You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Letting 'em all in the ring
- Thread starter Ricter
- Start date
<i>They pointed out that our galaxy probably contains a whole lot more than a few hundred Earth oceans. Multiplying the age of the Milky Way times many billions of possible planets � and comets too � they readily conceded that random chance could make successful cells, eventually, on one world or another. (Or, possibly, in the liquid interiors of trillions of newborn comets.) All it would take then are asteroid impacts ejecting hardy cells into the void for life to then spread gradually throughout the cosmos. Perhaps it might even be done deliberately, once a single lucky source world achieved intelligence through � well � evolution.</i>
What a strange, strange chain of logic.
Let's say you could prove conclusively that the chance of complex life evolving from a primordial ocean on any given Earthlike planet is extremely low.
Let's say that, further, you are willing to posit enough Earthlike planets in the Universe that the probability of life having evolving on at least one of them, somewhere in the Universe, is reasonably high.
Why, then, would you need to resort to an idea such as panspermia to explain our existence? Wouldn't you just conclude that the planet we know as Earth is just one of the extremely small proportion of Earthlike planets where life did happen to evolve?
Barring evidence of other, biologically similar life in the Universe, you can't argue for panspermia on the basis of probability alone.
Martin
What a strange, strange chain of logic.
Let's say you could prove conclusively that the chance of complex life evolving from a primordial ocean on any given Earthlike planet is extremely low.
Let's say that, further, you are willing to posit enough Earthlike planets in the Universe that the probability of life having evolving on at least one of them, somewhere in the Universe, is reasonably high.
Why, then, would you need to resort to an idea such as panspermia to explain our existence? Wouldn't you just conclude that the planet we know as Earth is just one of the extremely small proportion of Earthlike planets where life did happen to evolve?
Barring evidence of other, biologically similar life in the Universe, you can't argue for panspermia on the basis of probability alone.
Martin
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Bottom line is no one knows how life started. For us small thinkers it seems hard to just assume that something as complex as human DNA occurred by chance. So yes, when the education bureaucrats, who can't run safe or orderly public schools, teach kids to read or do simple math, look down their noses at us, the great unwashed, and pronounce us ignorant yokels who don't "get it", it rankles us. Most ID proponents would be more than satisfied by an objective science text that accurately separates proven facts from assumtions, hypotheses and assumptions, but apparently that is too much to expect.
That's all fair enough, but conservatives should actually support darwinism because it confirm what they always suspected about human nature. It's no stretch to say that biology flatly refutes virtually everything liberals hold dear.
Maybe you should start talking about "SCIENTIFIC LIBERALISM", borrowing from your bloody commie masters.Quote from spect8or:
That's all fair enough, but conservatives should actually support darwinism because it confirm what they always suspected about human nature. It's no stretch to say that biology flatly refutes virtually everything liberals hold dear.
Quote from Ricter:
We can't prove "facts" to the ID'rs.
Do you see how your comment could be said not to have been subjected to Intelligent Design?Response from pattersb: Quote:
what do your "facts" say about where life BEGINS
You know the answer is unknowable as a fact? . Is that what your "fact" says about anything and everything not yet known - that it is unknowable ?Quote from pattersb:
ultimately, the answer is unknowable.
Who would want to suggest such a thing? There is other than Random chance or ID.Quote from pattersb:
If you choose to fill this void with "it all happened by random chance", so be it ...
you are no more correct than anyone
To strive to fill this void with facts, based upon those such as " a dropped ball falls to earth every single time, for everyone eveywhere, throughout history " - theory of gravity facts , you are surely more likely to be more correct than anyone.
What is sickening about that ? Where is the mocking? What is there so mocking about questioning ID'ers beliefs?Quote from pattersb:
but it's really rather sickening to witness people mock others for maintaining another set of beliefs.
Some may say that to form a false argument about being mocked so you can infer others are being intolerant, is only an example of yourself being dishonest AND intolerant.Quote from pattersb:
and we are labled "intolerant" ... blah,blah,blah
Soo... the debate was always framed as "science versus religion" [by the "science" people], then religious people argued from a science viewpoint, and now people are feeling a little threatened by that and looking for a new place to go with the argument, like throw it in with Hindu religious stuff?
Basically, without public funding, evolution would have died a natural death decades ago. If atheists had to start your own atheist school and live or die by the debate over evolution, your funding would not happen for very long because evolutionists really cannot prove a thing scientifically. They cannot recreate creation in a lab for peer review. What they can do is make sure, via political means, that they continue to indoctrinate people in their belief system via the public education system and refuse to debate on the merits of their belief system.
Basically, without public funding, evolution would have died a natural death decades ago. If atheists had to start your own atheist school and live or die by the debate over evolution, your funding would not happen for very long because evolutionists really cannot prove a thing scientifically. They cannot recreate creation in a lab for peer review. What they can do is make sure, via political means, that they continue to indoctrinate people in their belief system via the public education system and refuse to debate on the merits of their belief system.
The debate was, things fall to the ground. IDer's say that gravity is Intelligent Falling. Science on the other hand, explains, tests, demonstrates, predicts, and so puts to practical use the how and why of what gravity is.Evolution is a proven fact. It needs no funding. It has, is and can be demonstrated and proven anytime. Were there the condition that public funding be only supplied to those who can prove evolution is a fact, then the 'atheists' would get all the $$. ID'ers cannot prove evolution is not a fact.
IDers don't have to prove evolution is not a fact.
Just show us how evolution has to be a fact....of ignorant chance....
I don't think anyone disputes that some force consistently acts on bodies in motion (we call it gravity) but that is not a proof of gravity.
Gravity itself, the force itself, is still a mystery as much as we can't see it, test it, hold it, taste it, hear it, smell it...we can only see the effect of something consistent.
That something could be God, you can't rule it out.
Just show us how evolution has to be a fact....of ignorant chance....
I don't think anyone disputes that some force consistently acts on bodies in motion (we call it gravity) but that is not a proof of gravity.
Gravity itself, the force itself, is still a mystery as much as we can't see it, test it, hold it, taste it, hear it, smell it...we can only see the effect of something consistent.
That something could be God, you can't rule it out.
Quote from stu:
The debate was, things fall to the ground. IDer's say that gravity is Intelligent Falling. Science on the other hand, explains, tests, demonstrates, predicts, and so puts to practical use the how and why of what gravity is.Evolution is a proven fact. It needs no funding. It has, is and can be demonstrated and proven anytime. Were there the condition that public funding be only supplied to those who can prove evolution is a fact, then the 'atheists' would get all the $$. ID'ers cannot prove evolution is not a fact.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Gravity itself, the force itself, is still a mystery as much as we can't see it, test it, hold it, taste it, hear it, smell it...we can only see the effect of something consistent.
Stick to hocus pocus and name-calling, Z. You're badly out of your element (intellectual dishonesty and evasions) here, and making yourself look even more ridiculous than usual.
And just in case Z posts with some fantasy scenario regarding my complete and total ownage of him last night, here is the link
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71701&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
If you want to see Z putting his foot in his mouth so deeply that he's choking on it, read from about halfway through.
I have spanked Z badly on these forums. Coincidentally, the 2nd worse spanking I gave him was on his ID thread, where he was reduced to calling people names and threatening TOU violations when his arguments were clinically dissected by a number of members. But the ownage last night was the worst. Check out the post in which he says that the "opinions of ET members are worthless". My response was this
Profile For ZZZzzzzzzz
Search for all posts by this user.
Date Registered: 06-14-04
Status:
Total Posts: 12026 (16.17 posts per day)
...perhaps the most efficient ownage of Z, ever, except perhaps RM's post describing the tactics of the troll.