Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
depressing
225 views
Skip to first unread message
James Pablos
Apr 7, 2012, 7:22:02 AM4/7/12
to
Do you think there's life out there? This is a great post from what of
my favorite sites, but it's also pretty depressing. A good case is
made that, even if life does exist elsewhere in the universe, we'll
never make contact. Distances are too vast, communications too
different, etc.
http://www.universetoday.com/94456/how-would-humans-respond-to-first-contact-from-an-alien-world/
Time and distance are huge, insurmountable problems. The energy and
time needed for us to reach even the nearest star would dwarf all the
energy ever expended thus far by humans. And nobody who was alive when
the craft left would still be alive when it arrived. Including the
astronauts.
I think we're stuck here!!
If we find life, it will be on one of the moons of the gas giants.
my favorite sites, but it's also pretty depressing. A good case is
made that, even if life does exist elsewhere in the universe, we'll
never make contact. Distances are too vast, communications too
different, etc.
http://www.universetoday.com/94456/how-would-humans-respond-to-first-contact-from-an-alien-world/
Time and distance are huge, insurmountable problems. The energy and
time needed for us to reach even the nearest star would dwarf all the
energy ever expended thus far by humans. And nobody who was alive when
the craft left would still be alive when it arrived. Including the
astronauts.
I think we're stuck here!!
If we find life, it will be on one of the moons of the gas giants.
Randy G
Apr 7, 2012, 9:31:43 AM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 7:22 am, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And nobody who was alive when
> the craft left would still be alive when it arrived. Including the
> astronauts.
I sometimes feel that way when I drive through Ohio. I-77 to the
> And nobody who was alive when
> the craft left would still be alive when it arrived. Including the
> astronauts.
turnpike, to I-75 is way too much time spent in that awful state.
Just Kidding
Apr 7, 2012, 9:52:02 AM4/7/12
to
never make contact? Or is that just your own conclusion? And even if
we won't have the capability of getting to other life-bearing planets
in the forseeable future, why does that preclude the possibility of
more advanced beings from those planets coming to us?
James Pablos
Apr 7, 2012, 10:10:48 AM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 9:52 am, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Where in that article does it say that if life exists elsewhere we'll
> never make contact? Or is that just your own conclusion? And even if
> we won't have the capability of getting to other life-bearing planets
> in the forseeable future, why does that preclude the possibility of
> more advanced beings from those planets coming to us?
That would be my conclusion, but it's also the conclusion offered in
> Where in that article does it say that if life exists elsewhere we'll
> never make contact? Or is that just your own conclusion? And even if
> we won't have the capability of getting to other life-bearing planets
> in the forseeable future, why does that preclude the possibility of
> more advanced beings from those planets coming to us?
some of the comments.
Your latter question is answered in its first part. If the laws of
thermodynamics hold everywhere, it's a good bet that they can't reach
us anymore than we can reach them. If the speed of light is the
ultimate governor of travel, they can't and probably never will.
More evidence lies in the gross fact that we have yet to be contacted
or visited. We're finding billions of exoplanets in the goldilocks
zone, planets whose environs could hold life as we know it, but so far
we haven't heard a PEEP out of those billions of planets. That can't
be a good sign.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 7, 2012, 10:41:54 AM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 7:22 am, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think there's life out there? This is a great post from what of
> my favorite sites, but it's also pretty depressing. A good case is
> made that, even if life does exist elsewhere in the universe, we'll
> never make contact. Distances are too vast, communications too
> different, etc.
>
> http://www.universetoday.com/94456/how-would-humans-respond-to-first-...
> my favorite sites, but it's also pretty depressing. A good case is
> made that, even if life does exist elsewhere in the universe, we'll
> never make contact. Distances are too vast, communications too
> different, etc.
>
>
> Time and distance are huge, insurmountable problems. The energy and
> time needed for us to reach even the nearest star would dwarf all the
> energy ever expended thus far by humans. And nobody who was alive when
> the craft left would still be alive when it arrived. Including the
> astronauts.
>
> I think we're stuck here!!
>
> If we find life, it will be on one of the moons of the gas giants.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/76S1dj/humansarefree.com/2011/02/two-most-important-alien-messages.html
> Time and distance are huge, insurmountable problems. The energy and
> time needed for us to reach even the nearest star would dwarf all the
> energy ever expended thus far by humans. And nobody who was alive when
> the craft left would still be alive when it arrived. Including the
> astronauts.
>
> I think we're stuck here!!
>
> If we find life, it will be on one of the moons of the gas giants.
Hopefully this link works.
dr.narcolepsy
Apr 7, 2012, 10:46:48 AM4/7/12
to
Tarp Skidoo
Apr 7, 2012, 10:48:59 AM4/7/12
to
In article
<db3429d8-7738-49d1...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
We are probably just being avoided or ignored for the most part. An
extraterrestrial species would be wise to hide from us at this time.
<db3429d8-7738-49d1...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
extraterrestrial species would be wise to hide from us at this time.
Message has been deleted
sweetbac
Apr 7, 2012, 12:27:35 PM4/7/12
to
ST STEPHEN!!!!
wereoawl
Apr 7, 2012, 12:28:20 PM4/7/12
to
"SY" <21...@accessforall.invalid> wrote in message
news:4f805e00$0$3993$e4fe...@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl...
> In article
> <f0d1aa93-faa1-4e73...@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Maybe.
>
> http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/space_infographic
news:4f805e00$0$3993$e4fe...@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl...
> In article
> <f0d1aa93-faa1-4e73...@d4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/space_infographic
>
>>
>> If we find life, it will be on one of the moons of the gas giants.
I am the only one who matters.
>>
>> If we find life, it will be on one of the moons of the gas giants.
yoker
Apr 7, 2012, 12:32:14 PM4/7/12
to
> Do you think there's life out there?
Yes.
I
James Pablos
Apr 7, 2012, 12:42:21 PM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 11:32 am, SY <21...@accessforall.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/space_infographic
It's not looking good for us, even if space/time were to stop
expansion.
> http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/space_infographic
It's not looking good for us, even if space/time were to stop
expansion.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
marcman
Apr 7, 2012, 1:14:39 PM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 7:22 am, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think there's life out there? This is a great post from what of
> my favorite sites, but it's also pretty depressing. A good case is
> made that, even if life does exist elsewhere in the universe, we'll
> never make contact. Distances are too vast, communications too
> different, etc.
>
> http://www.universetoday.com/94456/how-would-humans-respond-to-first-...
> my favorite sites, but it's also pretty depressing. A good case is
> made that, even if life does exist elsewhere in the universe, we'll
> never make contact. Distances are too vast, communications too
> different, etc.
>
>
> Time and distance are huge, insurmountable problems. The energy and
> time needed for us to reach even the nearest star would dwarf all the
> energy ever expended thus far by humans. And nobody who was alive when
> the craft left would still be alive when it arrived. Including the
> astronauts.
>
Worm holes.
> Time and distance are huge, insurmountable problems. The energy and
> time needed for us to reach even the nearest star would dwarf all the
> energy ever expended thus far by humans. And nobody who was alive when
> the craft left would still be alive when it arrived. Including the
> astronauts.
>
End of story.
Let's get Jodi Foster on it.
Just Kidding
Apr 7, 2012, 1:31:23 PM4/7/12
to
Message has been deleted
dr.narcolepsy
Apr 7, 2012, 2:56:19 PM4/7/12
to
On Saturday, April 7, 2012 1:16:45 PM UTC-4, Band Beyond Des wrote:
> Mutilation theory? Isn't that what the aliens do before they abduct
> their earthling DNA sample sets? No wonder we haven't heard from
> anyone "who knows too much."
No, definitely Simulation Theory. The idea being that with the odds seemingly being overwhelming that we're not the only intelligence in the universe, and the further unlikelihood that we're the most advanced intelligence, and the (apparent) fact that we haven't seen any sign of alien intelligence (via radio signal, visible evidence [some sort of astronomical sign], etc.), then it follows (according to this theory) that we're just an experiment (perhaps not even alive), or variations of that (my consciousness is the experiement).
Another thought, dismissing Simulation Theory, is that we really don't *want* to encounter alien intelligence. Because, unless they share PETA's stance, we're likely to be toast before we're aware anything's happening.
> their earthling DNA sample sets? No wonder we haven't heard from
> anyone "who knows too much."
No, definitely Simulation Theory. The idea being that with the odds seemingly being overwhelming that we're not the only intelligence in the universe, and the further unlikelihood that we're the most advanced intelligence, and the (apparent) fact that we haven't seen any sign of alien intelligence (via radio signal, visible evidence [some sort of astronomical sign], etc.), then it follows (according to this theory) that we're just an experiment (perhaps not even alive), or variations of that (my consciousness is the experiement).
Another thought, dismissing Simulation Theory, is that we really don't *want* to encounter alien intelligence. Because, unless they share PETA's stance, we're likely to be toast before we're aware anything's happening.
Tarp Skidoo
Apr 7, 2012, 3:44:29 PM4/7/12
to
In article
<3037723.49.1333824979347.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfr18>,
Or we may fail to recognize alien contact as such when it occurs,
writing it off as hysteria or hallucination or illusion or whatnot, and
they haven't decided what to do with us yet.
<3037723.49.1333824979347.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfr18>,
writing it off as hysteria or hallucination or illusion or whatnot, and
they haven't decided what to do with us yet.
Message has been deleted
Tarp Skidoo
Apr 7, 2012, 4:17:11 PM4/7/12
to
In article <9ubkfr...@mid.individual.net>,
Band Beyond Des <t...@aiko.com> wrote:
> The Philly nitrous mafia?
Something like that.
From Terence McKenna:
The mushroom speaks, and our opinions rest upon what it tells eloquently
of itself in the cool night of the mind:
"I am old, older than thought in your species, which is itself fifty
times older than your history. Though I have been on earth for ages I am
from the stars. My home is no one planet, for many worlds scattered
through the shining disc of the galaxy have conditions which allow my
spores an opportunity for life. The mushroom which you see is the part
of my body given to sex thrills and sun bathing, my true body is a fine
network of fibers growing through the soil. These networks may cover
acres and may have far more connections than the number in a human
brain. My mycelial network is nearly immortal, only the sudden
toxification of a planet or the explosion of its parent star can wipe me
out. By means impossible to explain because of certain misconceptions in
your model of reality all my mycelial networks in the galaxy are in
hyperlight communication across space and time. The mycelial body is as
fragile as a spider's web but the collective hypermind and memory is a
vast historical archive of the career of evolving intelligence on many
worlds in our spiral star swarm. Space, you see, is a vast ocean to
those hardy life forms that have the ability to reproduce from spores,
for spores are covered with the hardest organic substance known. Across
the aeons of time and space drift many spore-forming life-forms in
suspended animation for millions of years until contact is made with a
suitable environment. Few such species are minded, only myself and my
recently evolved near relatives have achieved the hyper-communication
mode and memory capacity that makes us leading members in the community
of galactic intelligence. How the hypercommunication mode operates is a
secret which will not be lightly given to man. But the means should be
obvious: it is the occurrence of psilocybin and psilocin in the
biosynthetic pathways of my living body that opens for me and my
symbiots the vision screens to many worlds. You as an individual and man
as a species are on the brink of the formation of a symbiotic
relationship with my genetic material that will eventually carry
humanity and earth into the galactic mainstream of the higher
civilizations.
Since it is not easy for you to recognize other varieties of
intelligence around you, your most advanced theories of politics and
society have advanced only as far as the notion of collectivism. But
beyond the cohesion of the members of a species into a single social
organism there lie richer and even more baroque evolutionary
possibilities. Symbiosis is one of these. Symbiosis is a relation of
mutual dependence and positive benefits for both of the species
involved. Symbiotic relationships between myself and civilized forms of
higher animals have been established many times and in many places
throughout the long ages of my development. These relationships have
been mutually useful; within my memory is the knowledge of hyperlight
drive ships and how to build them. I will trade this knowledge for a
free ticket to new worlds around suns younger and more stable than your
own. To secure an eternal existence down the long river of cosmic time I
again and again offer this agreement to higher beings and thereby have
spread throughout the galaxy over the long millennia. A mycelial network
has no organs to move the world, no hands; but higher animals with
manipulative abilities can become partners with the star knowledge
within me and if they act in good faith, return both themselves and
their humble mushroom teacher to the million worlds all citizens of our
starswarm are heir to."
From Psilocybin - Magic Mushroom Grower's Guide
by O.T. Oss & O.N. Oeric (aka Terence and Dennis McKenna)
Band Beyond Des <t...@aiko.com> wrote:
Something like that.
From Terence McKenna:
The mushroom speaks, and our opinions rest upon what it tells eloquently
of itself in the cool night of the mind:
"I am old, older than thought in your species, which is itself fifty
times older than your history. Though I have been on earth for ages I am
from the stars. My home is no one planet, for many worlds scattered
through the shining disc of the galaxy have conditions which allow my
spores an opportunity for life. The mushroom which you see is the part
of my body given to sex thrills and sun bathing, my true body is a fine
network of fibers growing through the soil. These networks may cover
acres and may have far more connections than the number in a human
brain. My mycelial network is nearly immortal, only the sudden
toxification of a planet or the explosion of its parent star can wipe me
out. By means impossible to explain because of certain misconceptions in
your model of reality all my mycelial networks in the galaxy are in
hyperlight communication across space and time. The mycelial body is as
fragile as a spider's web but the collective hypermind and memory is a
vast historical archive of the career of evolving intelligence on many
worlds in our spiral star swarm. Space, you see, is a vast ocean to
those hardy life forms that have the ability to reproduce from spores,
for spores are covered with the hardest organic substance known. Across
the aeons of time and space drift many spore-forming life-forms in
suspended animation for millions of years until contact is made with a
suitable environment. Few such species are minded, only myself and my
recently evolved near relatives have achieved the hyper-communication
mode and memory capacity that makes us leading members in the community
of galactic intelligence. How the hypercommunication mode operates is a
secret which will not be lightly given to man. But the means should be
obvious: it is the occurrence of psilocybin and psilocin in the
biosynthetic pathways of my living body that opens for me and my
symbiots the vision screens to many worlds. You as an individual and man
as a species are on the brink of the formation of a symbiotic
relationship with my genetic material that will eventually carry
humanity and earth into the galactic mainstream of the higher
civilizations.
Since it is not easy for you to recognize other varieties of
intelligence around you, your most advanced theories of politics and
society have advanced only as far as the notion of collectivism. But
beyond the cohesion of the members of a species into a single social
organism there lie richer and even more baroque evolutionary
possibilities. Symbiosis is one of these. Symbiosis is a relation of
mutual dependence and positive benefits for both of the species
involved. Symbiotic relationships between myself and civilized forms of
higher animals have been established many times and in many places
throughout the long ages of my development. These relationships have
been mutually useful; within my memory is the knowledge of hyperlight
drive ships and how to build them. I will trade this knowledge for a
free ticket to new worlds around suns younger and more stable than your
own. To secure an eternal existence down the long river of cosmic time I
again and again offer this agreement to higher beings and thereby have
spread throughout the galaxy over the long millennia. A mycelial network
has no organs to move the world, no hands; but higher animals with
manipulative abilities can become partners with the star knowledge
within me and if they act in good faith, return both themselves and
their humble mushroom teacher to the million worlds all citizens of our
starswarm are heir to."
From Psilocybin - Magic Mushroom Grower's Guide
by O.T. Oss & O.N. Oeric (aka Terence and Dennis McKenna)
Schmoe
Apr 7, 2012, 6:36:08 PM4/7/12
to
arrive but Wereo is staying behind to watch the zoo.
Band Beyond Description
Apr 8, 2012, 5:31:08 AM4/8/12
to
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s01e01-cartman-gets-an-anal-probe
James Pablos
Apr 8, 2012, 7:01:32 AM4/8/12
to
On Apr 7, 6:36 pm, Schmoe <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
> Consider the idea of FaceTime 100 years ago. We'll get outta here and
> arrive
What about Voyager 1 and 2? How long ago were they launched? August
> Consider the idea of FaceTime 100 years ago. We'll get outta here and
> arrive
20, 1977. They've been traveling for almost as long as I've been
alive, and they're only *now* leaving the solar system.
yoker
Apr 8, 2012, 12:34:07 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 7, 7:22 am, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think there's life out there?
Yes.
Intelligent life, with a superior intellect far greater than ours.
> Do you think there's life out there?
Yes.
sparksfly
Apr 8, 2012, 2:42:36 PM4/8/12
to
On Saturday, April 7, 2012 7:22:02 AM UTC-4, James Pablos wrote:
> Do you think there's life out there?
I can't think of an intelligent or meaningful answer to a question like this other than to say coincidences are not uncommon.
> Do you think there's life out there?
Mike
James Pablos
Apr 8, 2012, 5:52:28 PM4/8/12
to
aveb...@live.com
Apr 8, 2012, 10:34:41 PM4/8/12
to
Or failing that, Einstien said, " A problem is never solved on the
level that it was created."
Just Kidding
Apr 8, 2012, 10:48:44 PM4/8/12
to
more intelligent than life here? I know we're not setting the bar all
that high, but still, there could be dumber beings than us out there.
Mike Healy
Apr 9, 2012, 5:01:30 PM4/9/12
to
Mike
devilphish
Apr 9, 2012, 7:08:54 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 7, 7:10 am, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 9:52 am, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Where in that article does it say that if life exists elsewhere we'll
> > never make contact? Or is that just your own conclusion? And even if
> > we won't have the capability of getting to other life-bearing planets
> > in the forseeable future, why does that preclude the possibility of
> > more advanced beings from those planets coming to us?
>
> That would be my conclusion, but it's also the conclusion offered in
> some of the comments.
>
> Your latter question is answered in its first part. If the laws of
> thermodynamics hold everywhere, it's a good bet that they can't reach
> us anymore than we can reach them. If the speed of light is the
> ultimate governor of travel, they can't and probably never will.
>
> More evidence lies in the gross fact that we have yet to be contacted
> or visited.
The window of opportunity for intelligent beings on other planets
> On Apr 7, 9:52 am, Just Kidding <JustKidd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Where in that article does it say that if life exists elsewhere we'll
> > never make contact? Or is that just your own conclusion? And even if
> > we won't have the capability of getting to other life-bearing planets
> > in the forseeable future, why does that preclude the possibility of
> > more advanced beings from those planets coming to us?
>
> That would be my conclusion, but it's also the conclusion offered in
> some of the comments.
>
> Your latter question is answered in its first part. If the laws of
> thermodynamics hold everywhere, it's a good bet that they can't reach
> us anymore than we can reach them. If the speed of light is the
> ultimate governor of travel, they can't and probably never will.
>
> More evidence lies in the gross fact that we have yet to be contacted
> or visited.
opened way before humans on Earth. Humans haven't been around very
long at all, and humans that think about aliens from other planets
have been around for a far shorter time than that. Yet the universe
is billions of years old. It's quite possible that some other
advanced beings came into existence and have since become extinct
waaaay before humans became intelligent, and quite possibly before the
Earth even existed.
> We're finding billions of exoplanets in the goldilocks zone,
We've found several hundred, with fewer than 10 in the goldilocks
zone.
> planets whose environs could hold life as we know it,
million other planets with this sort of "life" before we find one with
animal-like life, and another million more before finding human-like
intelligence.
> but so far
> we haven't heard a PEEP out of those billions of planets. That can't
> be a good sign.
been "hearable" for maybe a 100 years since we started broadcasting
signals that could be deemed intelligent, that means our signals
haven't reached *anywhere* more than 100 light years away. And for
the sake of argument, let's say there's a planet 50 light years away
with highly intelligent beings, and they decided to send signals our
way as soon as they picked up our signals. We would only *just* be
receiving that signal. Now, make a more reasonable assumption, that
the nearest planet with intelligent beings is over 1000 light years
away. I'll let you extrapolate that one.
While I enjoy pointing out where you're wrong, because you're kinda
douchebagish, you're probably right that we will never encounter other
intelligent life out there, niether through direct contact nor through
communications, even though probably millions of planets in the
universe have life of similar or greater intelligence to our's.
Personally, the more I learn about the solar system and planet
formation and the evolution of humans/life, the more I get the
impression that we are incredibly fortunate to exist. 100 things
needed to go right, and another 1000 things needed to "not go wrong",
for intelligent humans to exist.
devilphish
yoker
Apr 9, 2012, 7:35:45 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 8, 5:52 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:34 pm, yoker <yoke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 7:22 am, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do you think there's life out there?
>
> > Yes.
> > Intelligent life, with a superior intellect far greater than ours.
Also, simple life forms, and simpletons, too. (like me)
>
> > On Apr 7, 7:22 am, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do you think there's life out there?
>
> > Yes.
> > Intelligent life, with a superior intellect far greater than ours.
James Pablos
Apr 9, 2012, 8:21:02 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 7:08 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> impression that we are incredibly fortunate to exist. 100 things
> needed to go right, and another 1000 things needed to "not go wrong",
> for intelligent humans to exist.
Hence the reason why it makes more sense to be an agnostic rather than
> impression that we are incredibly fortunate to exist. 100 things
> needed to go right, and another 1000 things needed to "not go wrong",
> for intelligent humans to exist.
an atheist. It's really hard to rule out the possibility that we're a
"simulation" (as Narc suggested) or some sort of special test case.
I'm not comfortable saying "there isn't!" I'm quite comfortable saying
"I don't know!"
devilphish
Apr 9, 2012, 8:43:44 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 5:21 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 7:08 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > impression that we are incredibly fortunate to exist. 100 things
> > needed to go right, and another 1000 things needed to "not go wrong",
> > for intelligent humans to exist.
>
> Hence the reason why it makes more sense to be an agnostic rather than
> an atheist. It's really hard to rule out the possibility that we're a
> "simulation" (as Narc suggested) or some sort of special test case.
While it may be fun to entertain the thought that we're just pawns in
> On Apr 9, 7:08 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > impression that we are incredibly fortunate to exist. 100 things
> > needed to go right, and another 1000 things needed to "not go wrong",
> > for intelligent humans to exist.
>
> Hence the reason why it makes more sense to be an agnostic rather than
> an atheist. It's really hard to rule out the possibility that we're a
> "simulation" (as Narc suggested) or some sort of special test case.
some game, there's no need to invoke a simulation theory to explain
why/how we're here. We've already come up with a plausible
explanation from beginning (Big Bang) to the present. Adding another
layer of intelligent being that "created" us is just fantasy. We
don't need that to explain our existence, there is no gap in our
knowledge that this "simulation theory" fills.
>
> I'm not comfortable saying "there isn't!" I'm quite comfortable saying
> "I don't know!"
greater/higher power.
I'm basically stealing Stephen Hawking's argument in what I say above
- he doesn't say there is no god, just that a god is not needed to do
what's happened to the universe.
devilphish
The old geezer
Apr 9, 2012, 8:49:39 PM4/9/12
to
Aliens are just us time traveling back from the future observing us
for historical observations. Kinda like if we had the possibility of
time travel & going back and observing Neanderthal times or Ancient
Egypt....
.....OR....
Why would they (aliens) want to make contact with a planet that is
still watching reruns of "I Love Lucy" on T.V. If they landed in a
city (a la The Day The Earth Stood Still) they National Guard would be
called out.
If they landed out in the stix you just know some farmer is gonna take
a shot at them with his shotgun....just better to fly around at night
& send probes out to freak out the straights......
The old geezer
ND: Fyfe & Drum Beer
NP: Mist - Thom Brennan
NS: Some Big Ass Churchill Cigar (50 x 7)
James Pablos
Apr 9, 2012, 9:10:54 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 8:43 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We've already come up with a plausible
> explanation from beginning (Big Bang) to the present. Adding another
> layer of intelligent being that "created" us is just fantasy.
We've pretty much explained the whys and hows regarding the Big Bang
> We've already come up with a plausible
> explanation from beginning (Big Bang) to the present. Adding another
> layer of intelligent being that "created" us is just fantasy.
to the present, but we haven't touched the whys and hows of the Big
Bang itself.
I mean, seriously. How the fuck did all the matter in the universe end
up in an infinitely small singularity to begin with? I like the idea
of a "rubber band" universe --expanding and snapping back to a point
-- but when did all that begin and why is it happening?
devilphish
Apr 9, 2012, 9:34:59 PM4/9/12
to
our perception of time. How can "it all" end? No matter what the
fate of our observable universe, I just can't comprehend that there is
a point where it just ends, with nothing happening afterwards. And if
there is no end, there can't really be a beginning.
Maybe our reality in 4 dimensions comes to a "pause" that would seem
like the end, but the whole conecpt of "the end" is just flawed. It
relies on our concepts of before and after, and there are theories
that state that there really is no before and after, that they are
artifacts of assuming that our space/time reference frame is somehow
special, which it isn't.
And why are you asking "why"? It's happening because it's happening,
because there is no other way for it to happen. The universe is just
going with the physical flow, the only way it can. That flow is
called "increasing entropy". Asking why implies some higher being
with some goal in mind.
devilphish
Edwin Hurwitz
Apr 9, 2012, 11:40:11 PM4/9/12
to
James Pablos
Apr 10, 2012, 7:58:01 AM4/10/12
to
On Apr 9, 9:34 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And why are you asking "why"? It's happening because it's happening,
> because there is no other way for it to happen. The universe is just
> going with the physical flow, the only way it can. That flow is
> called "increasing entropy". Asking why implies some higher being
> with some goal in mind.
And here I thought asking why implied basic scientific inquiry. Good
> And why are you asking "why"? It's happening because it's happening,
> because there is no other way for it to happen. The universe is just
> going with the physical flow, the only way it can. That flow is
> called "increasing entropy". Asking why implies some higher being
> with some goal in mind.
thing Copernicus didn't have your mindset.
Randy G
Apr 10, 2012, 11:46:07 AM4/10/12
to
> I'm comfortable saying that "there isn't" any evidence whatsoever of a
> greater/higher power.
I can understand how people think the humans may have evolved, but how
> greater/higher power.
about the many things that we eat too? There are thousands of fruits,
vegetables, herbs, meats, seasonings, etc that make up our regular
diet and are very enjoyable to eat. So did they just spontaneously
appear too? Why would they? Why don't we just eat a few items if all
we need to do is exist? Not to mention all the other things that are
for our enjoyment, herbs, grains, grapes, etc.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 10, 2012, 12:48:55 PM4/10/12
to
Asking "how" is scientific inquiry.
devilphish
Apr 10, 2012, 1:09:55 PM4/10/12
to
a detective.
devilphish
Randy G
Apr 10, 2012, 1:30:31 PM4/10/12
to
is no evidence with the missing link yet. But people still belive it,
just like Faith.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 10, 2012, 1:48:01 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 11:46 am, Randy G <rangri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not to mention all the other things that are
> for our enjoyment, herbs, grains, grapes, etc.
That's a big assumption that because you enjoy consuming something is
Not to mention all the other things that are
> for our enjoyment, herbs, grains, grapes, etc.
its reason for existing.
Randy G
Apr 10, 2012, 2:07:10 PM4/10/12
to
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing
plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it,
according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced
vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees
bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw
that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the
third day.
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of
the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They
will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all
the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—
everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant
for food.” And it was so.
Believe what you may, but it works for me. I'd like to see a better
theory, if there is one.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 10, 2012, 2:16:46 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 2:07 pm, Randy G <rangri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 29 Then God said, —I give every green plant
> 29 Then God said, —I give every green plant
> for food.” And it was so.
>
>
Here's hoping you enjoy your next heaping bowl of poison ivy!
>
>
devilphish
Apr 10, 2012, 2:21:46 PM4/10/12
to
cling to?
For one, what you state is not a theory in any way, but more of a
parable or fable, or just plain ol' fairytale. Do you also believe
the earth is, what, 6000 years old?
These things that we rely on to live are pleasurable because humans
evolved in the presence of them, and the humans that found them
enjoyable did a lot better than the ones that didn't, hence they were
selected by nature. Humans didn't select what we eat, it's exactly
the other way around.
devilphish
Randy G
Apr 10, 2012, 2:27:17 PM4/10/12
to
The berries are known to feed the birds, and I read some medicinal
uses have been known to be used by Native Americans.
devilphish
Apr 10, 2012, 2:33:13 PM4/10/12
to
Science is nothing like faith. People believe it because logic forces
them to. Science leads us to conclusions, even some conclusions that
are not actively being tested, conclusions that we're ready to abandon
should the evidence force us to. Faith in god is to believe *one*
explanation and throw out all objective evidence to the contrary. The
conclusion defines the faith, whereas science leads the to conclusion.
I reject wholeheartedly that there is a god like the one in
Christianity, so your little fantasy explanation is not "worth
thinking of" whatsoever.
devilphish
Randy G
Apr 10, 2012, 3:02:34 PM4/10/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, so where is the missing link? Why hasn't science found it yet?
When they do I will consider it. How many years have they been
looking? And there should be more than one bone found to close the
gap, if there is such a thing.
Science isn't like faith? Doesn't it take some faith to believe the
Darwinian theory since it hasn't been proved for man?
I don't care what you believe, but your 'evidence' is not there
either. Objective or otherwise. I am open for any solid evidence, I
don't live in Texas after all.
And you do know they Jews have the same God, don't you? Well, we all
actually do, you just don't know him.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 10, 2012, 3:21:06 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 3:02 pm, Randy G <rangri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And you do know they Jews have the same God, don't you? Well, we all
> actually do, you just don't know him.- Hide quoted text -
> And you do know they Jews have the same God, don't you? Well, we all
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry. I do not have the same "god" that you do.
> - Show quoted text -
The statement you posted is the epitome of fundamentalist hubris.
Randy G
Apr 10, 2012, 3:33:11 PM4/10/12
to
past. ;)
Don't Jews believe there is only one God? Either you agree, or you
deny what I call God.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 10, 2012, 3:40:00 PM4/10/12
to
I am 60% agnostic and 40% atheist.
So yes, I openly deny your god.
Randy G
Apr 10, 2012, 3:55:17 PM4/10/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, I thought you were referring as a Jew. Suit yourself.
> - Show quoted text -
James Pablos
Apr 10, 2012, 3:55:34 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 12:48 pm, avebu...@live.com wrote:
> Asking "why" is basic philosophy.
> Asking "how" is scientific inquiry.
Huh? So those folks trying to determine why certain states have cancer
> Asking "why" is basic philosophy.
> Asking "how" is scientific inquiry.
clusters are actually *philosophers*?
Interesting!
aveb...@live.com
Apr 10, 2012, 4:02:03 PM4/10/12
to
Like, "I wonder how those PCBs that were dumped near that school
affected the cancer rates?"
Or, "How are the diets of those affected related to the spike in
reported cases?"
"Why" they form is still philosophy/ theology.
Interesting!
devilphish
Apr 10, 2012, 4:36:13 PM4/10/12
to
basis for believing in creationism.
> When they do I will consider it. How many years have they been
> looking? And there should be more than one bone found to close the
> gap, if there is such a thing.
> Science isn't like faith? Doesn't it take some faith to believe the
> Darwinian theory since it hasn't been proved for man?
theory, dontcha?
Your "faith" causes you to lead your life in fear of god, my "faith"
causes me to believe in a theory that has no effect on the way I lead
my life. I have faith that the Big Bang theory is correct, but there
is little consequence to me if I'm wrong.
But that's about the extent of my scientific faith. My belief in
science is based on scientific facts, of which there are millions.
You fundamentalist types always go back to that *one* area, Darwinism,
but I guess that's to be expected since that's the area that refutes
your fundamental belief, creationism.
And what a f'in BORING story creationism is, I much prefer the the
AMAZING story that starts with the Big Bang and leads to us here and
now.
>
> I don't care what you believe, but your 'evidence' is not there
> either. Objective or otherwise. I am open for any solid evidence, I
> don't live in Texas after all.
>
> And you do know they Jews have the same God, don't you? Well, we all
> actually do, you just don't know him.
one and so therefore no one has a god (except what they've made up in
their heads). If you ask most Asian folks, they will tell you that
Christians and the like have it all wrong. If you ask native indian
types, there are no gods at all, just many spirits. Christianity won
out because it was a strong political movement, all wrapped up in
their powerful fairytale that is believed by the sheeple.
I'm getting more and more annoyed at stupid Americans and their
religious zealotry. I always thought that education and science cause
religious beliefs to die down, but f'in America is getting *more and
more* religious, since they're scared and uneducated. Europe is *far*
less religious than the US, and that's where this Christianity crap
started, fer christ's sake.
devilphish
Randy G
Apr 10, 2012, 4:48:33 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 4:36 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Uh, you do realize that there's a lot more to science than Darwin's
> theory, dontcha?
>
> Your "faith" causes you to lead your life in fear of god, my "faith"
> causes me to believe in a theory that has no effect on the way I lead
> my life. I have faith that the Big Bang theory is correct, but there
> is little consequence to me if I'm wrong.
Of course I do, but Darwin seems to be the only theory used for the
> Uh, you do realize that there's a lot more to science than Darwin's
> theory, dontcha?
>
> Your "faith" causes you to lead your life in fear of god, my "faith"
> causes me to believe in a theory that has no effect on the way I lead
> my life. I have faith that the Big Bang theory is correct, but there
> is little consequence to me if I'm wrong.
most part to explain origin. Or are you a 'Dartheist' too?
You don't know the first thing about my faith, so don't even try to
look like you do. I have faith for Joy, not fear. OK, so if my faith
in God is wrong, so what. I rot in a casket. But what if you are
wrong? You'll be the one with regret, not me. I'm fine either way.
> I'm getting more and more annoyed at stupid Americans and their
> religious zealotry.
zealot? That about sums it up for you, I am done watching you play
with this ball of yarn.
devilphish
Apr 10, 2012, 5:07:11 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 1:48 pm, Randy G <rangri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:36 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Uh, you do realize that there's a lot more to science than Darwin's
> > theory, dontcha?
>
> > Your "faith" causes you to lead your life in fear of god, my "faith"
> > causes me to believe in a theory that has no effect on the way I lead
> > my life. I have faith that the Big Bang theory is correct, but there
> > is little consequence to me if I'm wrong.
>
> Of course I do, but Darwin seems to be the only theory used for the
> most part to explain origin. Or are you a 'Dartheist' too?
It's the only one because it is strongly supported by the facts gained
> On Apr 10, 4:36 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Uh, you do realize that there's a lot more to science than Darwin's
> > theory, dontcha?
>
> > Your "faith" causes you to lead your life in fear of god, my "faith"
> > causes me to believe in a theory that has no effect on the way I lead
> > my life. I have faith that the Big Bang theory is correct, but there
> > is little consequence to me if I'm wrong.
>
> Of course I do, but Darwin seems to be the only theory used for the
> most part to explain origin. Or are you a 'Dartheist' too?
through the scientific process, whereas any other theory is not backed
up by the facts.
Dunno what a Dartheist is.
>
> You don't know the first thing about my faith, so don't even try to
> look like you do.
god?
> I have faith for Joy, not fear. OK, so if my faith
> in God is wrong, so what. I rot in a casket. But what if you are
> wrong? You'll be the one with regret, not me. I'm fine either way.
So you do apparently fear the consequences of not having faith in god
(fear of not going to heaven, or fear of going to hell).
>
> > I'm getting more and more annoyed at stupid Americans and their
> > religious zealotry.
>
> So anyone that doesn't agree with your non-belief is stupid and a
> zealot? That about sums it up for you, I am done watching you play
> with this ball of yarn.
uneducated, or just stupid, so yeah.
I will tolerate religion and all the good folks who practice it, as
long as they don't tell me how to live my life according to their
beliefs.
devilphish
devilphish
James Pablos
Apr 10, 2012, 5:23:06 PM4/10/12
to
> And what a f'in BORING story creationism is, I much prefer the the
> AMAZING story that starts with the Big Bang and leads to us here and
> now.
Except that you seem frightened of the questions concerning how and
> AMAZING story that starts with the Big Bang and leads to us here and
> now.
why the Big Bang came to be.
Is that because such questions force us to consider the possibility of
a greater power? It's certainly because of those very questions that I
part company with the atheists. A "Prime Mover" of some sort is a very
simple, elegant explanation for the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
devilphish
Apr 10, 2012, 5:41:40 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 2:23 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:36 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > And what a f'in BORING story creationism is, I much prefer the the
> > AMAZING story that starts with the Big Bang and leads to us here and
> > now.
>
> Except that you seem frightened of the questions concerning how and
> why the Big Bang came to be.
There ya go with your "why" again. I'm perfectly interested in how
> On Apr 10, 4:36 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > And what a f'in BORING story creationism is, I much prefer the the
> > AMAZING story that starts with the Big Bang and leads to us here and
> > now.
>
> Except that you seem frightened of the questions concerning how and
> why the Big Bang came to be.
the Big Bang happened. Asking the question "why" implies some higher
power that's making decisions. Let's not get caught up in semantics
here, I think you mean my (and avebury1's) "how" when you ask your
"why". Religious folks ask "why", scientists ask "how".
>
> Is that because such questions force us to consider the possibility of
> a greater power? It's certainly because of those very questions that I
> part company with the atheists. A "Prime Mover" of some sort is a very
> simple, elegant explanation for the whole thing.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
caused by some "Prime Mover", i.e., god, then where'd he come from?
What created him? We're all yearning soooo hard for a story of
earth's creation, that we're ready to accept a story that's
incomplete? Are you OK with saying "god created all this
wonderfulness" without asking what's the deal with god? Oops, I
forgot, those who believe in god are not supposed to question his/her/
its existence, else thou shalt be smitten !@!?!
And, if, by simple and elegant, you mean brush aside all the
complexities that are really hard to figure out, then I agree.
devilphish
dr.narcolepsy
Apr 10, 2012, 6:10:55 PM4/10/12
to
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:41:40 PM UTC-4, devilphish wrote:
> You're just pushing the question up a level. If all of creation is
> caused by some "Prime Mover", i.e., god, then where'd he come from?
> What created him?
It's turtles, all the way down.
> You're just pushing the question up a level. If all of creation is
> caused by some "Prime Mover", i.e., god, then where'd he come from?
> What created him?
devilphish
Apr 10, 2012, 6:17:07 PM4/10/12
to
The resident Terrapineist speaks!
I've heard that proposed before, but it's just a shell of a theory.
devilphish
James Pablos
Apr 10, 2012, 7:26:51 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 5:41 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There ya go with your "why" again. I'm perfectly interested in how
> the Big Bang happened. Asking the question "why" implies some higher
> power that's making decisions. Let's not get caught up in semantics
> here, I think you mean my (and avebury1's) "how" when you ask your
> "why". Religious folks ask "why", scientists ask "how".
The distinction is absurd. Scientists ask who, what, when, where, how,
> There ya go with your "why" again. I'm perfectly interested in how
> the Big Bang happened. Asking the question "why" implies some higher
> power that's making decisions. Let's not get caught up in semantics
> here, I think you mean my (and avebury1's) "how" when you ask your
> "why". Religious folks ask "why", scientists ask "how".
why -- the whole gamut.
devilphish
Apr 10, 2012, 8:27:45 PM4/10/12
to
possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
your "why").
devilphish
sparksfly
Apr 10, 2012, 9:09:31 PM4/10/12
to
Evolution is a given and the Theory involves the "how" of it. Like gravity, we observe it and, with science, we try to explain and describe it.
But we don't ask it "why?".
Mike
James Pablos
Apr 10, 2012, 9:45:23 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Whatever. You yourself admitted that you're intrigued by the
> possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
> it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
> scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
> for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
> your "why").
Here's an explanation of the scientific method written for kids. Maybe
> Whatever. You yourself admitted that you're intrigued by the
> possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
> it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
> scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
> for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
> your "why").
you'll be able to grasp it:
http://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/using-scientific-method-solve-mysteries
And just so we can move beyond this stupid digression, please post a
link to someone or something that shares your notion of scientists
only asking "how" and never "why."
Just Kidding
Apr 10, 2012, 10:46:32 PM4/10/12
to
up when day and decide it would be a good idea to start this Big Bang
thing that would lead to the creation of the universe? Why didn't this
"god" just create the damned thing and simplify the whole process?
dr.narcolepsy
Apr 10, 2012, 10:54:11 PM4/10/12
to
devilphish
Apr 11, 2012, 12:42:54 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 6:45 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Whatever. You yourself admitted that you're intrigued by the
> > possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
> > it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
> > scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
> > for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
> > your "why").
>
> Here's an explanation of the scientific method written for kids. Maybe
> you'll be able to grasp it:
>
> http://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/using-scientific-method-solve-my...
> On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Whatever. You yourself admitted that you're intrigued by the
> > possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
> > it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
> > scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
> > for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
> > your "why").
>
> Here's an explanation of the scientific method written for kids. Maybe
> you'll be able to grasp it:
>
>
> And just so we can move beyond this stupid digression, please post a
> link to someone or something that shares your notion of scientists
> only asking "how" and never "why."
How are you so dense sometimes? Why am I wasting my time with you?
> And just so we can move beyond this stupid digression, please post a
> link to someone or something that shares your notion of scientists
> only asking "how" and never "why."
devilphish
devilphish
Apr 11, 2012, 12:47:04 AM4/11/12
to
devilphish
dr.narcolepsy
Apr 11, 2012, 12:48:41 AM4/11/12
to
aveb...@live.com
Apr 11, 2012, 2:50:51 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 9:45 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Whatever. You yourself admitted that you're intrigued by the
> > possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
> > it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
> > scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
> > for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
> > your "why").
>
> Here's an explanation of the scientific method written for kids. Maybe
> you'll be able to grasp it:
>
> http://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/using-scientific-method-solve-my...
> On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Whatever. You yourself admitted that you're intrigued by the
> > possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
> > it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
> > scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
> > for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
> > your "why").
>
> Here's an explanation of the scientific method written for kids. Maybe
> you'll be able to grasp it:
>
>
> And just so we can move beyond this stupid digression, please post a
> link to someone or something that shares your notion of scientists
> only asking "how" and never "why."
Here's a link to an actual being and his thought process.
> And just so we can move beyond this stupid digression, please post a
> link to someone or something that shares your notion of scientists
> only asking "how" and never "why."
It call it "me."
Let's use a model of dominos falling. You could spend countless hours
studying the physics of how one domino falling and hitting another
causes other dominos to fall. All of the numbers and charts and speeds
and angles are hints to the "how" of the events. Yet if you were to
back up and see that the dominos were set up and there had to be an
initial cause to the chain of cause and effect, we get to "why."
Why were the dominos set up?
Why were the set in to motion?
"How" dominos fall is a scientific exercise.
Wondering why dominos exist, much less are set up and caused to fall
in to each other is philosophy/ theology.
Another model could be cake. You could find out how cake is made. You
could reverse engineer all the ingredients of the process that makes
cake.
Yet you have yet to adress why the cake exists/ was made.
Maybe it was to celebrate a wedding?
How is mechanics.
Why is esoteric motivations.
James Pablos
Apr 11, 2012, 7:10:44 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 12:42 am, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How are you so dense sometimes? Why am I wasting my time with you?
You're the idiot trying to argue that scientists don't concern
> How are you so dense sometimes? Why am I wasting my time with you?
themselves with etiology.
3jane.
Apr 11, 2012, 10:24:02 AM4/11/12
to
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:30:31 PM UTC-4, Randy G wrote:
> > If that's your evidence of a higher power, I suggest you don't become
> > a detective.
> >
> > devilphish
>
> Of course its not my evidence. But its worth thinking of. Like there
> is no evidence with the missing link yet. But people still belive it,
> just like Faith.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."
> > If that's your evidence of a higher power, I suggest you don't become
> > a detective.
> >
> > devilphish
>
> Of course its not my evidence. But its worth thinking of. Like there
> is no evidence with the missing link yet. But people still belive it,
> just like Faith.
Mark Twain
marcman
Apr 11, 2012, 10:46:19 AM4/11/12
to
James Pablos
Apr 11, 2012, 5:05:02 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 10:46 am, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How is mechanics.
> > Why is esoteric motivations.
>
> I really like cake.
Duly noted, but these dumbasses is arguing that scientists do not
> > How is mechanics.
> > Why is esoteric motivations.
>
> I really like cake.
concern themselves with etiology.
devilphish
Apr 11, 2012, 5:17:32 PM4/11/12
to
devilphish
Neil X.
Apr 11, 2012, 6:42:21 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 10, 9:45 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Whatever. You yourself admitted that you're intrigued by the
> > possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
> > it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
> > scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
> > for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
> > your "why").
>
> Here's an explanation of the scientific method written for kids. Maybe
> you'll be able to grasp it:
>
> http://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/using-scientific-method-solve-my...
> On Apr 10, 8:27 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Whatever. You yourself admitted that you're intrigued by the
> > possibility of some higher power deciding to cause the Big Bang to set
> > it all in motion, which implies that you *are* asking the non-
> > scientific "why" (as in "why" am I here at all, what's god's purpose
> > for me? not that you're asking that, just an example of the sense of
> > your "why").
>
> Here's an explanation of the scientific method written for kids. Maybe
> you'll be able to grasp it:
>
>
> And just so we can move beyond this stupid digression, please post a
> link to someone or something that shares your notion of scientists
> only asking "how" and never "why."
James, you make some points in your posts here that merit a serious
> And just so we can move beyond this stupid digression, please post a
> link to someone or something that shares your notion of scientists
> only asking "how" and never "why."
response, and I will endeavor to supply one. In general, scientists
see the distinction between "why" and "how" as philosophical.
Philosophers have cleaved into two concepts something that scientists,
in most cases, view as one thing. To understand why asking "why"
about certain happenings is such a tricky problem, we need to
understand the nature of "why" itself.
When talking about the actions of people, we say why people do certain
things by appealing to beliefs, desires, and intentions. Why did James
start this thread on RMGD? Because James had a desire to discuss
intelligent life in the cosmos, and express his disappointment that it
seemed impossible for humans to contact alien intelligence. He
believed that posting on RMGD might provide him with some insights.
How did James do this? He did this by turning on his computer,
establishing an internet connection and typing on his keyboard, etc.
But try asking "why" an apple falls to the ground when thrown in the
air. A possible answer might be "Because gravity pulls it towards the
Earth's mass." But if we deconstruct this, the appeal to gravity is
exactly the same one we use when asking *how* the apple fell. When
dealing with non-intentional systems, as we are almost all the time
when we aren't talking about people, "why" and "how" collapse into a
single explanation, a single concept.
In the link to the explanation of the scientific method for children
that you supplied above, an example of use of the scientific method
was given:
***************
"You ask the question, Why doesn't [the flashlight] work (step two of
the scientific method)? With what you already know about flashlights,
you might guess (hypothesize) that the batteries are dead (step three
of the scientific method). You say to yourself, if I buy new
batteries and replace the old ones in the flashlight, the light should
work (a prediction and step four)."
***************
In the example above, the answer to the question "Why doesn't the
flashlight work?" is identical to the answer to the question "How come
the flashlight doesn't work?" In this case, to ask "why" and "how" is
to ask the same thing twice.
In terms of the Big Bang and the birth of the cosmos, science
addresses the "how," but not the "why." The "why" is left to the
field of philosophy, or perhaps theology.
Science does ask "why" questions that are distinguishable from "how"
questions, though philosophy still tends to intrude on these
instances. Scientific studies of neurochemistry, social science,
pshychology and behavior all ask "why" questions that are
distinguishable from "how" questions. Philosophy gets in the way
quickly, though. When scientists start examining things like neural
development and the formation of consciousness, or the perception of
free will, there are "how" questions and "why" questions, and all of
them end up heading down the path to philosophy.
You might be interested to read some teleology. That is the field of
philosophy that studies purpose/aim/design. It is a fascinating
field.
Peace,
Neil X.
James Pablos
Apr 11, 2012, 8:04:14 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 6:42 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I appreciate the intelligent response, Neil, and I'll try to answer in
kind.
> When
> dealing with non-intentional systems, as we are almost all the time
> when we aren't talking about people, "why" and "how" collapse into a
> single explanation, a single concept.
This is similar to the non-difference between most operations of
logical analysis. "Compare" and "contrast," for instance, do precisely
the same work; the only difference between them is the answer that
results. One says "the two items are similar" and the other "the two
items are dissimilar." "Categorize" and "distinguish" follow in much
the same fashion. You can't categorize without distinguishing and vice
versa.
That being said, I think you agree that etiology and "why" have a semi-
distinct place in scientific inquiry. Certainly, when face with a
patient whose red blood-cell count has suddenly dropped, the useful
question is less how the count has dropped than why the count has
dropped. And to ask why there is not to veer off into philosophy;
rather, it's to begin the basic inductive procedural reasoning
necessary to save the patient. Similar instances could be created for
most of the biological and physical sciences.
>
> In the link to the explanation of the scientific method for children
> that you supplied above, an example of use of the scientific method
> was given:
>
> ***************
>
> "You ask the question, Why doesn't [the flashlight] work (step two of
> the scientific method)? With what you already know about flashlights,
> you might guess (hypothesize) that the batteries are dead (step three
> of the scientific method). You say to yourself, if I buy new
> batteries and replace the old ones in the flashlight, the light should
> work (a prediction and step four)."
>
> ***************
>
> In the example above, the answer to the question "Why doesn't the
> flashlight work?" is identical to the answer to the question "How come
> the flashlight doesn't work?" In this case, to ask "why" and "how" is
> to ask the same thing twice.
>
> In terms of the Big Bang and the birth of the cosmos, science
> addresses the "how," but not the "why." The "why" is left to the
> field of philosophy, or perhaps theology.
This I don't agree with, solely because it grants the Big Bang a
mysticism that it might or might not merit. Physicists should no more
shy away from the question of why the BB occurred than the doctor
should shy form the question of why his patient died.
> . When scientists start examining things like neural
> development and the formation of consciousness, or the perception of
> free will, there are "how" questions and "why" questions, and all of
> them end up heading down the path to philosophy.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. And if they all end up heading in
that direction, then maybe we should be taking the hint?
I appreciate the intelligent response, Neil, and I'll try to answer in
kind.
> When
> dealing with non-intentional systems, as we are almost all the time
> when we aren't talking about people, "why" and "how" collapse into a
> single explanation, a single concept.
logical analysis. "Compare" and "contrast," for instance, do precisely
the same work; the only difference between them is the answer that
results. One says "the two items are similar" and the other "the two
items are dissimilar." "Categorize" and "distinguish" follow in much
the same fashion. You can't categorize without distinguishing and vice
versa.
That being said, I think you agree that etiology and "why" have a semi-
distinct place in scientific inquiry. Certainly, when face with a
patient whose red blood-cell count has suddenly dropped, the useful
question is less how the count has dropped than why the count has
dropped. And to ask why there is not to veer off into philosophy;
rather, it's to begin the basic inductive procedural reasoning
necessary to save the patient. Similar instances could be created for
most of the biological and physical sciences.
>
> In the link to the explanation of the scientific method for children
> that you supplied above, an example of use of the scientific method
> was given:
>
> ***************
>
> "You ask the question, Why doesn't [the flashlight] work (step two of
> the scientific method)? With what you already know about flashlights,
> you might guess (hypothesize) that the batteries are dead (step three
> of the scientific method). You say to yourself, if I buy new
> batteries and replace the old ones in the flashlight, the light should
> work (a prediction and step four)."
>
> ***************
>
> In the example above, the answer to the question "Why doesn't the
> flashlight work?" is identical to the answer to the question "How come
> the flashlight doesn't work?" In this case, to ask "why" and "how" is
> to ask the same thing twice.
>
> In terms of the Big Bang and the birth of the cosmos, science
> addresses the "how," but not the "why." The "why" is left to the
> field of philosophy, or perhaps theology.
mysticism that it might or might not merit. Physicists should no more
shy away from the question of why the BB occurred than the doctor
should shy form the question of why his patient died.
> . When scientists start examining things like neural
> development and the formation of consciousness, or the perception of
> free will, there are "how" questions and "why" questions, and all of
> them end up heading down the path to philosophy.
that direction, then maybe we should be taking the hint?
devilphish
Apr 11, 2012, 9:13:41 PM4/11/12
to
getting back to the original thread?
My last "real" post that was related to the thread topic made some
relevant points, but you chose to ignore them and focus on this how/
why thingy. Consider this post an invite to actually respond to my
last "real" post, or if not a response just something on-topic besides
what a dumbass I am or about how I don't understand whatever.
devilphish
Neil X.
Apr 12, 2012, 12:19:07 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11, 8:04 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:42 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I appreciate the intelligent response, Neil, and I'll try to answer in
> kind.
>
> > When
> > dealing with non-intentional systems, as we are almost all the time
> > when we aren't talking about people, "why" and "how" collapse into a
> > single explanation, a single concept.
>
> This is similar to the non-difference between most operations of
> logical analysis. "Compare" and "contrast," for instance, do precisely
> the same work; the only difference between them is the answer that
> results. One says "the two items are similar" and the other "the two
> items are dissimilar." "Categorize" and "distinguish" follow in much
> the same fashion. You can't categorize without distinguishing and vice
> versa.
>
> That being said, I think you agree that etiology and "why" have a semi-
> distinct place in scientific inquiry. Certainly, when face with a
> patient whose red blood-cell count has suddenly dropped, the useful
> question is less how the count has dropped than why the count has
> dropped. And to ask why there is not to veer off into philosophy;
> rather, it's to begin the basic inductive procedural reasoning
> necessary to save the patient. Similar instances could be created for
> most of the biological and physical sciences.
Well, biologically speaking, the answer to the question of "why did
> On Apr 11, 6:42 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I appreciate the intelligent response, Neil, and I'll try to answer in
> kind.
>
> > When
> > dealing with non-intentional systems, as we are almost all the time
> > when we aren't talking about people, "why" and "how" collapse into a
> > single explanation, a single concept.
>
> This is similar to the non-difference between most operations of
> logical analysis. "Compare" and "contrast," for instance, do precisely
> the same work; the only difference between them is the answer that
> results. One says "the two items are similar" and the other "the two
> items are dissimilar." "Categorize" and "distinguish" follow in much
> the same fashion. You can't categorize without distinguishing and vice
> versa.
>
> That being said, I think you agree that etiology and "why" have a semi-
> distinct place in scientific inquiry. Certainly, when face with a
> patient whose red blood-cell count has suddenly dropped, the useful
> question is less how the count has dropped than why the count has
> dropped. And to ask why there is not to veer off into philosophy;
> rather, it's to begin the basic inductive procedural reasoning
> necessary to save the patient. Similar instances could be created for
> most of the biological and physical sciences.
the red blood cell count drop" and the question of "how did the red
blood cell count drop" are identical. There is no scenario I can
imagine in which the answer to those two questions is different. It's
the same as the example asking why and how the thrown apple falls back
to the surface of the Earth.
That said, there are definitely more subtleties to the scenario you
cite, because human behavior is involved. And when human behavior is
involved, why and how are distinct things. Let's consider the
slightly different scenario of an HIV patient whose helper T cell
level is falling. If he was HIV positive because he got the virus
through shared needles, that data set would suggest to a clinician
that the patient had recently started shooting heroin again. On the
other hand, if the patient was a politically liberal gay male who was
known to harbor deep distrust of corporate America in general, and Big
Pharma in specific, the clinician might suspect that the patient had
stopped taking his anti-retroviral drugs.
So that's one aspect of how a doctor would look at these scenarios. A
biologist, in the unlikely event that he was asked to weigh in, would
be focused on a different set of facts. In the first case described
above, shooting heroin would result in an elevated level of opiates in
the bloodstream, and that would directly result in T4 cell death. In
the second case, a pharmacological work up of the patient would
quickly reveal that he was no longer taking his protease inhibitors.
The "why" and "how" have different answers. A biochemiist or a
pharmacologist would only be looking at the "how." A doctor in
clinical practice must be a psychologist and a detective in addition
analyzing biological phenomena. He would be looking at, and for,
other data.
More below..........
> > . When scientists start examining things like neural
> > development and the formation of consciousness, or the perception of
> > free will, there are "how" questions and "why" questions, and all of
> > them end up heading down the path to philosophy.
>
> That's not necessarily a bad thing. And if they all end up heading in
> that direction, then maybe we should be taking the hint?
denegrated or dismissed in any way. Science and philosophy are
complementary endeavors. They are most certainly NOT in conflict with
each other. I believe that any effort to truly understand the nature
of our world requires a deep understanding of both topics. Science is
limited. Philosophy is a field that analyzes some of what science
does not not attempt to examine.
Peace,
Neil X.
Ed Chapin
Apr 12, 2012, 1:04:18 AM4/12/12
to
On 04/12/2012 12:19 AM, Neil X. wrote:
>
>
> Well, biologically speaking, the answer to the question of "why did
> the red blood cell count drop" and the question of "how did the red
> blood cell count drop" are identical. There is no scenario I can
> imagine in which the answer to those two questions is different. It's
> the same as the example asking why and how the thrown apple falls back
> to the surface of the Earth.
>
In other words, the distinction between "how" and "why" makes sense only
>
>
> Well, biologically speaking, the answer to the question of "why did
> the red blood cell count drop" and the question of "how did the red
> blood cell count drop" are identical. There is no scenario I can
> imagine in which the answer to those two questions is different. It's
> the same as the example asking why and how the thrown apple falls back
> to the surface of the Earth.
>
in the context of phenomena inspired by human action. If there is no
human inspiration underlying the action in question, there is no "why,"
as it relates to common motivational understanding. The meanings of the
words "how" and "why" are particular to the
social/professional/disciplinary contexts in which they are employed.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schutz/#SocSci
Ed
Band Beyond Description
Apr 12, 2012, 1:39:34 AM4/12/12
to
James Pablos
Apr 12, 2012, 8:03:05 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11, 9:13 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My last "real" post that was related to the thread topic made some
> relevant points, but you chose to ignore them and focus on this how/
> why thingy. Consider this post an invite to actually respond to my
> last "real" post, or if not a response just something on-topic besides
> what a dumbass I am or about how I don't understand whatever.
Do you believe scientific inquiry should end at the Big Bang? Should
> My last "real" post that was related to the thread topic made some
> relevant points, but you chose to ignore them and focus on this how/
> why thingy. Consider this post an invite to actually respond to my
> last "real" post, or if not a response just something on-topic besides
> what a dumbass I am or about how I don't understand whatever.
that really be our universal terminus a quo?
Explain!
Message has been deleted
yoker
Apr 12, 2012, 9:00:50 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 10, 3:40 pm, avebu...@live.com wrote:
>
> I am not a jew.
> I am 60% agnostic and 40% atheist.
> So yes, I openly deny your god.
A wiki on Agnosticism:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
A wiki on Atheism:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I believe that self-professed Agnostics and Atheists really do believe
in something greater than ourselves. It's just that they will not
articulate on what exactly that is. They reject the Theists
(coreligionists) explanations and beliefs of what this something is.
They see many shortcomings with the theists. There is room enough for
both groups of thought.
Not only that, I truly believe that you are a
very good person, no matter what you believe or disbelieve.
If you have ever read Alcoholics Anonymous, I suggest you read that,
and especially the chapter, "We Agnostics" (Chapter 4) I think that
chapter fits in to this discussion.
This reminds me of about 20+ years ago when I attended some AA
Meetings and some Wharf Rat Meetings. I also found out I was not an
alcoholic or a drug addict.
>
> I am not a jew.
> I am 60% agnostic and 40% atheist.
> So yes, I openly deny your god.
A wiki on Agnosticism:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
A wiki on Atheism:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I believe that self-professed Agnostics and Atheists really do believe
in something greater than ourselves. It's just that they will not
articulate on what exactly that is. They reject the Theists
(coreligionists) explanations and beliefs of what this something is.
They see many shortcomings with the theists. There is room enough for
both groups of thought.
Not only that, I truly believe that you are a
very good person, no matter what you believe or disbelieve.
If you have ever read Alcoholics Anonymous, I suggest you read that,
and especially the chapter, "We Agnostics" (Chapter 4) I think that
chapter fits in to this discussion.
This reminds me of about 20+ years ago when I attended some AA
Meetings and some Wharf Rat Meetings. I also found out I was not an
alcoholic or a drug addict.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 12, 2012, 11:49:43 AM4/12/12
to
This is not because I believe I'm the greatest.
It is because I see the negative consequences of thinking anything is
greater than anything else.
If "god" is the sum total of all, then all is "god" and no part of it
is "greater" than any other part of it.
Because I'm open to the concept that seperation is an illusion and
all of creation / life is connected does not mean I believe in an
anthrompomorphic "god."
These seem to be assumptions that organized religion has forced our
minds to conform to.
It would be like saying my foot is greater than my hand.
They are seemingly different things, but are connected to a whole.
Nor is the head more important than the heart.
Or Marcel Duchamp saying that art was a circuit in which the reciever
was just as important as the sender.
"god" is a title of the process, not the name of an overlord.
I would recommend the Conversations With God series (by Neale Donald
Walsh) for anyone interested in this kind of thing.
Also "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot is great also.
And if you really like esoteric/ new age stuff check out "The
Explorer Race" by Robert Shapiro.
devilphish
Apr 12, 2012, 1:51:15 PM4/12/12
to
As long as we have questions, which will be forever, we should use the
scientifc process to resolve them.
What's your real question, though? This one was lame and is probably
a smokescreen for asking about an intelligent creator, which, as you
should know by now, I don't care to consider, it's folly.
devilphish
James Pablos
Apr 12, 2012, 5:10:46 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 1:51 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What's your real question, though?
Is gravity a "push" or a "pull"?
> What's your real question, though?
devilphish
Apr 12, 2012, 6:44:18 PM4/12/12
to
marcman
Apr 12, 2012, 7:59:08 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 6:44 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2:10 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 1:51 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What's your real question, though?
>
> > Is gravity a "push" or a "pull"?
>
> http://cbskyxy.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/pushmepullyou1-e1304011876...
> On Apr 12, 2:10 pm, James Pablos <james.pab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 1:51 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What's your real question, though?
>
> > Is gravity a "push" or a "pull"?
>
>
> Both?
>
> devilphish
<thumbs up icon> marcman likes this
Edwin Hurwitz
Apr 13, 2012, 1:53:31 AM4/13/12
to
In article
<e63aaeec-f52b-4e37...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
Baby, baby, tell me what's the matter
Why, why tell me, what's your why now?
Tell me why will you never come home?
Tell me what's your reason if you got a good one
<e63aaeec-f52b-4e37...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
Why, why tell me, what's your why now?
Tell me why will you never come home?
Tell me what's your reason if you got a good one
Neil X.
Apr 13, 2012, 3:08:27 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 1:53 am, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com> wrote:
> In article
> <e63aaeec-f52b-4e37-898b-9c0944ee3...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
How is it that you care why??
Peace,
Neil X.
> In article
> <e63aaeec-f52b-4e37-898b-9c0944ee3...@z38g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
Peace,
Neil X.
Brad Greer
Apr 13, 2012, 7:45:48 PM4/13/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:02:34 -0700 (PDT), Randy G
<rang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 10, 2:33 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 10:30 am, Randy G <rangri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 10, 1:09 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 10, 8:46 am, Randy G <rangri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Apr 9, 8:43 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I'm comfortable saying that "there isn't" any evidence whatsoever of a
>> > > > > greater/higher power.
>>
>> > > > I can understand how people think the humans may have evolved, but how
>> > > > about the many things that we eat too? There are thousands of fruits,
>> > > > vegetables, herbs, meats, seasonings, etc that make up our regular
>> > > > diet and are very enjoyable to eat. So did they just spontaneously
>> > > > appear too? Why would they? Why don't we just eat a few items if all
>> > > > we need to do is exist? Not to mention all the other things that are
>> > > > for our enjoyment, herbs, grains, grapes, etc.
>>
>> Science is nothing like faith. People believe it because logic forces
>> them to. Science leads us to conclusions, even some conclusions that
>> are not actively being tested, conclusions that we're ready to abandon
>> should the evidence force us to. Faith in god is to believe *one*
>> explanation and throw out all objective evidence to the contrary. The
>> conclusion defines the faith, whereas science leads the to conclusion.
>>
>> I reject wholeheartedly that there is a god like the one in
>> Christianity, so your little fantasy explanation is not "worth
>> thinking of" whatsoever.
>>
>> devilphish- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>OK, so where is the missing link? Why hasn't science found it yet?
>When they do I will consider it. How many years have they been
>looking? And there should be more than one bone found to close the
>gap, if there is such a thing.
The missing link is a red herring - there isn't some, single "missing
link,", rather humans evolved slowly over time (just like every other
organism). The theory of how traits are passed down via genes is
fully accepted, as is the concept of mutations which cause evolution.
>Science isn't like faith? Doesn't it take some faith to believe the
>Darwinian theory since it hasn't been proved for man?
>
>I don't care what you believe, but your 'evidence' is not there
>either. Objective or otherwise. I am open for any solid evidence, I
>don't live in Texas after all.
>
>And you do know they Jews have the same God, don't you? Well, we all
>actually do, you just don't know him.
That's only true if you believe in the Judeo-Christian family of
religions. If you're a devout Hindu you also believe we all have the
same gods, just that they're different than the ones Christians and
Jews believe in.
<rang...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 10, 2:33 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 10:30 am, Randy G <rangri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 10, 1:09 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 10, 8:46 am, Randy G <rangri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Apr 9, 8:43 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I'm comfortable saying that "there isn't" any evidence whatsoever of a
>> > > > > greater/higher power.
>>
>> > > > I can understand how people think the humans may have evolved, but how
>> > > > about the many things that we eat too? There are thousands of fruits,
>> > > > vegetables, herbs, meats, seasonings, etc that make up our regular
>> > > > diet and are very enjoyable to eat. So did they just spontaneously
>> > > > appear too? Why would they? Why don't we just eat a few items if all
>> > > > we need to do is exist? Not to mention all the other things that are
>> > > > for our enjoyment, herbs, grains, grapes, etc.
>>
>> > > If that's your evidence of a higher power, I suggest you don't become
>> > > a detective.
>>
>> > > devilphish
>>
>> > Of course its not my evidence. But its worth thinking of. Like there
>> > is no evidence with the missing link yet. But people still belive it,
>> > just like Faith.
>>
>> Oh jeeeez!
>> > > If that's your evidence of a higher power, I suggest you don't become
>> > > a detective.
>>
>> > > devilphish
>>
>> > Of course its not my evidence. But its worth thinking of. Like there
>> > is no evidence with the missing link yet. But people still belive it,
>> > just like Faith.
>>
>>
>> Science is nothing like faith. People believe it because logic forces
>> them to. Science leads us to conclusions, even some conclusions that
>> are not actively being tested, conclusions that we're ready to abandon
>> should the evidence force us to. Faith in god is to believe *one*
>> explanation and throw out all objective evidence to the contrary. The
>> conclusion defines the faith, whereas science leads the to conclusion.
>>
>> I reject wholeheartedly that there is a god like the one in
>> Christianity, so your little fantasy explanation is not "worth
>> thinking of" whatsoever.
>>
>> devilphish- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>OK, so where is the missing link? Why hasn't science found it yet?
>When they do I will consider it. How many years have they been
>looking? And there should be more than one bone found to close the
>gap, if there is such a thing.
The missing link is a red herring - there isn't some, single "missing
link,", rather humans evolved slowly over time (just like every other
organism). The theory of how traits are passed down via genes is
fully accepted, as is the concept of mutations which cause evolution.
>Science isn't like faith? Doesn't it take some faith to believe the
>Darwinian theory since it hasn't been proved for man?
>
>I don't care what you believe, but your 'evidence' is not there
>either. Objective or otherwise. I am open for any solid evidence, I
>don't live in Texas after all.
>
>And you do know they Jews have the same God, don't you? Well, we all
>actually do, you just don't know him.
That's only true if you believe in the Judeo-Christian family of
religions. If you're a devout Hindu you also believe we all have the
same gods, just that they're different than the ones Christians and
Jews believe in.
Neil X.
Apr 13, 2012, 10:53:10 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 7:45 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:02:34 -0700 (PDT), Randy G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:02:34 -0700 (PDT), Randy G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
unlikely to be received with any degree of sympathy by anyone who
disagrees.
Peace,
Neil X.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 14, 2012, 12:12:51 AM4/14/12
to
And just to save you some wasted time, science has approached the
"cause" in cause and effect. They just ran into a wall when trying to
find the initial cause.
James Pablos
Apr 14, 2012, 8:09:42 AM4/14/12
to
On Apr 14, 12:12 am, avebu...@live.com wrote:
> And just to save you some wasted time, science has approached the
> "cause" in cause and effect. They just ran into a wall when trying to
> find the initial cause.
Um, science has been inexorably pushing towards that initial cause for
> And just to save you some wasted time, science has approached the
> "cause" in cause and effect. They just ran into a wall when trying to
> find the initial cause.
the past 3,000 years. We're now to the point that we understand the
beginning of our universe, but if you think we're stopping there...
you don't understand human nature.
aveb...@live.com
Apr 14, 2012, 11:19:37 AM4/14/12
to
"We" may have found evidence that bolsters a theory, but we are far
from understanding the initial cause of creation.
"but if you think we're stopping there..."
"...you don't understand human nature."
Please enlighten me, oh ye of not understanding the difference
between "how" and "why."
Brad Greer
Apr 14, 2012, 11:57:07 AM4/14/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT), devilphish
<robsfoot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I know that Christians are taught to fear their god. Do you fear your
>god?
>
I was raised Catholic (although I am completely indifferent to
religion at this point) and I was definitely not taught to fear God.
God was presented as being all-loving and all powerful. That doesn't
mean there aren't Christian sects that teach people to fear God, but
the idea that all Christians fear God is false.
<robsfoot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I know that Christians are taught to fear their god. Do you fear your
>god?
>
I was raised Catholic (although I am completely indifferent to
religion at this point) and I was definitely not taught to fear God.
God was presented as being all-loving and all powerful. That doesn't
mean there aren't Christian sects that teach people to fear God, but
the idea that all Christians fear God is false.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages