Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are clearly stretching 2 b beyond its limit.Spirit by definition is incorporeal, and therefore NOT "a thing."God is a genderless Spiritual Energy... a thing, not a person.
I disagree with your definition. A "thing" doesn't have to be material or physical. A dream or thought is a thing.... Love is a thing. These things do not have material or physical presence, yet they are still things which still exist. Dark energy and dark matter comprise 96% of the universe, yet they have no material or physical presence. They are as incorporeal as Spiritual Nature.
What does that have to do with your false assumption that seasons and tides are essential for life?Again, pure hogwash.
Many life forms have no dependence on seasons or tides. Humans for one!!!!!
How did humans get here?
The answer is NOTHING, it was a rhetorical question.
Not even the sun is essential for life, there are bacteria that eat rocks!!!
All your threads follow a pattern, you state a position, reject everything to the contrary, and then repeat yourself over and over ad nauseam.It's disturbingly short sighted to not comprehend all the complexities involved with why and how life exists here on Earth, the only place we know of where life does exist. To completely dismiss the millions of potentials which had to line up precisely in order for "life as we know it" to exist and assume that, somehow, life could've found some other way to exist elsewhere... that's sheer faith. You have zero evidence to support that faith, so it's actually blind faith. Not saying it isn't possible.... anything is possible. Including a Creator God who sets the potentials in order for life to exist.
You are clearly stretching 2 b beyond its limit.Spirit by definition is incorporeal, and therefore NOT "a thing."God is a genderless Spiritual Energy... a thing, not a person.
I disagree with your definition. A "thing" doesn't have to be material or physical. A dream or thought is a thing.... Love is a thing. These things do not have material or physical presence, yet they are still things which still exist. Dark energy and dark matter comprise 96% of the universe, yet they have no material or physical presence. They are as incorporeal as Spiritual Nature.
And you know nothing about dark matter or energy.
Definition of thing
1: an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated
2
a: an inanimate object distinguished from a living being
b: a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
c: the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
d: a spatial entity
All your threads follow a pattern, you state a position, reject everything to the contrary, and then repeat yourself over and over ad nauseam.It's disturbingly short sighted to not comprehend all the complexities involved with why and how life exists here on Earth, the only place we know of where life does exist. To completely dismiss the millions of potentials which had to line up precisely in order for "life as we know it" to exist and assume that, somehow, life could've found some other way to exist elsewhere... that's sheer faith. You have zero evidence to support that faith, so it's actually blind faith. Not saying it isn't possible.... anything is possible. Including a Creator God who sets the potentials in order for life to exist.
Read this and enlighten yourself:
The Search for Life in the Universe -- NASA Astrobiology Magazine
Ordinarily, there is no riskier step that a scientist (or anyone) can take than to make sweeping generalizations from just one example. At the moment, life on Earth is the only known life in the universe, but there are compelling arguments to suggest we are not alone. Indeed, most astrophysicists accept a high probability of there being life elsewhere in the universe, if not on other planets or on moons within our own solar system. The numbers are, well, astronomical: If the count of planets in our solar system is not unusual, then there are more planets in the universe than the sum of all sounds and words ever uttered by every human who has ever lived. To declare that Earth must be the only planet in the cosmos with life would be inexcusably egocentric of us.
Many generations of thinkers, both religious and scientific, have been led astray by anthropic assumptions, while others were simply led astray by ignorance. In the absence of dogma and data, history tells us that it's prudent to be guided by the notion that we are not special, which is generally known as the Copernican principle, named for the Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus who, in the mid 1500s, put the Sun back in the middle of our solar system where it belongs. In spite of a third century B.C. account of a sun-centered universe proposed by the Greek philosopher Aristarchus, the Earth-centered universe was by far the most popular view for most of the last 2000 years. Codified by the teachings of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and by the preachings of the Roman Catholic Church, people generally accepted Earth as the center of all motion. It was self-evident: the universe not only looked that way, but God surely made it so. The sixteenth century Italian monk Giordano Bruno suggested publicly that an infinite universe was filled with planets that harbor life. For these thoughts he was burned upside down and naked at the stake. Fortunately, today we live in somewhat more tolerant times.
snip/
The chemical composition of Earth-based life is primarily derived from a select few ingredients. The elements hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon account for over 95% of the atoms in the human body and in all known life. Of the three, the chemical structure of the carbon atom allows it to bond readily and strongly with itself and with many other elements in many different ways, which is how we came to be carbon-based life, and which is why the study of molecules that contain carbon is generally known as "organic" chemistry. The study of life elsewhere in the universe is known as exobiology, which is one of the few disciplines that, at the moment, attempts to function in the complete absence of first-hand data.
Is life chemically special? The Copernican principle suggests that it probably isn't. Aliens need not look like us to resemble us in more fundamental ways. Consider that the four most common elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium, carbon, and oxygen. Helium is inert. So the three most abundant, chemically active ingredients in the cosmos are also the top three ingredients in life on Earth. For this reason, you can bet that if life is found on another planet, it will be made of a similar mix of elements. Conversely, if life on Earth were composed primarily of, for example, molybdenum, bismuth, and plutonium, then we would have excellent reason to suspect that we were something special in the universe.
The chemical composition of Earth-based life is primarily derived from a select few ingredients. The elements hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon account for over 95% of the atoms in the human body and in all known life.
There you go again just ignoring the examples I gave and just repeating yourself.What does that have to do with your false assumption that seasons and tides are essential for life?Again, pure hogwash.
Many life forms have no dependence on seasons or tides. Humans for one!!!!!
How did humans get here?
The answer is NOTHING, it was a rhetorical question.
Not even the sun is essential for life, there are bacteria that eat rocks!!!
It has everything to do with it. If you are in California and you've not always been in California, it's important to consider how you got to California. You can't rationalize that you just appeared there without explanation and that it's possible people simply wake up to find themselves in California because California is there.
If you are going to make the argument that life doesn't depend on oceans, tides or seasons, then you need to show me an example of an ecosystem of life devoid of these attributes. Since Earth is the only place we know of life to exist, you can't do that. The fact that SOME life may have evolved to a point that it no longer depends on oceans, seasons and tides, doesn't mean that it originated as such. Speaking of origination.... you've not explained that either.
The link obviously went completely over your head. No surprise there!All your threads follow a pattern, you state a position, reject everything to the contrary, and then repeat yourself over and over ad nauseam.It's disturbingly short sighted to not comprehend all the complexities involved with why and how life exists here on Earth, the only place we know of where life does exist. To completely dismiss the millions of potentials which had to line up precisely in order for "life as we know it" to exist and assume that, somehow, life could've found some other way to exist elsewhere... that's sheer faith. You have zero evidence to support that faith, so it's actually blind faith. Not saying it isn't possible.... anything is possible. Including a Creator God who sets the potentials in order for life to exist.
Read this and enlighten yourself:
The Search for Life in the Universe -- NASA Astrobiology Magazine
Ordinarily, there is no riskier step that a scientist (or anyone) can take than to make sweeping generalizations from just one example. At the moment, life on Earth is the only known life in the universe, but there are compelling arguments to suggest we are not alone. Indeed, most astrophysicists accept a high probability of there being life elsewhere in the universe, if not on other planets or on moons within our own solar system. The numbers are, well, astronomical: If the count of planets in our solar system is not unusual, then there are more planets in the universe than the sum of all sounds and words ever uttered by every human who has ever lived. To declare that Earth must be the only planet in the cosmos with life would be inexcusably egocentric of us.
Many generations of thinkers, both religious and scientific, have been led astray by anthropic assumptions, while others were simply led astray by ignorance. In the absence of dogma and data, history tells us that it's prudent to be guided by the notion that we are not special, which is generally known as the Copernican principle, named for the Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus who, in the mid 1500s, put the Sun back in the middle of our solar system where it belongs. In spite of a third century B.C. account of a sun-centered universe proposed by the Greek philosopher Aristarchus, the Earth-centered universe was by far the most popular view for most of the last 2000 years. Codified by the teachings of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and by the preachings of the Roman Catholic Church, people generally accepted Earth as the center of all motion. It was self-evident: the universe not only looked that way, but God surely made it so. The sixteenth century Italian monk Giordano Bruno suggested publicly that an infinite universe was filled with planets that harbor life. For these thoughts he was burned upside down and naked at the stake. Fortunately, today we live in somewhat more tolerant times.
snip/
The chemical composition of Earth-based life is primarily derived from a select few ingredients. The elements hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon account for over 95% of the atoms in the human body and in all known life. Of the three, the chemical structure of the carbon atom allows it to bond readily and strongly with itself and with many other elements in many different ways, which is how we came to be carbon-based life, and which is why the study of molecules that contain carbon is generally known as "organic" chemistry. The study of life elsewhere in the universe is known as exobiology, which is one of the few disciplines that, at the moment, attempts to function in the complete absence of first-hand data.
Is life chemically special? The Copernican principle suggests that it probably isn't. Aliens need not look like us to resemble us in more fundamental ways. Consider that the four most common elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium, carbon, and oxygen. Helium is inert. So the three most abundant, chemically active ingredients in the cosmos are also the top three ingredients in life on Earth. For this reason, you can bet that if life is found on another planet, it will be made of a similar mix of elements. Conversely, if life on Earth were composed primarily of, for example, molybdenum, bismuth, and plutonium, then we would have excellent reason to suspect that we were something special in the universe.
Again, thank you for the post that proves what I said correct. I appreciate your efforts!
There you go again just ignoring the examples I gave and just repeating yourself.
Like I said, there are bacteria that eat rocks, and others that eat sulfur and need no sun, seasons or tides. the burden is on you to prove they once needed sun, seasons and tides in their evolution, you can't just fabricate that requirement out of thin air.
Endoliths
What Are the Implications for Endolithic Life?
Recent work with endolithic geomicrobiology may alter our understanding of life. These microbes expand our understanding about the ability of organisms to survive and even thrive in extreme conditions. They also raise new ideas regarding the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Furthermore, these microbes may alter our ideas about the origin of life on Earth, because they have the ability to live within rock thereby escaping damaging UV rays.
But something physical can ONLY come from the physical, that is the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics!!!!!Well because God (Spiritual Nature) is not confined to the physical dimensions of time or space. Billions of years to God means nothing. It's a physical measurement which applies to physical things. I know that's hard to wrap your mind around but that's the whole concept and you're completely missing it.
But something physical can ONLY come from the physical, that is the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics!!!!!Well because God (Spiritual Nature) is not confined to the physical dimensions of time or space. Billions of years to God means nothing. It's a physical measurement which applies to physical things. I know that's hard to wrap your mind around but that's the whole concept and you're completely missing it.
Again that is based on the moronic "logic" that dinos had to die off for "intelligent" life to exist, and the equally moronic that intelligent life has to be "as we know it."There you go again just ignoring the examples I gave and just repeating yourself.
Like I said, there are bacteria that eat rocks, and others that eat sulfur and need no sun, seasons or tides. the burden is on you to prove they once needed sun, seasons and tides in their evolution, you can't just fabricate that requirement out of thin air.
Endoliths
What Are the Implications for Endolithic Life?
Recent work with endolithic geomicrobiology may alter our understanding of life. These microbes expand our understanding about the ability of organisms to survive and even thrive in extreme conditions. They also raise new ideas regarding the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Furthermore, these microbes may alter our ideas about the origin of life on Earth, because they have the ability to live within rock thereby escaping damaging UV rays.
Again... You're getting WAY off the OP argument here. I have never stated that life can't or doesn't exist anywhere but Earth. The OP is making an argument specifically for INTELLIGENT life "as we know it!" Certainly, there is an argument that microbial and bacterial life likely exists elsewhere. It's not certain because we've not discovered it, but I admit that is very likely possible. I am merely talking about sentient intelligence like human beings. And I am not even arguing THAT isn't possible... I just maintain that IF such life exists, it's likely the product of a Creator (or Creative Force) which set the variables to enable it. REASONING: Because there are far too many intricate variables.
And therefore God cannot create anything physical, you dishonestly left that part out!!!But something physical can ONLY come from the physical, that is the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics!!!!!Well because God (Spiritual Nature) is not confined to the physical dimensions of time or space. Billions of years to God means nothing. It's a physical measurement which applies to physical things. I know that's hard to wrap your mind around but that's the whole concept and you're completely missing it.
Correct... So we can conclude that God is not physical! Bravo!
Correction:And therefore God cannot create anything physical, you dishonestly left that part out!!!
Correction: God is the ONLY thing that can create something physical.
The physical cannot create itself.
Again that is based on the moronic "logic" that dinos had to die off for "intelligent" life to exist, and the equally moronic that intelligent life has to be "as we know it."
The best proof that there is Intelligent Life in Outer Space is the fact it hasn't come here.
- Unknown
Correction:And therefore God cannot create anything physical, you dishonestly left that part out!!!
Correction: God is the ONLY thing that can create something physical.
The physical cannot create itself.
"Ex nihilo nihil fit." From nothing, nothing comes.
No, something physical exists therefore some physical thing has always existed.Correction:And therefore God cannot create anything physical, you dishonestly left that part out!!!
Correction: God is the ONLY thing that can create something physical.
The physical cannot create itself.
"Ex nihilo nihil fit." From nothing, nothing comes.
And yet... Something exists, therefore... something Created it!
Already rebutted with this link,Again that is based on the moronic "logic" that dinos had to die off for "intelligent" life to exist, and the equally moronic that intelligent life has to be "as we know it."
The best proof that there is Intelligent Life in Outer Space is the fact it hasn't come here.
- Unknown
No, observing the informational data we have available is not moronic or illogical.
Humans are the only species to have achieved sentient cognizant intelligence. Do you have any other competing species in the realm of human intellect? Any examples of dinosaurs sending probes to Mars? Any prehistoric literature from the Pleistocene epoch? Life had 14.5 billion years to produce SOMETHING but it wasn't until mammals could grow and thrive to produce an upper primate known as Homo Sapiens that we achieved what we define as intelligent life. That's only been in the last 200k years... and most of that developed in the past 10k years.
Again... ALL things are POSSIBLE. I'm not making the argument that anything is impossible. I know that you desperately WANT that to be my argument so you can parade around strutting your stuff and pretending you've bested me. So I have to keep pointing out that hasn't been MY argument.
I've merely offered that it's my belief IF intelligent, sentient and cognizant life, like human life, is present elsewhere in the universe, it is likely the product of a Creator who controls the variables which enable such life. I can't PROVE that... wish I could... that Nobel Prize sure would look good on my wall next to the chunks of your ass that I own... but it is what it is.
