to the atheists on the board

shoeshine,

stop fiddling around with the God-did-it creationists' websites.

The palm of your hand will get hairy and you'll go blind.
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Think about it. Here is the chronology:

1. 3.8 billion years ago: Rocks, dirt, maybe a little lava, etc.
2. Molecules begin magnetically putting themselves together in highly ordered, organized fashion.
3. 530 million years ago: Organic structures have self-organized so efficiently that 70 major animal phyla have exploded onto the planet in just a few million years.
4. 2004 A.D: The little bastards are taking over the planet! Now there's these supercomputing ape men walking around subjugating the planet and killing each other off every decade or two.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this is that different from my Evil Scietist story.

so I ask the question: why would you believe the universe would have such incredible self-organizing and self-ordering properties?
More...

Well it has exhibited such properties in our small corner, and thereby shown it is not "incredible" but feasible. I don't quite see the gap of credibility. Your serve.
 
Quote from stu:

shoeshine,

stop fiddling around with the God-did-it creationists' websites.

The palm of your hand will get hairy and you'll go blind.
More...

I didn't know Longshot had a brother.
 
Quote from dgabriel:

Well it has exhibited such properties in our small corner, and thereby shown it is not "incredible" but feasible. I don't quite see the gap of credibility. Your serve.
More...

Well, this has obviously turned "apologetic".

So, going with that, I don't think your statement is fair, regardless of what viewpoint you're coming from.

Scientific integrity always demands that if an ultra low probability event occurs, you ask the questions, "Why?" and "How?"

Example: You fall out of an airplane from 30,000 feet and walk away unharmed. Do you just say, "Cool! I'd like to do that again!"

Or do you ask, "How could I have survived this fall? Was it God? Was it physics?"
 
"Surely you’re not arguing that advanced life can survive on a planet with astronomical temperatures? "


Have no idea about intelligent life, but considering we already
found life in boiling hot geyser streams in Yosemite park
why would you ASSUME life cant evolve in conditions
which YOU would consider extreme???

Maybe on another planet 500 degrees is cold for a life from.
Who knows.

Again.... your being very anthropocentric, or in this case
SHOE-centric with all your assumptions.


Basically.... your being very closeminded to the possibilties and
applying your biases to everything else in the universe.

peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

But let's go to another example if you won’t accept that one:

Axial tilt. The way I see it there's no argument over this one. Surface temperatures would be much brutal if axial tilt was adjusted significantly either way.

Surely you’re not arguing that advanced life can survive on a planet with astronomical temperatures?
More...
 
Quote from dgabriel:

You were the original trickster with the question the sprung this thread.

The goal in using those calculations? To promote the religious agenda maybe? I did not say that Shoeshineboy wants to trick us into being beleivers, just that his arguments are the same as those of the religious right that have a political-theocratic agenda.
Even 400 years ago, the church did not expect Galileo to really disbelieve his beliefs, but to obliterate them from public consideration.

Why would you trick us "only for us to discover that there is no afterlife"? Is that ludicrous or what? If there is no afterlife, how would we discover it when we die? Who said anything about afterlife anyway?. And why does there have to be a God for there to be an afterlife? Why does a God filled world have the franchise on ethereal existence? And can you supersize at McD's there or not?

How you inject afterlife into this scientific discussion is a little puzzling. We can't by definition visit it or verify it, model it or measure it, gauge it or glimpse it, see it, size it, or sieze it, define or delineate its dimensions.

I never opposed belief in God, or George Steinbrenner. Whatever your pleasure. Read my statement earlier.

As a palliative, please note the prior post comparing you guys to to Osama's boys was intentionally imflammatory - even if not entirely off the mark.
More...

Reread the post that you quoted, I made no mention of an afterlife. You are correct in pointing out that if there is nothing after death, there is no way one would "realize" it. What I was trying to convey is that I do not believe shoeshineboy's intentions are to deceive people into believing something he knows to be untrue. Even Osama's followers are not trying to mislead people into accepting their beliefs, they are confident that what they believe is true.

If there were some piece of evidence that could clearly demonstrate the mechanism evolution, but you knew the evidence to be a fabricated hoax, would you present it? I doubt it. What would be the point?

Again you refer to the mars question as a trick. I will state again, I was only interested in hearing opinions regarding conclusions that would be made based on the hypothetical evidence. Why would people have no trouble accepting that an unknown, unseen, being(perhaps with properties we could not understand) must have built the house--Simply because houses do not build themselves?
 
Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

No, wrong wrong wrong. How about that man as a rational being has the right to life? I bet you didn't think of that?
More...

What is a right to life, and why does being rational entitle one to it? Do animals have a right to life?
 
Quote from axeman:

"Surely you’re not arguing that advanced life can survive on a planet with astronomical temperatures? "
.......
Maybe on another planet 500 degrees is cold for a life from.
Who knows.

Again.... your being very anthropocentric, or in this case
SHOE-centric with all your assumptions.
More...

Shoecentric? Now I've been called a lot of things by you guys, but that's a new one!

I think you're still missing my point overall. You're not going to get advanced life in a 500 degree environment.

Yes, I can't argue that some primitive life can survive in very harsh conditions. Hoyle documented this as well.

Also, since we're going into the apologetics of it all, how in the world would carbon string itself together in a 700 degree blast furnace? So far they haven't been able to get it to string to well in ideal lab conditions?
 
Your still making empty assertions based on huge assumptions.

Its amazing that you are "open minded" enough to eagerly
believe in an all powerful, all knowing, being that created
everything, but so strongly reject the possibility that an
advanced life form could survive a 500 degree environment.

Wouldn't god qualify as an advanced life form that can survive
a 500 degree environment? :D

Your being extremely inconsistent here.
If you accept that a being such as god can exist, then
accepting the possibility that a 500 degree climate being
can exist should be FAR EASIER to swallow.

The idea of god is much more absurd than a being that would
thrive in 500 degree heat.


peace

axeman


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Shoecentric? Now I've been called a lot of things by you guys, but that's a new one!

I think you're still missing my point overall. You're not going to get advanced life in a 500 degree environment.

Yes, I can't argue that some primitive life can survive in very harsh conditions. Hoyle documented this as well.

Also, since we're going into the apologetics of it all, how in the world would carbon string itself together in a 700 degree blast furnace? So far they haven't been able to get it to string to well in ideal lab conditions?
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top