Does Evolution Lead to Fear of Aliens?

[james bond]

I found more about cold fusion and LENR, and it includes a tidbit from ASU.

Apparently, there is the Widom-Larsen theory on LENR. It happens when you turn on a CFL bulb. However, a guy at ASU, thinks that because of mercury it is not safe due to poisoning. The creators of the CFL bulb disageree and think it will be demonstrated to be green technology.

According to the Widom-Larsen theory, fusion is not what is happening at all, i.e. interaction of the strong force. What is happening is LENR and it involves a series of processes and the weak forces.

Do you agree that LENR has lead to some kind of breathrough? Or is it too dangerous as we have to take into account what it means for the environment? Larsen claims the mercury isotope from LENR is not the same as mercury and is safe.

Tiny Nuclear Reactions Inside Compact Fluorescent Bulbs?

LENR - Widom-Larsen Theory Portal

 

[james bond]

20 Reasons Why UFOs and Aliens Do Not Exist

They're figments of our imagination. We want to believe so our minds trick us into believing they're out there. Even the atheist scientists think that due to their million dollar telescopes and technology that we will encounter them within the next ten to thirty years. We will bury these atheist scientists and make mockery of them. I don't think we'll encounter them within our lifetimes. It's science fiction that is enjoyable, so enjoy the myths caused by evolution.

Do UFO’s and Aliens Exist? 20 Reasons to be Skeptical

.

20 Reasons Why UFOs and Aliens Do Not Exist

one reason alone prevents interstellar travel, there is not a contiguous atmosphere linking all the universe to make it passable for living species to survive on their own.

unless they can survive in a vacuum we will never be seeing our neighbors.

Contiguous atmosphere? WTF

Wait until you see BreezeWood's evidence of macroevolution ha ha.

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

 

[ding]

20 Reasons Why UFOs and Aliens Do Not Exist

They're figments of our imagination. We want to believe so our minds trick us into believing they're out there. Even the atheist scientists think that due to their million dollar telescopes and technology that we will encounter them within the next ten to thirty years. We will bury these atheist scientists and make mockery of them. I don't think we'll encounter them within our lifetimes. It's science fiction that is enjoyable, so enjoy the myths caused by evolution.

Do UFO’s and Aliens Exist? 20 Reasons to be Skeptical

.

20 Reasons Why UFOs and Aliens Do Not Exist

one reason alone prevents interstellar travel, there is not a contiguous atmosphere linking all the universe to make it passable for living species to survive on their own.

unless they can survive in a vacuum we will never be seeing our neighbors.

Contiguous atmosphere? WTF

Wait until you see BreezeWood's evidence of macroevolution ha ha.

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

That guy is nutty. I have no words to describe his kind of crazy.

 

[james bond]

20 Reasons Why UFOs and Aliens Do Not Exist

They're figments of our imagination. We want to believe so our minds trick us into believing they're out there. Even the atheist scientists think that due to their million dollar telescopes and technology that we will encounter them within the next ten to thirty years. We will bury these atheist scientists and make mockery of them. I don't think we'll encounter them within our lifetimes. It's science fiction that is enjoyable, so enjoy the myths caused by evolution.

Do UFO’s and Aliens Exist? 20 Reasons to be Skeptical

.

20 Reasons Why UFOs and Aliens Do Not Exist

one reason alone prevents interstellar travel, there is not a contiguous atmosphere linking all the universe to make it passable for living species to survive on their own.

unless they can survive in a vacuum we will never be seeing our neighbors.

According to theoretical physicists, we're supposed to travel via a wormhole, then into a black hole to reach the other planets, and we communicate via a tesseract.

.

According to theoretical physicists, we're supposed to travel via a wormhole, then into a black hole to reach the other planets, and we communicate via a tesseract.

According to theoretical physicists

those must be the creationist you slobber over, without an atmosphere Columbus will never take the trip, now or ever.

Can you post your evidence of macroevolution for mr. ding? We want to see that science is science as Mr. Divine Wind claims. I wanted to ask him if he believes that a universe can pop up from nothing. If cold fusion is true, then it could be possible. It appears one is getting more energy out than what is being put in.

You mean the theory of inflation as developed by Alan Guth, et al? Sure.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. 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 - out of nothing. 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.



http://cosmos2.phy.tufts.edu/Vilenkin.Whitrow.pdf

Before the Big Bang?

I think we agree that it started from a single point. Why hasn't this happened again or more times? This is a huge claim by QM so where is the evidence when we can't see it? As the interviewer stated, there's a lot of assumptions of laws made for QM. Moreover, physics has become a billion-dollar rich ground for pseudoscience where large-scale, billion-dollar experiments are involved. The huge problem with these experiments are that the results are impossible to reproduce. It would require another billion-dollar investiment. Thus, many assertions like this go unchallenged. Quantum tunneling and entanglement often produces inexplicable behaviors. Rather than holding their opinions for more data, these physicists rush to conclusion which often leads to crackpot assertions. Thus, we get universe from nothing, multiverses, nature and the universe is just made for life to begin.

 

[BreezeWood]

20 Reasons Why UFOs and Aliens Do Not Exist

They're figments of our imagination. We want to believe so our minds trick us into believing they're out there. Even the atheist scientists think that due to their million dollar telescopes and technology that we will encounter them within the next ten to thirty years. We will bury these atheist scientists and make mockery of them. I don't think we'll encounter them within our lifetimes. It's science fiction that is enjoyable, so enjoy the myths caused by evolution.

Do UFO’s and Aliens Exist? 20 Reasons to be Skeptical

.

20 Reasons Why UFOs and Aliens Do Not Exist

one reason alone prevents interstellar travel, there is not a contiguous atmosphere linking all the universe to make it passable for living species to survive on their own.

unless they can survive in a vacuum we will never be seeing our neighbors.

Contiguous atmosphere? WTF

Wait until you see BreezeWood's evidence of macroevolution ha ha.

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

nothing there bond, it's interesting you two latent reactionaries have found a thread to console yourselves with. by the way they closed that thread due to your prodigies incessant whining.

if metamorphosis was over your head bond one can only imagine the reaction bing would have.

 

[ding]

.
one reason alone prevents interstellar travel, there is not a contiguous atmosphere linking all the universe to make it passable for living species to survive on their own.

unless they can survive in a vacuum we will never be seeing our neighbors.

According to theoretical physicists, we're supposed to travel via a wormhole, then into a black hole to reach the other planets, and we communicate via a tesseract.

.

According to theoretical physicists, we're supposed to travel via a wormhole, then into a black hole to reach the other planets, and we communicate via a tesseract.

According to theoretical physicists

those must be the creationist you slobber over, without an atmosphere Columbus will never take the trip, now or ever.

Can you post your evidence of macroevolution for mr. ding? We want to see that science is science as Mr. Divine Wind claims. I wanted to ask him if he believes that a universe can pop up from nothing. If cold fusion is true, then it could be possible. It appears one is getting more energy out than what is being put in.

You mean the theory of inflation as developed by Alan Guth, et al? Sure.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. 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 - out of nothing. 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.



http://cosmos2.phy.tufts.edu/Vilenkin.Whitrow.pdf

Before the Big Bang?

I think we agree that it started from a single point. Why hasn't this happened again or more times? This is a huge claim by QM so where is the evidence when we can't see it? As the interviewer stated, there's a lot of assumptions of laws made for QM. Moreover, physics has become a billion-dollar rich ground for pseudoscience where large-scale, billion-dollar experiments are involved. The huge problem with these experiments are that the results are impossible to reproduce. It would require another billion-dollar investiment. Thus, many assertions like this go unchallenged. Quantum tunneling and entanglement often produces inexplicable behaviors. Rather than holding their opinions for more data, these physicists rush to conclusion which often leads to crackpot assertions. Thus, we get universe from nothing, multiverses, nature and the universe is just made for life to begin.

The thing is that it matches observations and answers certain problems that no other model does. Additionally, it tells us that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed. That's a big deal there. How can laws of nature exist without space and time? That question leads us to a first cause. The only known solution would be something that is eternal and unchanging. What does that sound like to you?

 

[james bond]

.
one reason alone prevents interstellar travel, there is not a contiguous atmosphere linking all the universe to make it passable for living species to survive on their own.

unless they can survive in a vacuum we will never be seeing our neighbors.

Contiguous atmosphere? WTF

Wait until you see BreezeWood's evidence of macroevolution ha ha.

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

That guy is nutty. I have no words to describe his kind of crazy.

I'm hoping he finds the photo again lol.

 

[james bond]

.
one reason alone prevents interstellar travel, there is not a contiguous atmosphere linking all the universe to make it passable for living species to survive on their own.

unless they can survive in a vacuum we will never be seeing our neighbors.

Contiguous atmosphere? WTF

Wait until you see BreezeWood's evidence of macroevolution ha ha.

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

nothing there bond, it's interesting you two latent reactionaries have found a thread to console yourselves with. by the way they closed that thread due to your prodigies incessant whining.

if metamorphosis was over your head bond one can only imagine the reaction bing would have.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

 

[ding]

.
one reason alone prevents interstellar travel, there is not a contiguous atmosphere linking all the universe to make it passable for living species to survive on their own.

unless they can survive in a vacuum we will never be seeing our neighbors.

Contiguous atmosphere? WTF

Wait until you see BreezeWood's evidence of macroevolution ha ha.

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

nothing there bond, it's interesting you two latent reactionaries have found a thread to console yourselves with. by the way they closed that thread due to your prodigies incessant whining.

if metamorphosis was over your head bond one can only imagine the reaction bing would have.

If you ever utter an objective statement, please be sure to let me know because I won't believe it until I see it.

 

[james bond]

According to theoretical physicists, we're supposed to travel via a wormhole, then into a black hole to reach the other planets, and we communicate via a tesseract.

.

According to theoretical physicists, we're supposed to travel via a wormhole, then into a black hole to reach the other planets, and we communicate via a tesseract.

According to theoretical physicists

those must be the creationist you slobber over, without an atmosphere Columbus will never take the trip, now or ever.

Can you post your evidence of macroevolution for mr. ding? We want to see that science is science as Mr. Divine Wind claims. I wanted to ask him if he believes that a universe can pop up from nothing. If cold fusion is true, then it could be possible. It appears one is getting more energy out than what is being put in.

You mean the theory of inflation as developed by Alan Guth, et al? Sure.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. 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 - out of nothing. 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.



http://cosmos2.phy.tufts.edu/Vilenkin.Whitrow.pdf

Before the Big Bang?

I think we agree that it started from a single point. Why hasn't this happened again or more times? This is a huge claim by QM so where is the evidence when we can't see it? As the interviewer stated, there's a lot of assumptions of laws made for QM. Moreover, physics has become a billion-dollar rich ground for pseudoscience where large-scale, billion-dollar experiments are involved. The huge problem with these experiments are that the results are impossible to reproduce. It would require another billion-dollar investiment. Thus, many assertions like this go unchallenged. Quantum tunneling and entanglement often produces inexplicable behaviors. Rather than holding their opinions for more data, these physicists rush to conclusion which often leads to crackpot assertions. Thus, we get universe from nothing, multiverses, nature and the universe is just made for life to begin.

The thing is that it matches observations and answers certain problems that no other model does. Additionally, it tells us that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed. That's a big deal there. How can laws of nature exist without space and time? That question leads us to a first cause. The only known solution would be something that is eternal and unchanging. What does that sound like to you?

Oh sure, it leads to God, but why would God need quantum mechanics? People are afraid if we keep building more powerful LHC, then it will destroy us but we haven't actually seen any evidence of it. Just a lot of mistaken conclusions. We already had faster than light neutrinos anomaly -- Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly - Wikipedia and more. Just lookup LHC anomalies.

 

[ding]

.
those must be the creationist you slobber over, without an atmosphere Columbus will never take the trip, now or ever.

Can you post your evidence of macroevolution for mr. ding? We want to see that science is science as Mr. Divine Wind claims. I wanted to ask him if he believes that a universe can pop up from nothing. If cold fusion is true, then it could be possible. It appears one is getting more energy out than what is being put in.

You mean the theory of inflation as developed by Alan Guth, et al? Sure.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. 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 - out of nothing. 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.



http://cosmos2.phy.tufts.edu/Vilenkin.Whitrow.pdf

Before the Big Bang?

I think we agree that it started from a single point. Why hasn't this happened again or more times? This is a huge claim by QM so where is the evidence when we can't see it? As the interviewer stated, there's a lot of assumptions of laws made for QM. Moreover, physics has become a billion-dollar rich ground for pseudoscience where large-scale, billion-dollar experiments are involved. The huge problem with these experiments are that the results are impossible to reproduce. It would require another billion-dollar investiment. Thus, many assertions like this go unchallenged. Quantum tunneling and entanglement often produces inexplicable behaviors. Rather than holding their opinions for more data, these physicists rush to conclusion which often leads to crackpot assertions. Thus, we get universe from nothing, multiverses, nature and the universe is just made for life to begin.

The thing is that it matches observations and answers certain problems that no other model does. Additionally, it tells us that the laws of nature were in place before space and time existed. That's a big deal there. How can laws of nature exist without space and time? That question leads us to a first cause. The only known solution would be something that is eternal and unchanging. What does that sound like to you?

Oh sure, it leads to God, but why would God need quantum mechanics? People are afraid if we keep building more powerful LHC, then it will destroy us but we haven't actually seen any evidence of it. Just a lot of mistaken conclusions. We already had faster than light neutrinos anomaly -- Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly - Wikipedia and more. Just lookup LHC anomalies.

I enjoy finding out how God did it.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[BreezeWood]

Contiguous atmosphere? WTF

Wait until you see BreezeWood's evidence of macroevolution ha ha.

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

nothing there bond, it's interesting you two latent reactionaries have found a thread to console yourselves with. by the way they closed that thread due to your prodigies incessant whining.

if metamorphosis was over your head bond one can only imagine the reaction bing would have.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

it was beyond your ability to reason, exemplified by your mischaracterization of the subject.

 

[ding]

Wait until you see BreezeWood's evidence of macroevolution ha ha.

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

nothing there bond, it's interesting you two latent reactionaries have found a thread to console yourselves with. by the way they closed that thread due to your prodigies incessant whining.

if metamorphosis was over your head bond one can only imagine the reaction bing would have.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

it was beyond your ability to reason, exemplified by your mischaracterization of the subject.

Was it as silly as that theory of the universe turning inside out?

 

[Mudda]

I enjoy finding out how God did it.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[BreezeWood]

That guy is a complete tool.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

nothing there bond, it's interesting you two latent reactionaries have found a thread to console yourselves with. by the way they closed that thread due to your prodigies incessant whining.

if metamorphosis was over your head bond one can only imagine the reaction bing would have.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

it was beyond your ability to reason, exemplified by your mischaracterization of the subject.

Was it as silly as that theory of the universe turning inside out?

.

Was it as silly as that theory of the universe turning inside out?

actually, the loop is reconfigured as a mirror image of the initial expulsion when the compaction begins.

 

[ding]

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

If God doesn't exist...

.

Here's what BW posted as evidence for macroevolution. However, the photo is missing now. Tsk.

nothing there bond, it's interesting you two latent reactionaries have found a thread to console yourselves with. by the way they closed that thread due to your prodigies incessant whining.

if metamorphosis was over your head bond one can only imagine the reaction bing would have.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

it was beyond your ability to reason, exemplified by your mischaracterization of the subject.

Was it as silly as that theory of the universe turning inside out?

.

Was it as silly as that theory of the universe turning inside out?

actually, the loop is reconfigured as a mirror image of the initial expulsion when the compaction begins.

And makes about as much sense as a buckshot turning around in mid-flight and returning to the gun in a mirror image parallel trajectory. It ain't gonna happen. And if it did it would still not be infinite acting.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
nothing there bond, it's interesting you two latent reactionaries have found a thread to console yourselves with. by the way they closed that thread due to your prodigies incessant whining.

if metamorphosis was over your head bond one can only imagine the reaction bing would have.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

.

Yeah, I told you that. It was a photo of a large insect emerging from its chrysalis. That isn't macroevolution, but metamorphosis.

it was beyond your ability to reason, exemplified by your mischaracterization of the subject.

Was it as silly as that theory of the universe turning inside out?

.

Was it as silly as that theory of the universe turning inside out?

actually, the loop is reconfigured as a mirror image of the initial expulsion when the compaction begins.

And makes about as much sense as a buckshot turning around in mid-flight and returning to the gun in a mirror image parallel trajectory. It ain't gonna happen. And if it did it would still not be infinite acting.

.

as a buckshot turning around in mid-flight

matters trajectory is a loop caused by the finite angle created by their expulsion.

I'm beginning to think you are a little dense bing at least on the subject I have had to correct you on previously. all matter in unison from the expulsion after Singularity is traveling on a trajectory of a finite angle in a vacuum and eventually will return to its point of origin recreating the compaction that will again lead to a new moment of Singularity.

 

[sealybobo]

Renowned celebrity physicist Stephen Hawking is at the forefront of the search for extra-terrestrial life. But he warns against making contact with aliens as he fears they will be two-billion-years ‘more evolved’.

"Time and again I am confronted with the view from young people that “Of course there are aliens out there. We can’t be the only ones.” This is a surprise to many of the older church folk in my acquaintance. However, CMI’s UFO authority, Gary Bates, indicates that in his experience belief in aliens can be found across all age groups—including churchgoers. Surveys estimate that more than 80% of Western peoples believe that ET is ‘out there somewhere’ which presumably encapsulates a lot of believers also.1 But many young folk in particular have been influenced by science fiction notions of aliens traversing the galaxy in their faster-than-light spaceships and advanced weaponry. And older folk are especially surprised to see that young people’s belief in extra-terrestrials often goes hand-in-hand with a morbid fear of what aliens will do to them.

Belief in aliens—and fear arising from that—is a logical outflow of our young people having been sold the idea that we are the result of evolution, not creation. Life evolved on Earth (the argument says), therefore elsewhere in the universe—billions of years older than our solar system according to evolutionary reckoning—it would surely have evolved there, too.2 As well-known Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) researcher Seth Shostak said when asked why he believed in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials:

By hawking evolution to a vulnerable public, they’re also hawking fear of aliens, too
“To believe that they don’t exist requires positing that what’s happened on Earth is some sort of miracle. I find that premise a tougher sell than to think that intelligence is a fairly frequent development in a 14-billion-year-old cosmos.”3"

It's amusing in that it's science fiction, but I also know that people who believe in other people will believe it no matter how smart they think they are. To believe that they don't exist means that some kind of miracle happened on Earth.

1. Bates, G., and Cosner, L., UFOlogy: the world’s fastest-growing ‘scientific’ religion?, 2016; creation.com/ufology. ET needed evolution, 2016; creation.com/et-evolution.
2. DiGregorio, B., Interview: The alien hunter, New Scientist 199(2674):42–43, September 2008; newscientist.com.
3. DiGregorio, B., Interview: The alien hunter, New Scientist 199(2674):42–43, September 2008; newscientist.com.

Full article here
Hawking fear of aliens - creation.com

Makes perfect sense to smart people.

If you believe in evolution vs the notion that God poofed fully grown land creatures magically into existence and you understand how many other planets are out there then you must believe we are not alone.

Then if you understand how technologically advanced they'd have to be.

Then if you think about human nature you'd be a fool not to fear a visit.

 

[sealybobo]

Renowned celebrity physicist Stephen Hawking is at the forefront of the search for extra-terrestrial life. But he warns against making contact with aliens as he fears they will be two-billion-years ‘more evolved’.

"Time and again I am confronted with the view from young people that “Of course there are aliens out there. We can’t be the only ones.” This is a surprise to many of the older church folk in my acquaintance. However, CMI’s UFO authority, Gary Bates, indicates that in his experience belief in aliens can be found across all age groups—including churchgoers. Surveys estimate that more than 80% of Western peoples believe that ET is ‘out there somewhere’ which presumably encapsulates a lot of believers also.1 But many young folk in particular have been influenced by science fiction notions of aliens traversing the galaxy in their faster-than-light spaceships and advanced weaponry. And older folk are especially surprised to see that young people’s belief in extra-terrestrials often goes hand-in-hand with a morbid fear of what aliens will do to them.

Belief in aliens—and fear arising from that—is a logical outflow of our young people having been sold the idea that we are the result of evolution, not creation. Life evolved on Earth (the argument says), therefore elsewhere in the universe—billions of years older than our solar system according to evolutionary reckoning—it would surely have evolved there, too.2 As well-known Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) researcher Seth Shostak said when asked why he believed in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials:

By hawking evolution to a vulnerable public, they’re also hawking fear of aliens, too
“To believe that they don’t exist requires positing that what’s happened on Earth is some sort of miracle. I find that premise a tougher sell than to think that intelligence is a fairly frequent development in a 14-billion-year-old cosmos.”3"

It's amusing in that it's science fiction, but I also know that people who believe in other people will believe it no matter how smart they think they are. To believe that they don't exist means that some kind of miracle happened on Earth.

1. Bates, G., and Cosner, L., UFOlogy: the world’s fastest-growing ‘scientific’ religion?, 2016; creation.com/ufology. ET needed evolution, 2016; creation.com/et-evolution.
2. DiGregorio, B., Interview: The alien hunter, New Scientist 199(2674):42–43, September 2008; newscientist.com.
3. DiGregorio, B., Interview: The alien hunter, New Scientist 199(2674):42–43, September 2008; newscientist.com.

Full article here
Hawking fear of aliens - creation.com

The presence of water is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. The distance from the home star (i.e. Goldilocks zone) is critical for water. If the earth were 5% closer to the sun, water would boil off. If the earth were 20% farther from the sun, water would not exist in its liquid state. There may be liquid water below the surface of Mars and Europa, but there is very little chance that complex life exists in either place. The recipe for life is much more complex than just water. So besides residing in the habitable zone, the following conditions would also need to be met: orbiting a G2 star, protected by gas giant planets, within circumstellar habitable zone, nearly circular orbit, oxygen rich atmosphere, correct mass, orbited by large moon, magnetic field, plate tectonics, correct ratio of liquid water and continents, terrestrial plane, moderate rate of rotation.

So despite the widely held belief that the universe is teeming with intelligent life, the actual odds are quite low.

If it's a million to one then there's over 1000 other planets like earth because that's how many other planets are out there. Then there are more moons than there are planets and they too can be habitable from what I hear.

 

[sealybobo]

As for aliens, I am sure they are out there too -- just too far away to touch us here -- even as we ourselves are too far away to touch them.

All in all the Earthlings and Aliens are presently safe from each other.

Someday we will make radio contact, but even then they will still be too far away -- light years

Why radio? Isn't that a little primitive even for us? And what makes you think that time and distance equals safety simply because we haven't solved the problems presented by space and time?

What makes you think they haven't already been here?

They could be among but have the ability to look human because the might have the ability to take-on human form by stealing our bodies while we sleep.

Sure, maybe Jesus was an avatar from another world under orders, a higher form of intelligent life in a disturbing disguise, wearing the clothes of an uncultured first century Jewish peasant of no account with the ability to travel through space and time and the authority to direct the course of history for either good or evil by living among humans, testing their mettle, and disappearing into thin air relatively unnoticed at the time from time to time.....

That is such a deep concept I never thought of. Jesus was an alien and he definitely made an impact on the savages.

But funny Jesus actually had very little impact during his lifetime. He didn't convert anyone except for 11 guys tops. It was those guys who went and told the stories to people who didn't see it. Greeks, Hispanics, other Europeans. The Jews who lived among Jesus didn't convert and start Christianity. The 5000 who ate with Jesus five loaves and 3 fish didn't start the first church or build monuments. Their ancestors don't exist to this day.

I think Jesus is just the ultimate martyr story but I like the idea of him being a message from another planet. Next time he will bring weapons