Gay marriage - It's not often the right looks to France for examples

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I appreciate what all you guys have done, to be honest.

I am just seeing too many inconsistencies with your testimony:

First its a process, but not "technically" one. Secondly, its not intelligent, but it selects as such. Thirdly, it's not "selecting" anything, it's just a word we use to describe it, yet the proess is called "Natual Selection" to describe natural processes that aren't "technically" processes.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
It doesn't line up with your "ear tickling" evolution theory, so you won't open yoiur mind to organization and intelligence.

Just because organization and intelligence happen to appear doesn't mean the background process that created them exhibited intelligence in doing so. Look at the rippled lines that develop in sand dunes, a pattern that repeats hundreds or thousands of times, all spaced evenly and following the same contrails over the entirety of the length of the dune. It's rigidly organized, and yet is nothing more than the product of loose sand, wind and time. Is the wind intelligent in moving the sand into uniform order? No, of course not, it's just wind. Evolution is just the random variations that occur as advantageous adaptations pass from generation to generation. Order from chaos is the nature of the Universe, and evolution is no different.
 

GreenMeters

Senior member
Nov 29, 2012
214
0
71
I appreciate what all you guys have done, to be honest.

I am just seeing too many inconsistencies with your testimony:

First its a process, but not "technically" one. Secondly, its not intelligent, but it selects as such. Thirdly, it's not "selecting" anything, it's just a word we use to describe it, yet the proess is called "Natual Selection" to describe natural processes that aren't "technically" processes.

Where's the inconsistency?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Just because organization and intelligence happen to appear doesn't mean the background process that created them exhibited intelligence in doing so. Look at the rippled lines that develop in sand dunes, a pattern that repeats hundreds or thousands of times, all spaced evenly and following the same contrails over the entirety of the length of the dune. It's rigidly organized, and yet is nothing more than the product of loose sand, wind and time. Is the wind intelligent in moving the sand into uniform order? No, of course not, it's just wind. Evolution is just the random variations that occur as advantageous adaptations pass from generation to generation. Order from chaos is the nature of the Universe, and evolution is no different.

We're talking about Humans, though. You're more than welcome to not accept intelligent purpose.

Luck doesn't require God, per science, so they've come up with a guess that can't be repeated, so we're forced to believe it:

1) After the Big Bang, asteroids came together to form our earth. Not one too many.

2) Luckily, some of these carried ice (water) to form our oceans, and not one more than needed hit.

3) All this happened around the appropriate Star (sun) though there were others that this could have happened around, and the ice melted.

4) The asteriods happen to hit and come together to form our planet, which had the perfect orbit, at the perfect distance, with the perfect size, and just right tilt, and we so happen to catch the moon in our orbit as well.

5) No other solar system discovered is like ours. This too, was luck.

6) Next, lighting hit the oceans, and luck carried us to our current world as we know it.

Now, one coincidence I am willing to accept, but this many isn't only impossible, but laughable, quite honestly.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
We're talking about Humans, though. You're more than welcome to not accept intelligent purpose.

Luck doesn't require God, per science, so they've come up with a guess that can't be repeated, so we're forced to believe it:

1) After the Big Bang, asteroids came together to form our earth. Not one too many.

2) Luckily, some of these carried ice (water) to form our oceans, and not one more than needed hit.

3) All this happened around the appropriate Star (sun) though there were others that this could have happened around, and the ice melted.

4) The asteriods happen to hit and come together to form our planet, which had the perfect orbit, at the perfect distance, with the perfect size, and just right tilt, and we so happen to catch the moon in our orbit as well.

5) No other solar system discovered is like ours. This too, was luck.

6) Next, lighting hit the oceans, and luck carried us to our current world as we know it.

Now, one coincidence I am willing to accept, but this many isn't only impossible, but laughable, quite honestly.

Well, you've got some of your science wrong there, for one thing. The planet didn't form by a bunch of asteroids colliding and creating a big ball of planet, but rather through accretion of solid and gaseous matter floating through the early solar system. The tilt of the Earth and the formation of the moon are both thought to be from a massive asteroid impact on the young Earth; it's not like Earth just had a rakish angle from the get-go and ensnared the moon through seductive charm. As far as no other solar system being like ours, that's because the tools we've been using to look for them are remarkably primitive for the task at hand; as better tools are developed, we continue to find more and more planets in distant star systems.

As for the advent of life, well, that's a sticky wicket. It could be that some random lightning strike in the first billion years of the Earth hit just the right combination of atoms to create a basic amino acid. It could be that a sentient being snapped his fingers and created the first life. It could be panspermia. We don't actually know. But even if there was a God who set everything in motion, the processes that have happened since follow the basic outline of natural selection, and they have from the get-go. It's a remarkable process, and it could easily be the work of a deity in crafting something so brilliantly simple that produces such complexity and diversity as found in life on Earth. But it's still random. Sometimes adaptations are advantageous, sometimes they are not. It's all completely random and without an intelligent purpose. There's nothing wrong with that. An intelligent creator is not necessary for the process to work, nor for the product to have value.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
1) After the Big Bang, asteroids came together to form our earth. Not one too many.

Who says "not one too many"? The earth could function larger or smaller than it is now, to certain limits.

And while the earth was forming, millions of other protoplanets were as well. Some would become suitable for life and some not.

2) Luckily, some of these carried ice (water) to form our oceans, and not one more than needed hit.

Again, what's this "not one more than needed" nonsense? You think life couldn't have formed on earth, with say, half the water we have now, or double?

Etc...

Now, one coincidence I am willing to accept, but this many isn't only impossible, but laughable, quite honestly.

It's laughable because the propositions you're making are laughable. There's no one single formula that is absolutely necessary for life. We've found creatures living in amazing places even here on earth, some where nobody ever thought it was possible.

You're also engaging in another fallacy, which is that because the odds of something happening are low, it can't happen. Your argument is like saying that because the odds of anyone winning Powerball are really, really low, that nobody will ever win. Well, people do win sometimes.

We on earth won.
 

Zxian

Senior member
May 26, 2011
579
0
0
Well, I do -- we're different. It seems you're denying organizational processes in our bodies (such as programmed cell death, a regulated process), and that supposedly useless appendix that holds good bacteria incase we lose what we need.

How about our pain censors (nerves) to help us detect when we're hurt, or are hurting our bodies, or our heart, that when working properly, pumps the blood we need to keep us alive. Or our immune system deisgned to fight off sickness -- processes that without them, we'd be dead.

I'd say you're denying reality by not admitting these things are here and reflect the purpose of keeping us alive, perform an organized function in an organized manner, or we wouldn't have them, and we'd be dead.

It doesn't line up with your "ear tickling" evolution theory, so you won't open yoiur mind to organization and intelligence.

What Atomic is getting at is that by chance of evolution, all mammals could have their central nervous systems located in their torsos instead of the head. This doesn't change the need for intelligent life to have a brain, but the exact layout of the life forms we have around us may have developed completely differently if history had changed.

We're talking about Humans, though. You're more than welcome to not accept intelligent purpose.

Luck doesn't require God, per science, so they've come up with a guess that can't be repeated, so we're forced to believe it:

1) After the Big Bang, asteroids came together to form our earth. Not one too many. Could have been 100 more or less - that would have changed the gravity a little, which would have affected the need for muscular strength.

2) Luckily, some of these carried ice (water) to form our oceans, and not one more than needed hit.How do you know exactly how many hit? Again, one or two more would not have had a significant impact.

3) All this happened around the appropriate Star (sun) though there were others that this could have happened around, and the ice melted.I can assure you that other planetary systems - which have been observed - have undergone similar periods of planetary creation and bombardment. This statement is entirely false.

4) The asteriods happen to hit and come together to form our planet, which had the perfect orbit, at the perfect distance, with the perfect size, and just right tilt, and we so happen to catch the moon in our orbit as well.Actually, the leading theory on the moon's creation is that a Mars-sized planet struck the earth while it was still very hot and molten. Have a look at the Giant Impact Hypothesis. The moon was not "caught". It was blasted away from the surface of the earth.

5) No other solar system discovered is like ours. This too, was luck.No other solar system is going to be exactly like ours. There are, however, at least 4 extra-solar planets that we know of which lie in the habitable zone of their respective stars.

6) Next, lighting hit the oceans, and luck carried us to our current world as we know it.Static electricity buildup in the atmosphere had nothing to do with the development of elementary amino acids and proteins. The luck is nothing more than random draw of the cards when it came to interplanetary objects during the formation of the solar system and ever since.

See responses in red. You do realize that we're one planet in a galaxy of about 200,000,000,000 stars? And then we're in one galaxy of about 170,000,000,000 in the known universe? To believe that the Earth is somehow so unique that we're the only source of life in the universe is, sorry to say, a bit laughable. The odds are astronomically against that possibility (no pun intended).
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Well, you've got some of your science wrong there, for one thing. The planet didn't form by a bunch of asteroids colliding and creating a big ball of planet, but rather through accretion of solid and gaseous matter floating through the early solar system. The tilt of the Earth and the formation of the moon are both thought to be from a massive asteroid impact on the young Earth; it's not like Earth just had a rakish angle from the get-go and ensnared the moon through seductive charm. As far as no other solar system being like ours, that's because the tools we've been using to look for them are remarkably primitive for the task at hand; as better tools are developed, we continue to find more and more planets in distant star systems.

Ok, if I am wrong, I am wrong. The point is that coincidence isn't a logical way (in my mind anyway) to establish the way our planet formed, our moon, and tilt. Not when these things make it perfect for life as we currently know it (after all, the other planets can't be inhabitabed by humans).

I'm sure there are more solar systems out there, and I agree we haven't found them yet.

As for the advent of life, well, that's a sticky wicket. It could be that some random lightning strike in the first billion years of the Earth hit just the right combination of atoms to create a basic amino acid. It could be that a sentient being snapped his fingers and created the first life. It could be panspermia. We don't actually know. But even if there was a God who set everything in motion, the processes that have happened since follow the basic outline of natural selection, and they have from the get-go. It's a remarkable process, and it could easily be the work of a deity in crafting something so brilliantly simple that produces such complexity and diversity as found in life on Earth. But it's still random. Sometimes adaptations are advantageous, sometimes they are not. It's all completely random and without an intelligent purpose. There's nothing wrong with that. An intelligent creator is not necessary for the process to work, nor for the product to have value.

I personally don't have a problem when scientists say they don't know, because no one was here to see any of this, not even God fearing people. So, granted, we have to use current evidence.

But they, just like creationists, teach this as fact, though they really don't know. Creationist (God made this), scientists (Lighting hitting the water did this). Neither side never really concedes and admit to making a calculated or educated guess... or a guess by itself.

What brings me to my personal conclusion is, and I stated this earlier, our intelligent creation we make here on earth, reflect a designer. Period. I know someone designed the laptop I'm using, though don't know WHO did.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for some people to think, based on the example, that we "could" be designed. We are thoughtful beings, and I think it's a bit arrogant to say that everyone who even had a quick thought about a creator are idiots. Some people simply see design. It's natrual to assume such.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,346
7,393
136
Here's the thing.

If "God" can exist without being created, why can't other things? Like, say, the universe?

If your intelligent being always existed, and is eternal and uncreated, then you believe things can exist without being created.

Here's the other thing. We don't know what caused the universe. Actually, we don't even know if they universe was caused, maybe it always existed, or maybe it came into existence but didn't have a cause. Just because everything we see in the universe has a cause doesn't mean the universe itself had to have a cause, the universe as a whole could have different properties than objects within the universe.

Now, you can call the unknown reason for the universe existing "God" if you like. Lots of people, even physicists would accept that. The trouble comes when you try to reason from the supposition that the universe must have had a cause, to the properties of that cause. Like that the cause was intelligent. Or that it was loving. Or that it has a long white beard and wears a robe and sandles. Or that it raped a random woman 2000 years ago and caused her to give birth to a hybrid half-human/half-uncaused-first-cause baby.

Labeling this hypothetical, unknown and unknowable origin of the universe "God" has a certain poetry to it, but it also causes you to sneak in all sorts of assumptions about the origin of the universe that might or might not be true, but whether they are true or untrue your assumptions are not well founded because you have no way of knowing whether they are true or untrue.

Most physicists would say that our common sense notions of how the universe works break down in areas that ordinary humans never encounter. So our common sense notions of how atoms and subatomic particles should work are all completely wrong, because human beings never interact with individual subatomic particles. Our common sense notions about vast distances of interstellar space are completely wrong because human beings never travel between the stars. Our common sense notions of the origin of the universe are likewise completely wrong, because common sense applies to things that human beings encounter commonly, not things that occurred billions of years before humans ever existed.

Our common sense doesn't work at extremely small scales, it doesn't work at extremely large scales, it doesn't work at extremely high speeds, it doesn't work at extremely high temperatures, it doesn't work at extremely low temperatures, our notions of how the universe works don't apply when the universe didn't exist.

Human beings may never know the origin of the universe. Maybe it's because the origin of the universe is inherently unknowable. Maybe it's because the last human being will die before any scientist figures it out. Or maybe we will.

But deciding we already know the answer by giving it a name doesn't actually tell us anything. We can name it "God" or "A hypothetical uncaused first cause", but naming it doesn't help us understand it. And slapping a name on it confuses the issue because it leads us to believe we're at least asking the right questions. But we don't know that we're even in the right ballpark, we may be asking questions that are nonsensical.

Given a universe that is governed by physical laws, it is pretty certain that the more activity that occurs, the more order will be introduced to the system by those physical laws acting upon the "random" matter. Eventually, those laws result in self-organizing substances, (we already know of self-organizing chemicals). Forms that arise from such substances will also be, potentially, self-organizing. By the time one has moved through life, from proto-life viruses to fully coherent mammals, self-organization will be inherent in every creature. If intelligence develops among one or more species, it, necessarily, must be organized or it would not be intelligence.

I will not even get into what appears to be a misunderstanding of the word "random" , but there is no reason to believe that an origin sprung from chaos would not resolve itself into order.
 

GreenMeters

Senior member
Nov 29, 2012
214
0
71
Ok, if I am wrong, I am wrong. The point is that coincidence isn't a logical way (in my mind anyway) to establish the way our planet formed, our moon, and tilt. Not when these things make it perfect for life as we currently know it (after all, the other planets can't be inhabitabed by humans).

One rainy day, a pothole in the road fills with water. The shower passes, and the puddle left behind wakes to consciousness. It examines the pothole in which it lives and marvels, "Look how perfectly this pothole fits me! It must have been created specifically for me."

The moral of this fable is that the Earth was not created to be a perfect fit for us, we have evolved to survive on the Earth.


I personally don't have a problem when scientists say they don't know, because no one was here to see any of this, not even God fearing people. So, granted, we have to use current evidence.

Are you this condescending of our legal system, when it relies on evidence deduced from detective work?

But they, just like creationists, teach this as fact, though they really don't know. Creationist (God made this), scientists (Lighting hitting the water did this). Neither side never really concedes and admit to making a calculated or educated guess... or a guess by itself.

No, scientists do not teach this just like Creationists. Creationists claim God created the universe and the Earth and all the animals in roughly their present form, but have no evidence for that. They trot out easily debunked platitudes, and after all those are shot down, retreat with their fingers in their ears and shouting "faith is what matters".

Scientists teach this by presenting evidence. Some of this is after-the-fact detective work. But the curious thing is that all the different methods of investigating this case--the fossil record, comparative morphology, DNA analysis--all come to the same answer. And all the tangential issues needed to confirm the case--the billions of years old Earth, plate tectonics and connections or isolations of the land masses at the correct times, dendrochronology, radioisotope dating, everything--all align with the case for Evolution.

But detective work isn't the only way science has to prove its case. We may not have a duplicate Earth and 4 billion years to re-run the whole thing, but there are plenty of lab experiments that can be run to see if our thinking is plausible. The Miller-Urey experiments and their various successors throughout the years demonstrated that organic compounds could be synthesized naturally in the early Earth environment. Chemical experiments with amino acids and various minerals found in the early Earth environment show the natural formation of proteinoids and from there the natural formation of membranes. Other chemical experiments show that various nucleic acids, including RNA, can form naturally in conditions similar to early Earth's. Experiments such as Spiegelman's Monster and later work show how enzymes and RNA bases can naturally form self-replicating RNA. So far we're still just on abiogenesis. Evolution comes in once we have self-replicating organisms. Spiegelman's Monster is of use here, too, demonstrating evolution of the self-replicating RNA chains over successive generations and in differing environments. Countless experiments using plants, animals, and other organisms have demonstrated speciation in the lab. Countless biological studies around the world demonstrate population characteristics changing as environmental selection factors change. Studies of ring species show natural examples of speciation, where an expanding population meets a barrier and circles both directions around it, and where neighboring populations can interbreed--until the two ends meet at the far side of the obstacle.

All the evidence, all the detective work, all the lab work, everything--it all points towards Evolution.

So no, there is absolutely no similarity between how scientists teach about the natural world and how creationists peddle their myths.

What brings me to my personal conclusion is, and I stated this earlier, our intelligent creation we make here on earth, reflect a designer. Period. I know someone designed the laptop I'm using, though don't know WHO did.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for some people to think, based on the example, that we "could" be designed. We are thoughtful beings, and I think it's a bit arrogant to say that everyone who even had a quick thought about a creator are idiots. Some people simply see design. It's natrual to assume such.[/QUOTE]
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Ok, if I am wrong, I am wrong. The point is that coincidence isn't a logical way (in my mind anyway) to establish the way our planet formed, our moon, and tilt. Not when these things make it perfect for life as we currently know it (after all, the other planets can't be inhabitabed by humans).

I'm sure there are more solar systems out there, and I agree we haven't found them yet.



I personally don't have a problem when scientists say they don't know, because no one was here to see any of this, not even God fearing people. So, granted, we have to use current evidence.

But they, just like creationists, teach this as fact, though they really don't know. Creationist (God made this), scientists (Lighting hitting the water did this). Neither side never really concedes and admit to making a calculated or educated guess... or a guess by itself.

What brings me to my personal conclusion is, and I stated this earlier, our intelligent creation we make here on earth, reflect a designer. Period. I know someone designed the laptop I'm using, though don't know WHO did.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for some people to think, based on the example, that we "could" be designed. We are thoughtful beings, and I think it's a bit arrogant to say that everyone who even had a quick thought about a creator are idiots. Some people simply see design. It's natrual to assume such.

The issue is that you view the Earth as the only end result and not one of an astronomical number of end results. Its not a bunch of coincidences, there are probably millions of planets that have some of the aspects to support life but not enough to actually support it.

Think of it as baking cookies, you bake 50 of them and most of them look all right and came out decently but not something you'd photograph and put in a magazine, but one did come out perfect. When you have 49 cookies that are 50-95 percent perfect, it doesn't make the one that is 100 percent perfect some incomprehensible anomaly.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Ok, if I am wrong, I am wrong. The point is that coincidence isn't a logical way (in my mind anyway) to establish the way our planet formed, our moon, and tilt. Not when these things make it perfect for life as we currently know it (after all, the other planets can't be inhabitabed by humans).

I just wanted to highlight that single word.

That is where you're tripping up. There is no perfect in the physical reality. Perfection only exists within math and as an imaginary state.

For one example: if the Earth were perfect for us, then pollution would not be a thing.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
I just wanted to highlight that single word.

That is where you're tripping up. There is no perfect in the physical reality. Perfection only exists within math and as an imaginary state.

For one example: if the Earth were perfect for us, then pollution would not be a thing.

And there wouldn't be natural disasters and different climates.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
And there wouldn't be natural disasters and different climates.

This perfect Earth was created just for humans. That's why 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water, which humans can neither live in nor safely consume. That's why there is an entire continent, Antarctica, which is uninhabitable year-round, and a similarly uninhabitable frozen wasteland at the North Pole. That's why 70% of Earth's fresh water supply, which humans require for survival, exists in the form of glaciers and polar ice caps. That's why huge sections of land experience so little rainfall that humans can not inhabit them. That's why there are soaring mountain ranges even though humans are unable to live comfortably above 14,000 feet. That's why humans can't tolerate a climate that shifts more than 50 degrees Celsius annually. That's why the surface of the Earth consists of tectonic plates floating over the mantle so that the geography is constantly changing, and also causing the occasional earthquake and volcanic eruption and flood and tsunami. That's why the interplay of energy from the sun, tidal patterns and air movement can give us severe weather patterns like tornadoes, hurricanes and lightning strikes.

If the Earth was perfect for humans, there wouldn't be a laundry list of things that clearly aren't ideal for human survival. It still fits us pretty well, but that's because we're the product of billions of years of evolutionary process to adapt to the environment we find ourselves in.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
This perfect Earth was created just for humans. That's why 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water, which humans can neither live in nor safely consume. That's why there is an entire continent, Antarctica, which is uninhabitable year-round, and a similarly uninhabitable frozen wasteland at the North Pole. That's why 70% of Earth's fresh water supply, which humans require for survival, exists in the form of glaciers and polar ice caps. That's why huge sections of land experience so little rainfall that humans can not inhabit them. That's why there are soaring mountain ranges even though humans are unable to live comfortably above 14,000 feet. That's why humans can't tolerate a climate that shifts more than 50 degrees Celsius annually. That's why the surface of the Earth consists of tectonic plates floating over the mantle so that the geography is constantly changing, and also causing the occasional earthquake and volcanic eruption and flood and tsunami. That's why the interplay of energy from the sun, tidal patterns and air movement can give us severe weather patterns like tornadoes, hurricanes and lightning strikes.

If the Earth was perfect for humans, there wouldn't be a laundry list of things that clearly aren't ideal for human survival. It still fits us pretty well, but that's because we're the product of billions of years of evolutionary process to adapt to the environment we find ourselves in.


I somehow feel that we would be surprised to find ourselves living on a planet that wouldn't support life....
It seems obvious that the earth exists because we are here to observe our phenomenon. ():)

Our friend Rob and others have an interesting logic about them.... I'd not be surprised to read them state that man was created first and the earth second and specifically to accommodate man's needs.

I wouldn't expect to read that Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old and man is here because the natural selection process provided limited opposition to that condition.
Nor that man is NOT ideally designed by what ever process that occurred. In the face of the obvious 'mistakes' they secret themselves away and proclaim this utopia is proof of God's superiority...
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
But they, just like creationists, teach this as fact, though they really don't know. Creationist (God made this), scientists (Lighting hitting the water did this). Neither side never really concedes and admit to making a calculated or educated guess... or a guess by itself.

You know, I don't really care what you believe personally. I like discussing the issue, I think questions are great, and I welcome the opportunity to learn things from others and have them learn from me, on the rare occasions that that thappens.

What pisses me off, though, is when people make false statements about others, especially when they have been repeatedly told that they are false.

Scientists DO NOT teach things that they do not for certain "as fact". If they do that, they are not scientists.

The idea about lightning is a theory. Nobody has stated it as fact. Claiming that any scientist has is pure dishonesty.

And your false equivalence between science and religion is total bullshit. Religions are the ones that claim to know "truth" and "certainty" about all sorts of things, and make it a "sin" in many cases to even question that. As you have been told repeatedly, THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

Now, if you don't care how science works, great. Wallow in your ignorance. But stop mischaracterizing just so you can feel better about your completely irrational beliefs.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Ok, if I am wrong, I am wrong. The point is that coincidence isn't a logical way (in my mind anyway) to establish the way our planet formed, our moon, and tilt. Not when these things make it perfect for life as we currently know it (after all, the other planets can't be inhabitabed by humans).

I'm sure there are more solar systems out there, and I agree we haven't found them yet.

We have found lots of stars with orbiting bits... we've not yet been able to determine if Life exists on them, however.

Life need not be as we know it...

I'd not be surprised to learn that just about every star has orbiting bits. Their distance and other factors relative to their 'sun' are based on the physical aspects in play. It may very well be that among the billions of stars in this galaxy and contained in the billions of galaxy homes in the universe that only on this planet formed the human kind of life.

The most important bit of your comment above is a semi recognition that man and earth are reasonably (you say perfectly and we know that is not so) suited for each other.... No kidding.... what would it be like if it was not?

Just to clear up a few bits... Life could have started here by virtue of bits from Mars making its way here... Or from somewhere else... In the Antarctic are found pieces of Mars blown away from Mars by collisions with other orbiting bodies... comets and the like.
It is reasonably reliable to conclude the water found on Earth arrived from visiting comets.... We've found in our oceans the isotope of Hydrogen, deuterium, not much but the same value that we've found in comets.

You refer to this as a coincydink.... I see it as theoretically possible and maybe the only way to get water in abundance here.

I think the best way for you to present your position is to state you do not agree, for what ever reason, with the various points made by folks in this thread... It is ok that you don't agree and acknowledge that the basis of this disbelief is that it is contrary with your faith... I know if I held a belief based on faith I'd have to defend it (but I'd not cast pearls before the swine) not by debating the facts or theories but rather, by simply saying something like; "regardless of the obvious I am forced to disregard that in favor of this and I do so without proof of my position"...
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
What pisses me off, though, is when people make false statements about others, especially when they have been repeatedly told that they are false.

Take your own advice and shove it down your own throat. It's people like you that make dumb blanket statements about believers because you were "tricked" at whatever religion you left.

Your views are summed up this way: Don't agree with the "scientific method", you're an idiot"... or "I probably know the OT better than you do", and this is a direct quote from you. How do you know? Did you even ask how well I knew the OT? You don't know, yet just becasue I refused to argue and stoop to your level, I must not know it better than you.

Take you own advice, Charles, or just shut up.

Your statements are just as inaccurate as you've been claiming mines are.

And your false equivalence between science and religion is total bullshit. Religions are the ones that claim to know "truth" and "certainty" about all sorts of things, and make it a "sin" in many cases to even question that. As you have been told repeatedly, THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

Great, here you go again, indirectly claiming that I don't question things because it's a "sin". Did you bother to ask? No, becasue you "know" me.

You are really assertive, and therefore stupid becasue you think you know things you've never encountered.

Try asking, enlighten yourself, then...ONLY then can you make any statement concerning myself and what I "question".

EDIT: At any rate, respond to yourself, Charles.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Take your own advice and shove it down your own throat.

I've quoted you making numerous false statements and mischaracterizations of evolution and the scientific method. As I just did.

So, what false statements have I made? Go ahead and quote them. I dare you.

(Of course, it takes a certain level of understanding of reasoning to differentiate a false statement from speculation or opinion. Plus, you have a habit of just dropping things you can't deal with. So I'm not going to hold my breath.)

You don't know, yet just becasue I refused to argue and stoop to your level, I must not know it better than you.

Ah, so you were taking the high road when you told me to "take my advice and shove it down my throat." :thumbsup:

Here's the bottom line.

You don't understand science. Numerous people have spent hours trying to explain it to you, and you aren't any further ahead than you were when you started.

Whether this is due to a lack of desire or a lack of ability, only you know. My money is on the former, because that's the way it is with most religious types.
 
Last edited:

klinc

Senior member
Jan 30, 2011
555
0
0
Tony De Vit. One of my favorite DJ's. Died age 41. He was HIV positive. 32 of his 42 boyfriends that year said they were shocked to hear that he was HIV positive.

On the other hand you will become a filthy rich under a month just doing divorce cases for gay couples. They get tired of each other very quickly.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
16,937
7,898
136
On the other hand you will become a filthy rich under a month just doing divorce cases for gay couples. They get tired of each other very quickly.

All gay people are the same. What an insightful opinion.
 
Last edited: