posts would be easier to read and understand if you used proper grammar and sentence structure.




so says the creationist retard, hire an English tutor you might be able to decipher the truth from fantasy.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> you've gone over the edge bossy and prove that with each of your irrational posts ... get back in touch with reality, there may still be time for you to recover.





BreezeWood said:


> so says the creationist retard, hire an English tutor you might be able to decipher the truth from fantasy.



So the Almighty Breeze has been reduced to common gutter trollery.

I have to say, it's a refreshing change from your usual indecipherable cryptic babble.


----------



## Boss (Sep 23, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Is God an extraterrestrial?



No. 

An extraterrestrial is something outside the Earth and it's atmosphere but God is omnipresent.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 23, 2017)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > you've gone over the edge bossy and prove that with each of your irrational posts ... get back in touch with reality, there may still be time for you to recover.
> ...


.


Boss said:


> So the Almighty Breeze has been reduced to common gutter trollery.




like you they communicate by deflection their proof was the example.


----------



## RWS (Sep 30, 2017)

Been gone a bit, but let's sum what we have learned from this thread after 111 pages......

Science proves what is necessary to help your argument. Anything other than that can be rejected as false....

You take what you need from science to support your belief/religion, and reject everything else that contradicts it.

That's not how it works. Jus sayin...

That's medieval stuff.


----------



## RWS (Sep 30, 2017)

Because if not for science, religious fanatics would just be quoting the OT and NT as the divine proof. That's it. Period. No science involved. Zero. Just the Bible. 

But because of science showing the plagiarism and fallacies of the biblical texts, believers have had to reluctantly accept some scientific principles, and break off the rest. Then make up new shit to cover up for the old shit, using the new scientific evidence. And they back up their religious arguments with shattered fragments of science that help their cause, and disregard the rest.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2017)

RWS said:


> Been gone a bit, but let's sum what we have learned from this thread after 111 pages......
> 
> Science proves what is necessary to help your argument. Anything other than that can be rejected as false....
> 
> ...



First of all.... Science does not "prove" things. Science can only predict probability of possibilities. Science doesn't draw conclusions, that is a man-made evaluation. Science continues to explore possibilities and ask questions. 

How often do we hear, "science says... blah blah blah?" Problem is, that's not true. Science is not a sayer of things... a sayer of things is a prophet and science is a historically bad prophet. In fact, the continued existence of science is dependent on challenging itself and proving itself wrong. We call it "falsification." If science ever answers all questions it ceases to exist. 



RWS said:


> Because if not for science, religious fanatics would just be quoting the OT and NT as the divine proof. That's it. Period. No science involved. Zero. Just the Bible.
> 
> But because of science showing the plagiarism and fallacies of the biblical texts, believers have had to reluctantly accept some scientific principles, and break off the rest. Then make up new shit to cover up for the old shit, using the new scientific evidence. And they back up their religious arguments with shattered fragments of science that help their cause, and disregard the rest.



Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, why does science work? In a seemingly random and chaotic universe, why do we constantly find order and symmetry? Why does mathematics work? Why are there cosmological constants and golden ratios? Why do two hydrogen atoms bond with an oxygen atom to create water? Science helps us to understand HOW things happen in a physical universe but it doesn't explain WHY.  

It's easy to philosophically say... "If not for science..." but the fact remains, there is science. So we must logically ask, why is there science? Well, it's because humans are spiritually inspired by something greater than self. It is through this spiritual inspiration that we pontificated a system by which we can examine and explore our natural physical world... Science! 

So, the very thing that you are ironically trying to use to stomp out religion was actually delivered to you through human spiritual inspiration.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 30, 2017)

.


Boss said:


> ... a sayer of things is a prophet and science is a historically bad prophet. In fact, the continued existence of science is dependent on challenging itself and proving itself wrong. We call it "falsification." If science ever answers all questions it ceases to exist.





_*... science is a historically bad prophet ... In fact, the continued existence of science is dependent on challenging itself and proving itself wrong.*_


very few but who have gone over the edge attribute scientific conclusions to prophesy that in fact is antithetical to its purpose or ever _wrong_. or that prophesy from scientific conclusions in some way negates one or the other.

some use science in a way to disprove, without the least intent for answers that in fact are irrevocable in their content. they close their minds to the Apex of Knowledge to ever emerge as complete beings.


----------



## RWS (Oct 1, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Been gone a bit, but let's sum what we have learned from this thread after 111 pages......
> ...


Boss, you are the living example of using science to support your religious arguments, and disregarding any science that falsifies your argument. You use what you need.... and ignore the rest.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2017)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



USMB is a fascinating place. You can come here and type out whatever you please and hit the "post reply" button, then watch people react and get some kind of personal gratification from it. Some people just like to type out falsehoods and misconceptions and others are actual sociopaths who believe their own bilge. Then, there are people like myself who come here, not for personal gratification, but to convey ideas and opinions on the topics of the day. I enjoy a healthy debate of opinions and ideas, and I don't feel threatened by opposing views. 

I say this because, at times, you seem to be someone who wants to engage in meaningful debate of ideas and opinions but whenever your ideas and opinions are challenged in any way, you immediately resort to trollery and the tactics of someone who is simply here to fulfill a quest for personal gratification. It leaves me to wonder if you honestly want to be a troll or do you want to have a meaningful conversation? I can't answer that question, only you can. 

I refer you to my post #1106 above. I asked you some fairly specific questions and you avoided answering in favor of launching a baseless attack on me. I've repeatedly stated that I am not religious. I don't subscribe to any organized religious dogma. I simply don't have a religious argument to make, I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Energy because that is my experience as a human being. I share that openly with everyone here and I've never argued from any other perspective. But here, you accuse me of "using science to support my religion" which I don't have. 

I accept Science for what it is. I don't exploit Science to promote an agenda. Whenever I see people doing that, I point it out and expose it because I think that is important to the integrity of Science and the Scientific Method. Science is not a Religion. But many Atheists like to utilize it as such in order to bolster their anti-God arguments. Science is the study of physical nature, it has absolutely nothing to do with Spiritual Nature, other than, being created by it. 

So now.... I will ask you again in good faith.... Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, why does Science work? Furthermore, have you ever wondered why humans invented Science instead of great apes or dolphins or whales? Is it not the least bit curious to you that humans have this innate spiritual connection with something greater than self and they also have this incredible portfolio of achievement? Do you think that is simply coincidental or could there be a connection? 

Because, I believe there is a connection. I think our human spirituality is responsible for "inspiring" our achievements as humans. Set aside your biases toward man-made incarnations of God for a hot second and think more in terms of the human spirit. Think about the endless examples of human endeavor, accomplishing impossible feats, persevering through adversity and challenge, the artistic and imaginative creation of things that touch us in ways we can't describe in words.  Do you really believe this is all just a matter of chemicals reacting to chance in a chaotic random universe? Or... could it be possible there is more to it than what we understand of physical nature alone?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 1, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Been gone a bit, but let's sum what we have learned from this thread after 111 pages......
> ...


"Science helps us to understand HOW things happen in a physical universe but it doesn't explain WHY."

And neither does anything else. We can only make stuff up and then decide if we want to pretend it is true. That's where people who think "everything is subjective" are true champs. Only in their own minds, of course, but it's their sweet spot.


----------



## RWS (Oct 7, 2017)

They only ask why, and forget about the how.



Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Sorry dude. I'm being honest. You are here for verbal masturbation.

You like to get your rocks off by thinking you are smarter or superior. And use any tactic you can use to achieve your heavenly orgasm.



> I say this because, at times, you seem to be someone who wants to engage in meaningful debate of ideas and opinions but whenever your ideas and opinions are challenged in any way, you immediately resort to trollery and the tactics of someone who is simply here to fulfill a quest for personal gratification. It leaves me to wonder if you honestly want to be a troll or do you want to have a meaningful conversation? I can't answer that question, only you can.



Should I remind you that you were the one to resort to insults and trollery first? You have called me so many names that I cannot keep track...



> I refer you to my post #1106 above. I asked you some fairly specific questions and you avoided answering in favor of launching a baseless attack on me. I've repeatedly stated that I am not religious. I don't subscribe to any organized religious dogma. I simply don't have a religious argument to make, I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Energy because that is my experience as a human being. I share that openly with everyone here and I've never argued from any other perspective. But here, you accuse me of "using science to support my religion" which I don't have.



You're argument is the same as you have always been saying. You argue for science until it disproves your argument.



> I accept Science for what it is. I don't exploit Science to promote an agenda. Whenever I see people doing that, I point it out and expose it because I think that is important to the integrity of Science and the Scientific Method. Science is not a Religion. But many Atheists like to utilize it as such in order to bolster their anti-God arguments. Science is the study of physical nature, it has absolutely nothing to do with Spiritual Nature, other than, being created by it.



You claim to have some sort of special spirituality that makes you right above others, above religion and science. Wow, you should start a Sunday show on cable and show us your special stuff. Because otherwise, you're full of yourself.



> So now.... I will ask you again in good faith.... Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, why does Science work? Furthermore, have you ever wondered why humans invented Science instead of great apes or dolphins or whales? Is it not the least bit curious to you that humans have this innate spiritual connection with something greater than self and they also have this incredible portfolio of achievement? Do you think that is simply coincidental or could there be a connection?



Well, homo-sapien-sapien eventually evolved enough of a brain to question things. And due to lack of science at the beginning, it was attributed to "gods" and the supernatural. We have learned much since then. At least the non-fanatical-religious types.



> Because, I believe there is a connection. I think our human spirituality is responsible for "inspiring" our achievements as humans. Set aside your biases toward man-made incarnations of God for a hot second and think more in terms of the human spirit. Think about the endless examples of human endeavor, accomplishing impossible feats, persevering through adversity and challenge, the artistic and imaginative creation of things that touch us in ways we can't describe in words.  Do you really believe this is all just a matter of chemicals reacting to chance in a chaotic random universe? Or... could it be possible there is more to it than what we understand of physical nature alone?



So you do believe in something. You believe in a supernatural intelligence that is inspiring our achievements. What about inspiring our dismal failures and corruptions and evil? You can't just pick one way, and have a Santa Claus belief.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 7, 2017)

What if they, "came down" and started asking for intellectual property protection; and they were willing to offer, "antigrav" technology?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> You're argument is the same as you have always been saying. You argue for science until it disproves your argument.



So I argue for Science until it disproves Science? 

No. What I argue against is Science Worship, where you religiously believe scientific theories to be proven facts of life that can't be refuted. Things like macro-evolution, which you have no evidence for. Things like origin of life, which you try to explain with evolution theory. And you don't like this because it challenges your religious dogma. 



RWS said:


> You claim to have some sort of special spirituality that makes you right above others, above religion and science. Wow, you should start a Sunday show on cable and show us your special stuff. Because otherwise, you're full of yourself.



I've never claimed any kind of "special spirituality" or that I am "right above others." I don't need to start a Sunday show because I have no need to convert you. Unlike Christians, I don't get special bonus points for winning over souls to the Lord. My God couldn't care less what you believe. 



RWS said:


> Well, homo-sapien-sapien eventually evolved enough of a brain to question things. And due to lack of science at the beginning, it was attributed to "gods" and the supernatural. We have learned much since then. At least the non-fanatical-religious types.



SO... Let me get this straight... Of all the trillions of creatures ever to roam the Earth, ours is the only one to have ever evolved enough of a brain to do all the things we've done--- and yet--- at the very same time--- this same miraculous brain has caused us to believe in fairy tales and imaginary supernatural beings that don't exist, to the point of sheer radical fanaticism at times?  Yeah.... that makes tons of sense! MORON! 



RWS said:


> So you do believe in something. You believe in a supernatural intelligence that is inspiring our achievements. What about inspiring our dismal failures and corruptions and evil? You can't just pick one way, and have a Santa Claus belief.



Uhm... yes, I believe in something! Duh! YOU are the one who doesn't believe in something! Our failures are very often the catalyst for our achievements. As for corruption and evil, I've already explained that. Just as there is a Spiritual Energy, there is a negative Spiritual Energy working against it. The question ought to be turned back around on you Nihilists... do you not believe there is pure evil in the world? Where is your "physical science" explanation for that?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 7, 2017)

LOL, Boss still trying to hyjack this thread?

I watched Ancient Aliens last night. 

Sorry, no breaking news to report


----------



## MarkDuffy (Oct 7, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> What if they, "came down" and started asking for intellectual property protection; and they were willing to offer, "antigrav" technology?


Do we get to test it on rocketman trump first?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > You're argument is the same as you have always been saying. You argue for science until it disproves your argument.
> ...


More shameless lies. Nobody thinks that scientific positions cannot be refuted. In fact, if it cannot be tested and ruled out in some way, then it is not a scientific idea at all!

What people think is that accepted theories cannot be refuted by a bunch of know-nothing cacklers on a message board. Accepted theories are supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. If they are to be refuted, it will be by mountains of evidence to the contrary, not by weekend warrior shamans like you who use every charlatan's tactic in the book to try to turn their own ignorance and misunderstanding of these theories into an argument that they must therefore be flawed. Talk about egoism....


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> More shameless lies. Nobody thinks that scientific positions cannot be refuted. In fact, if it cannot be tested and ruled out, then it is not a scientific isea at all!
> 
> What people think is that accepted theories cannot be refuted by a bunch of know-nothing callers on a message board. Accepted theories are supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. If they are to be refuted, it will be by mountains of evidence to the contrary, not by weekend warrior shamans like you who use every charlatan's tactic in the book to try to turn their own ignorance and misunderstanding of these theories into an argument that they must therefore be flawed. Talk about egoism...



Now see... this is like arguing with a seven-headed monster. One of you implies something and I address it... then another of you pops in to claim no one ever said that! One of the monster heads is proclaiming reality is NO GOD and another head is saying "We Don't Know!" 

Accepted theories can CERTAINLY be refuted! It has happened repeatedly through the entire history of Science! In fact, an argument can be made that's exactly what Science does! Many of you want to dance around with your various THEORIES, HYPOTHESIS AND CONJECTURE, and avoid ANY discussion about the "evidence" you have to support them, while acting as if this is all proven science that has been established as conclusive. It has NOT been!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 7, 2017)

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > More shameless lies. Nobody thinks that scientific positions cannot be refuted. In fact, if it cannot be tested and ruled out, then it is not a scientific isea at all!
> ...


I just said it is possible for accepted theories to be refuted. There is no need to repeat my ideas back to me. What I said --which was the main point you intentionally ignored -- is that these theories are not refuted, in fact not even challenged, by a bunch of squawkers who naysay despite knowing less than nothing about them. They can only be challenged or refuted with a preponderance of the evidence.

But that is best left to people who understand the word, "evidence".


----------



## RWS (Oct 8, 2017)

Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > You're argument is the same as you have always been saying. You argue for science until it disproves your argument.
> ...





Boss said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > You're argument is the same as you have always been saying. You argue for science until it disproves your argument.
> ...



Yes, you argue for science up until the point that it disproves your creationist argument. 

Boss says:
_SO... Let me get this straight... Of all the trillions of creatures ever to roam the Earth, ours is the only one to have ever evolved enough of a brain to do all the things we've done--- and yet--- at the very same time--- this same miraculous brain has caused us to believe in fairy tales and imaginary supernatural beings that don't exist, to the point of sheer radical fanaticism at times? Yeah.... that makes tons of sense! MORON! _

Yes, I think you're finally understanding. But then again...

You are calling me names again. 

So don't shed a tear when I respond accordingly. ok?


----------



## RWS (Oct 8, 2017)

Boss, you are not as smart as you think you are.

You're just a bully.

And afraid of a challenge. You know what i mean...


----------



## daisiesRwild (Jan 28, 2018)

They have more thought to this than to actually proving very easily to themselves that Jesus is real by followin g his instructions but they would rather be eternally tormented than prove jesus is real..


----------



## daisiesRwild (Jan 28, 2018)

RWS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


they have faith in man period lol


----------

