Hypothetical question for creationists and non-believers.
Tim DeLaney
Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
system, and it turned out to be different enough to
rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
change your mind about creationism?
For the non-believer:
Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
establish that it had never developed life. Would that
change your mind about the likelihood of natural
abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
origin?
Tim
wf3h
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
>
no. we don't know enough about abiogenesis to determine which factors
cause life or force it to exist.
Christopher Denney
If you walked past a house with no car in the driveway, would you
assume nobody was home?
John Stockwell
> For the creationist:
>
> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> change your mind about creationism?
Believers are not in belief testing game. They will simply make
up ad hoc explanations for anything that is presented to them.
>
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
We don't know enough about abiogenesis to say that such
a planet would be a test of abiogenesis. Science is about having
a theory that tells us what to expect when we look for further
information.
There is no theory of the supernatural to tell us what is or is not
expected
from the supernatural, or to even define phenomena as such. A lack of
knowledge in a scientific topic is not an excuse to through away
science
in favor of assertions of the supernatural.
>
> Tim
-John
Hairesis
Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
We aren't any further advanced when something we haven't accounted for is
explained by something we haven't got.
Fool.
H.
David Hare-Scott
> For the creationist:
>
> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> change your mind about creationism?
>
No, if Goddidit here then Goddidit there too.
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
>
We know too little about abiogenesis to predict where it would or would not
happen or what the probability of it happening in places throughout the
universe might be. Finding one other planet without life, even if it was
_now_ earthlike, doesn't change that situation very much. Unless the study
of this new planet somehow advanced understanding of abiogenesis greatly
(and I don't see how it could) it would not change my mind.
David
Ron O
Have you ever seen the Star Trek Next Generation episode where they
track the message of the progenitors in the lifeforms of the various
life containing planets in the alpha quadrant? Check out the Fermi
Paradox. Some lifeform could have populated the galaxy with sub light
colonization before our solar system even existed. Think of Von
Neumann probes. So your second scenario wouldn't mean much to what we
have already figured out.
The first scenario would indicate that life might be easier to start
than we originally believed, for the religious it would be just
another quirk of god or the gods. Check out the Bible as one
example. Try to find where it says that life does not exist anywhere
else in the solar system or universe.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
Oops, for some reason I read the second scenario as forming life like
on earth not never forming life. The way that the second scenario is
written would be meaningless to the earth example. No one claims that
life was inevitable. We have evidence that life existed soon after
the earth was cool enough to have liquid water, but that doesn't mean
that it always has to happen that way. We just don't know enough to
make any such inference.
Ron Okimoto
Tim DeLaney
> > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> For the non-believer:
>
> >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> >> origin?
>
> Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
It was a hypothetical question that I had hoped
would spark some thought on your part. I guess
I was wrong.
>
> The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I
am peddling religion. In fact, I am A.A. #1123
(The Fibonacci atheist), and I have no supernatural
agent to show you.
>
> We aren't any further advanced when something we haven't accounted for is
> explained by something we haven't got.
>
> Fool.
I am always amused when believers are unable to
construct a legible English sentence, or a coherent
thought. I am dismayed when another non-believer
does the same.
Tim
Musycks
Interesting question...
The universe seems to be the way it is because it's the only way it
could have evolved to this point, all other possible forms are weeded
out by survivalist devices if you will. So life on other planets is
probably a statistical certainty, but it seems the odds of us bumping
into each other might be so close to nil as to not matter.
For creationists they do have the 'out' of lack of biblical account of
extra terrestrial life.. but any close reading of those texts reveal
what it is inferring. ie.
God created the earth for humans, who are made in his image.No mention
of ET because for those people he wasn't even a remote possibility. Of
course if it was written by a divine hand we might have expected some
information on the possibility?
The bible is useless for many things that matter, it is a stone age
collection of 'existential poetry'... mostly turgid and uninspired and
the fact it doesn't address this issue is more evidence of it's man
made genesis.
Desertphile
Suppose your mother had wheels; would that make her a trolly? My
point being, why speculate?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 8:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> For the non-believer:
> >
> > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> > >> origin?
> > Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
> It was a hypothetical question that I had hoped
> would spark some thought on your part. I guess
> I was wrong.
Try asking a valid question.
(Cuts)
All-seeing-I
> For the creationist:
>
> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> change your mind about creationism?
No. Why should it? To think there is no oher life in the universe is
foolish.
If God created "life" then that life has the potential to exist every
where that conditions allow it to exist.
But as the bible says.. God's favorite place is His Holy Mountain in
Isreal. Which suggest that the Earth is God's favorite place in the
universe.
Considering the amount of idiots on the earth, I have no idea why
earth is God's favorite place however. If you murdered my son i would
be very pissed.
Caranx latus
> On Nov 2, 6:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> For the creationist:
>>
>> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
>> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
>> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
>> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
>> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
>> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
>> change your mind about creationism?
>
> No. Why should it? To think there is no oher life in the universe is
> foolish.
>
> If God created "life" then that life has the potential to exist every
> where that conditions allow it to exist.
>
> But as the bible says.. God's favorite place is His Holy Mountain in
> Isreal. Which suggest that the Earth is God's favorite place in the
> universe.
Is that the Temple Mount? You know... the one with the mosque on it?
> Considering the amount of idiots on the earth, I have no idea why
> earth is God's favorite place however.
That is a conundrum, isn't it?
> If you murdered my son i would
> be very pissed.
It was more like a suicide by cop than a murder though, wasn't it?
Inez
For one other planet? I really don't think so.
If you could show that there was no life anywhere else in the
universe, that might give me pause. But then the question becomes
where do you go from there? There's still no rational basis for
believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the
current crop of religions.
My personal belief is that if there is a god or gods they don't really
crave attention and have left us to sort things out on our own. I
think that the question of whether gods exist or not is intriguing but
ultimately unimportant.
Nashton
> On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> For the creationist:
>>
>> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
>> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
>> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
>> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
>> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
>> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
>> change your mind about creationism?
>>
>> For the non-believer:
>>
>> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
>> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
>> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
>> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
>> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
>> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
>> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
>> origin?
>>
>> Tim
>
> For one other planet? I really don't think so.
>
> If you could show that there was no life anywhere else in the
> universe, that might give me pause.
You can't assume there is life elsewhere in the Universe.
But then the question becomes
> where do you go from there? There's still no rational basis for
> believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the
> current crop of religions.
And why should anybody care about your thoughts?
>
> My personal belief is that if there is a god or gods they don't really
> crave attention and have left us to sort things out on our own.
You're contradicting yourself.
I
> think that the question of whether gods exist or not is intriguing but
> ultimately unimportant.
Who cares what you think?
>
Nashton
> On Nov 2, 6:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> For the creationist:
>>
>> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
>> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
>> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
>> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
>> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
>> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
>> change your mind about creationism?
>>
>> For the non-believer:
>>
>> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
>> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
>> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
>> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
>> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
>> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
>> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
>> origin?
>>
>> Tim
>
> Have you ever seen the Star Trek Next Generation episode where they
> track the message of the progenitors in the lifeforms of the various
> life containing planets in the alpha quadrant?
No, I haven't. And if I had, I wouldn't be using it as an example or a
metaphor for real life.
Check out the Fermi
> Paradox. Some lifeform could have populated the galaxy with sub light
> colonization before our solar system even existed.
You would rather believe in these fairy tales? No wonder you're a Darwinist.
Think of Von
> Neumann probes.
I like science fiction and have read many books by the greats and not so
greats.
But they are FICTIONAL.
So your second scenario wouldn't mean much to what we
> have already figured out.
>
> The first scenario would indicate that life might be easier to start
> than we originally believed, for the religious it would be just
> another quirk of god or the gods.
LOL.
Check out the Bible as one
> example. Try to find where it says that life does not exist anywhere
> else in the solar system or universe.
You are for *once* correct. It's pleasant to see that you managed to
keep your inner middle child bottled up this time.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Learn to use a newsreader.
>
wf3h
> On Nov 2, 6:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > For the creationist:
>
> > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > change your mind about creationism?
>
> No. Why should it? To think there is no oher life in the universe is
> foolish.
>
> If God created "life" then that life has the potential to exist every
> where that conditions allow it to exist.
>
> But as the bible says.. God's favorite place is His Holy Mountain in
> Isreal. Which suggest that the Earth is God's favorite place in the
> universe.
if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
god's some jokester
>
> Considering the amount of idiots on the earth, I have no idea why
> earth is God's favorite place however. If you murdered my son i would
> be very pissed.
you murdered his son. i didn't.
Burkhard
> For the creationist:
>
> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> change your mind about creationism?
>
an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
several interesting scenarios could come up:
Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong. Now
if in addition they also live lives that from the perspective of our
religious folks look sin free, that would be a boost for
Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, I'd have guessed (Paradise
regained)If however they do all sorts of things that from "our"
perspective look sinful, the churches have a problem, this can only
lead to moral relativism.
Or they do have a concept of right and wrong. Again several scenarios
possible. The "best" outcome for the churches obviously would be one
where a) their moral codes are similar to our AND there is a clear local
equivalent of the earth religion. So if we find that they too have a
story of some guy nailed to the local equivalent of wood and rising from
the death etc etc, well, that would give food for thought even for the
die hard atheist, I'd say (especially as your scenario has ruled out
contamination).
More difficult potentially is if they don't have such a story, but my
guess is that we just get a rerun of the "innocent heathen" debate we
had in Christianity when the new world was discovered. I.e. it simply
gives "us" an even bigger task to redeem these poor creatures, roll out
the interstellar crusade etc.
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
>
> Tim
>
One planet? No, for this we don't know enough about abiogenesis. As
Inez said, _no_ planet would be more of a concern. I wonder though about
the inverse; if we found life on all planets capable of sustaining life,
we may have to revisit some of our probabilistic models. If all planets
had life that would be extremely similar to ours (i.e. all the earth
species, with maybe slight variation), that would be positively creepy
and be a serious problem for the ToE which predicts that different
environments should have generated different life forms. At least
directed abiogenesis by space aliens woudl have to be on the cards,and
form there it is but a small step to supernatural origins.
spintronic
> For the creationist:
>
> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> change your mind about creationism?
The bible mentions *many* different intelligent life forms.
Man, Serephs, cherubs, Angels, demons etc.
So as to your question.
I would be a suprised, but would be no suprise.
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
If evolution & abiogenesis are given, then life is a property of the
universe at large.
You would find life wherever there was matter (of different types) &
energy (of different types).
In other words everywhere.
Ron O
The point is, to the pointy headed that do not get it, is that there
are already viable options that have been proposed that would deal
with the situation. They are even more viable than creationism
because we know that we exist, but the creationists can't say the same
about any god like creator. That is just a fact. If it were not why
hasn't anyone been able to demonstrate the existence of God? Why has
there been 100% failure of the god did it hypothesis in science? Why
is it that the only god did it hypotheses that are still out there are
not testable at this time? As religious people we live with those
facts everyday. That is why it is called faith and not science.
>
> Check out the Fermi
>
> > Paradox. Some lifeform could have populated the galaxy with sub light
> > colonization before our solar system even existed.
>
> You would rather believe in these fairy tales? No wonder you're a Darwinist.
A creationist that is calling another explanation a fairy tale. Do
you realize what you are doing? It is called the Fermi Paradox. Look
it up and refute it or explain it if you can.
>
> Think of Von
>
> > Neumann probes.
>
> I like science fiction and have read many books by the greats and not so
> greats.
>
> But they are FICTIONAL.
Guess what? They represent viable alternative explanations. It
doesn't matter if they were used in fiction or not. Even lots of
facts are used in fiction, so what? What a boob. They are only good
for fiction at this time because they aren't testable and we have no
real evidence to support them, just like creationism. Really,
demonstrate a difference. That is why we do not teach creationism in
the public schools. It has never risen above the level of
speculation. We even have some idea that aliens could exist because
we exist, if you could demonstrate some creationist notion to that
level of verification you could have something, but you have given up
even trying. Just put up the honest and valid anti-evolution argument
that you have been able to verify is honest and valid. That doesn't
even have to include a valid notion supporting creationism, just a
valid and honest argument against the alternative that you don't think
is good enough. Why can't you do something as simple as that? Beats
me why you can't put two and two together. When you realize that what
you claim isn't good enough is better than what you have supporting
your alternative, you have a problem. Deal with it.
>
> So your second scenario wouldn't mean much to what we
>
> > have already figured out.
>
> > The first scenario would indicate that life might be easier to start
> > than we originally believed, for the religious it would be just
> > another quirk of god or the gods.
>
> LOL.
Laughing when you should be crying is a sign of insanity.
>
> Check out the Bible as one
>
> > example. Try to find where it says that life does not exist anywhere
> > else in the solar system or universe.
>
> You are for *once* correct. It's pleasant to see that you managed to
> keep your inner middle child bottled up this time.
Why can't you? Why have you been reduced to making childish and inane
comments? Why don't you have any real arguments? Why have you given
up on even putting your arguments forward for evaluation? When you
suffer 100% failure it should tell you something, but you obviously
can't get the message.
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Learn to use a newsreader.
Do you know how lame this is coming from you? Learn to use your
brain. Isn't that more important?
Ron Okimoto
spintronic
> On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
.
> if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple,
the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as
being physical representations of heavenly israel.
Interestingly, jerusalem is literally, "the centre of the world, when
you work it out on a map.
Just as the bible says.
Ilas
290029...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 6:28�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> For the creationist:
>>
>> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
>> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
>> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
>> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. �Or suppose
>> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
>> system (not necessarily intelligent life). �Would this
>> change your mind about creationism?
No, you'd just hear those goalposts being lifted. Nothing can disprove
creationism to the true creationist.
> No. Why should it? To think there is no oher life in the universe is
> foolish.
>
> If God created "life" then that life has the potential to exist every
> where that conditions allow it to exist.
>
> But as the bible says.. God's favorite place is His Holy Mountain in
> Isreal. Which suggest that the Earth is God's favorite place in the
> universe.
It might have made the Bible more believable if it had said God's favourite
place was Lake Taupo in New Zealand or Qaanaaq in Greenland. You know,
might have stopped people saying it's just a collection of myths from
Middle Eastern tribes.
Ye Old One
<delaney...@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>For the creationist:
>
>Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
>life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
>system, and it turned out to be different enough to
>rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
>we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
>system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
>change your mind about creationism?
>
>For the non-believer:
>
>Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
>that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
>average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
>establish that it had never developed life. Would that
>change your mind about the likelihood of natural
>abiogenesis on earth?
No.
> i.e. would it make you consider
>the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
>origin?
Most certainly not.
>
>Tim
In fact, even if we search the whole cosmos and find no other life,
that would still not be evidence for creationism.
--
Bob.
All-Seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 6:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> For the creationist:
>
> >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> >> change your mind about creationism?
>
> > No. Why should it? To think there is no oher life in the universe is
> > foolish.
>
> > If God created "life" then that life has the potential to exist every
> > where that conditions allow it to exist.
>
> > But as the bible says.. God's favorite place is His Holy Mountain in
> > Isreal. Which suggest that the Earth is God's favorite place in the
> > universe.
>
> Is that the Temple Mount? You know... the one with the mosque on it?
Such leading questions you ask fish. OK, I'm game.
Right. Abraham is also the father of Ishmael. (his first born in
fact). The twelve tribes of Ismael are the original descendent's of
the Arabs like the twelve tribes of Israel are the original
descendent's of the Jews. They settled south and west of the dead sea
which is Arabia and from Gaza westward. The Hebrews settled north and
east. The Arabs, and therefore most Muslims, are descended from the
same father as the Jews which of course was Abraham. But all Muslims
revere Abraham (and Adam for that matter) as their father.
So Abraham worshiped God on the mountain because God told him it was
his favorite place on Earth, Mohammad assented into heaven from the
same mountain. Which is one of the reasons why the Jew and the Arab
consider God's mountain to be the holiest place on earth and both lay
claim to it.
Simply, the entire conflict in the middle east stems from a family
feud because Ishmael, the first born, did not get his rightful
inheritance when Abraham died. Part of the inheritance was the
mountain and the areas that Abraham purchased from the Canaanites to
bury Sara.
> > Considering the amount of idiots on the earth, I have no idea why
> > earth is God's favorite place however.
>
> That is a conundrum, isn't it?
I suspose
> > If you murdered my son i would
> > be very pissed.
>
> It was more like a suicide by cop than a murder though, wasn't it.
Perhaps that is one way you could see it.
He was considered a great prophet among the Sumerians and many of the
Jews. He for told his death. He certainly knew he was ruffling
feathers with the Jewish leaders. So continuing his activity was
certainly suicidal but necessary according to ledgends. The chief
priest was quoted as saying before Jesus' death that it is better for
one to die to save the many.
Nonetheless. Jesus was an extraordinary figure that rose from nowhere
out of poverty. His influence is still in the world after 2,000 years.
Generally speaking, those throughout history that rose quickly from
obscurity with a lie usually faded into history and became just a
distant memory. We do not see that with Jesus of Nazareth. Which
suggest some type of devine guidance to his ministry and truthfulness
to his teachings.
Some say a divine guidance came when the Roman Emperor Constantine saw
a vision from Jesus and in turn converted Rome to Christianity.
Converting the Pagans in such large numbers is certainly nothing short
of a miracle but it came with a trade off. That trade off was Pagan
influences on Christianity such as Easter celebrations which are
nothing like the passover celebrations. But even with the trade off's,
mankind and the world in general are better off today then it was
2,000 years ago because of Jesus' influence.
The trend that I see today is this: Some want to use the ToE to remove
that influence. Which is a mistake. Religion, despite all of it's
flaws and misuse throughout history, is a necessary element of the
human condition. To remove it would have unintended concequences for
mankind and would throw us back to the days of barbaric lawlessness.
Because the moral laws that come from religion and that guide the
individual when man made laws break down will be gone.
For instance, after Katrina there were random acts of violence. There
were random acts of kindness. Each person was living by the internal
moral code that they had within themselves. That moral code usually is
taught at home and in the churches.
But today we effectivly see the destruction of the family and the
attempted destruction of churches in America. While science nor the
ToE themselves attempt to destroy religion, science and the ToE are
being used by some elements of society to remove religions influence.
A two year old child can see this.
Which, IMHO, is dangerous for all of mankind.
All-Seeing-I
> On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 6:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > For the creationist:
>
> > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > change your mind about creationism?
>
> > No. Why should it? To think there is no oher life in the universe is
> > foolish.
>
> > If God created "life" then that life has the potential to exist every
> > where that conditions allow it to exist.
>
> > But as the bible says.. God's favorite place is His Holy Mountain in
> > Isreal. Which suggest that the Earth is God's favorite place in the
> > universe.
>
> if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
>
> god's some jokester
You lack a genuine understanding of the material you criticize.
>
>
>
> > Considering the amount of idiots on the earth, I have no idea why
> > earth is God's favorite place however. If you murdered my son i would
> > be very pissed.
>
> you murdered his son. i didn't
Everyone that thinks like you think murdered him.
Ye Old One
But, based on our current knowledge, it is reasonably safe to assume
there is life out there somewhere.
>
> But then the question becomes
>> where do you go from there? There's still no rational basis for
>> believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the
>> current crop of religions.
>
>And why should anybody care about your thoughts?
Says NashtOff looking in the mirror.
>
>>
>> My personal belief is that if there is a god or gods they don't really
>> crave attention and have left us to sort things out on our own.
>
>You're contradicting yourself.
>
> I
>> think that the question of whether gods exist or not is intriguing but
>> ultimately unimportant.
>
>Who cares what you think?
Well I do.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
All-Seeing-I
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > For the creationist:
>
> > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > change your mind about creationism?
>
> It shouldn't, but some subgroups will most certainly find a way to make
> an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> several interesting scenarios could come up:
>
> Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong.
You probably do not realize this but you just described Adam and Eve's
condition before they took of the forbidden fruit. Once they took the
forbidden fruit (the knowledge offered by Satan) their eyes were
opened. They became like God and the Angels knowing the concept of
good and evil, right or wrong.
And just LOOK at what humans did with that knowledge..
chris thompson
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
>
> Tim
No. Why should it?
Chris
All-Seeing-I
> > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> For the non-believer:
>
> >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> >> origin?
>
> Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
>
> The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
So you suggest that ALL of the ancient texts, historical documents,
stone and clay tablets, hieroglyphics, ledgends and traditions
regarding the supernatural that has been handed down to us from
ancient man in every culture on the PLANET is all obe big lie?
BWAHAhahahahaha!!!!
GiGaBytes of laughter!!!!
OH! HaHAHA!!!!!
Oh my. You really are a freak of nature.
>
> We aren't any further advanced when something we haven't accounted for is
> explained by something we haven't got.
Having SO much recorded about the supernatural that is still
unexplained is not advancing mankind. Probably because people such as
your self have your head buried too far up your ass to want to find
out more about it.
>
> Fool.
>
THAT would be you.
> H.
--
The face of an Angel, the mind of a god has
The All Seeing I
wf3h
> > track the message of the progenitors in the lifeforms of the various
> > life containing planets in the alpha quadrant?
>
> No, I haven't. And if I had, I wouldn't be using it as an example or a
> metaphor for real life.
says the guy who uses gossip, hearsay and 2000 year old garbled texts
as metaphors for real life
every time creationists speak, they contradict themselves
> >
> > Paradox. Some lifeform could have populated the galaxy with sub light
> > colonization before our solar system even existed.
>
> You would rather believe in these fairy tales? No wonder you're a Darwinist.
says the guy who thinks a game of 'telephone' is a link to the word of
god.
>
> Think of Von
>
> > Neumann probes.
>
> I like science fiction and have read many books by the greats and not so
> greats.
no surprise. creationism isn't even science fiction.
wf3h
> On Nov 3, 5:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
conditions allow it to exist.
>
> > > But as the bible says.. God's favorite place is His Holy Mountain in
> > > Isreal. Which suggest that the Earth is God's favorite place in the
> > > universe.
>
> > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
>
> > god's some jokester
>
> You lack a genuine understanding of the material you criticize.
IOW you can't defend your postion so choose a meaningless response.
yep. that's what creationists do
>
>
>
> > > Considering the amount of idiots on the earth, I have no idea why
> > > earth is God's favorite place however. If you murdered my son i would
> > > be very pissed.
>
> > you murdered his son. i didn't
>
> Everyone that thinks like you think murdered him
since i dont even believe in him, it's impossible for me to have had a
role in his murder.
you, OTOH...
wf3h
> On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
>
> The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple,
> the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as
> being physical representations of heavenly israel.
>
> Interestingly, jerusalem is literally, "the centre of the world, when
> you work it out on a map.
>
so god is a god of war? whatever happened to the 'prince of peace'?
and how does a sphere's surface have a 'center?'
wf3h
>
> You probably do not realize this but you just described Adam and Eve's
> condition before they took of the forbidden fruit. Once they took the
> forbidden fruit (the knowledge offered by Satan) their eyes were
> opened. They became like God and the Angels knowing the concept of
> good and evil, right or wrong.
>
so it was god's intention that we were mindless robots and, when we go
to heaven we'll be mindless robots again, but in the meantime we get
fucked because we're smart.
gee. some view of god you got
All-Seeing-I
Old Wf-retard is in serious need of a competent mental health
professional.
All-Seeing-I
> On Nov 2, 8:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> For the non-believer:
>
> > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> > >> origin?
>
> > Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
>
> would spark some thought on your part. I guess
> I was wrong.
>
No. You were not wrong. You have sparked some good questions and
answers.
>
>
> > The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
>
> You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I
> am peddling religion. In fact, I am A.A. #1123
> (The Fibonacci atheist), and I have no supernatural
> agent to show you.
>
>
>
> > We aren't any further advanced when something we haven't accounted for is
> > explained by something we haven't got.
>
> > Fool.
>
> I am always amused when believers are unable to
> construct a legible English sentence, or a coherent
> thought. I am dismayed when another non-believer
> does the same.
>
> Tim
Why? You athiest pukes cannot undersatand the simplest of biblical
concepts.
I putforth a theory why. Here. I'll save you the trouble of finding
it.
=============================================
"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
=============================================
John Wilkins
<5090e5e6-785b-456c...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Well, when he was unable to stop those with chariots of iron, he
decided that he was on a better bet as a god of peace. It also meant
that his followers were able to exclaim, after they had slaughtered all
the men and boys, that they were bringing peace to those left.
>
> and how does a sphere's surface have a 'center?'
>
I don't know, but I do know it's in Australia
J. J. Lodder
> For the creationist:
>
> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> change your mind about creationism?
Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience
for a much better christian puzzle.
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
Why do you think it might?
Jan
All-Seeing-I
Actually you are correct for a change. My jaw hit the floor.
In order to actually enjoy a utopia you need free will. With free will
you can understand exactly what the difference is between a real
Utopian and a non-Utopian existence. Not knowing the difference
between right and wrong is not having free will. One cannot understand
what hot is until they experience what cold is to compare.
But having free will comes with responsibility to use it properly.
This is where mankind has always had a problem. Let's take you for
instance. You deny the existence of your creator with your free will
based on your five senses that are limited when compared to even the
animals senses. You assume because you cannot see a creator, then a
creator must not exist.
Which is quite self limiting if you ask me. But then all evolutionist
seem to be self limited and living in a world that self imposes
physical limitations.
Can't you even TRY to develop your perception? When you do, you will
find it to be sharper then your other senses.
Burkhard
> On Nov 3, 5:46 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > > For the creationist:
>
> > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > change your mind about creationism?
>
> > It shouldn't, but some subgroups will most certainly find a way to make
> > an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> > several interesting scenarios could come up:
>
> > Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong.
>
> [cut to a specific point]
>
> You probably do not realize this
Since my analysis was essentially a rendition of current theological
studies on the problem of extraterretial life, yes, i was aware of
this link, thanks you.
but you just described Adam and Eve's
> condition before they took of the forbidden fruit. Once they took the
> forbidden fruit (the knowledge offered by Satan) their eyes were
> opened. They became like God and the Angels knowing the concept of
> good and evil, right or wrong.
>
> And just LOOK at what humans did with that knowledge..
You mean increase life expectancy manifold? Great stuff, I'd say
All-Seeing-I
> Hi Tim,
> Interesting question...
> The universe seems to be the way it is because it's the only way it
> could have evolved to this point, all other possible forms are weeded
> out by survivalist devices if you will. So life on other planets is
> probably a statistical certainty, but it seems the odds of us bumping
> into each other might be so close to nil as to not matter.
>
> For creationists they do have the 'out' of lack of biblical account of
> extra terrestrial life.. but any close reading of those texts reveal
> what it is inferring. ie.
> God created the earth for humans, who are made in his image.No mention
> of ET because for those people he wasn't even a remote possibility. Of
> course if it was written by a divine hand we might have expected some
> information on the possibility?
heh.. What do you think "sons of god" coming down to earth from the
heavens and taking "mortal" women as wives (as plainly stated in
Genesis) means?
They were extraterrestrial.
> The bible is useless for many things that matter, it is a stone age
> collection of 'existential poetry'... mostly turgid and uninspired and
> the fact it doesn't address this issue is more evidence of it's man
> made genesis.
You freaks just do not understand the book you love to criticize so
much.
Tim DeLaney
> On Nov 2, 7:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> For the non-believer:
>
> > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> > >> origin?
>
> > Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
>
> > The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
>
> So you suggest that ALL of the ancient texts, historical documents,
> stone and clay tablets, hieroglyphics, ledgends and traditions
> regarding the supernatural that has been handed down to us from
> ancient man in every culture on the PLANET is all obe big lie?
>
> BWAHAhahahahaha!!!!
>
Not one big lie, but rather lots of little lies. If the Christian
version of creation is true, then the Tibetan, Hopi, Hindu and
Buddhist versions are false. IOW the many different versions, most of
which are necessarily false, are very strong evidence that man has
invented them.
Tim
<snip>
Kermit
> On Nov 2, 7:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> For the non-believer:
>
> > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> > >> origin?
>
> > Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
>
> > The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
>
> So you suggest that ALL of the ancient texts, historical documents,
> stone and clay tablets, hieroglyphics, ledgends and traditions
> regarding the supernatural that has been handed down to us from
> ancient man in every culture on the PLANET is all obe big lie?
Lies, poetry, metaphor, shamanistic training, moral instruction,
history, a call to rebellious arms, cultural communications the
nature of which we have forgotten, best guesses based on little
reliable evidence, all mixed in different proportions.
Why do you think that the most fantastic stories, contrary to
observable facts, are concrete and true?
>
> BWAHAhahahahaha!!!!
>
> GiGaBytes of laughter!!!!
>
> OH! HaHAHA!!!!!
>
> Oh my. You really are a freak of nature.
Yes, yes. And we know this because you say so. Certainly not because
you have any actual evidence.
>
>
>
> > We aren't any further advanced when something we haven't accounted for is
> > explained by something we haven't got.
>
> Having SO much recorded about the supernatural that is still
> unexplained is not advancing mankind. Probably because people such as
> your self have your head buried too far up your ass to want to find
> out more about it.
Sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know". More often than not,
the answer is "we don't know, but it's probably something quite
mundane".
>
>
> > Fool.
>
> THAT would be you.
>
Yes, we know. We are idiots because we don't believe your fantastic
claims which are refuted by facts. After all, you *say that you are
correct. Say, are you interested in buying a bridge?
> > H.
>
> --
> The face of an Angel, the mind of a god has
>
> The All Seeing I
You forgot "humble". You should remind people of how humble you are.
Your humility is only matched by the convincing nature of your
arguments.
Kermit
Friar Broccoli
> Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > For the creationist:
>
> > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > change your mind about creationism?
>
> Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience
> for a much better christian puzzle.
Care to provide a Coles Notes summary?
Kermit
> On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
>
> The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple,
> the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as
> being physical representations of heavenly israel.
>
> Interestingly, jerusalem is literally, "the centre of the world, when
> you work it out on a map.
The Chinese name for China translates as "The Middle Kingdom". Look at
any Chinese map, and it is clearly in the center of the world.
>
> http://img156.imageshack.us/i/83589738.jpg/][IMG]http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1834/83589738.th.jpg
>
> Just as the bible says.
Kermit
Mike Lyle
[...]=============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
And God feels OK about that?
If not, why does he allow it?
If he doesn't mind, then it doesn't matter.
Or is he some sort of Celestial Daily Mail editor who needs to create
things to hate?
--
Mike.
John Harshman
> For the creationist:
>
> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> change your mind about creationism?
>
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
Because two data points give you so much more information than one?
And let me point out that you have entertained the Pagano fallacy here,
assuming that there are only two possible viewpoints: creationism and
atheism.
Mike Lyle
[...]>
> He was considered a great prophet among the Sumerians
The Sumerians? Gosh!
>
[...]
--
Mike.
Will in New Haven
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================-
And your god will presumably cause them to suffer endless torment for
this chemical deficiency? It must make you feel all warm and smug to
worship this evil piece of shit. This is the second time you have re-
created hard-line Calvinism with a biochemical disguise. Well, the
hard-line Calvinists were smug evil pieces of shit too. Just like
you.
--
Will in New Haven
Tim DeLaney
>
> > For the creationist:
>
> > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > change your mind about creationism?
>
> foolish.
>
> If God created "life" then that life has the potential to exist every
>
If you think life would develop wherever the conditions are favorable,
then I would agree.
But if you believe that life on earth was divinely created, then
presumably all life in the universe is also divinely created. My
reading of Genesis is that God created all the other life forms only
for man to have dominion over. He didn't create them as a hobby.
Taking Genesis literally and logically, we must expect that wherever
God has created life of any sort, so must he have created Man. After
all, if creationism is true, then there is no reason to suppose that
Man would not have been created on two (or more) different planets, is
there?
If God is so desirous of worship and adoration, it seems inevitable
that there would be a vast number of planets in the universe that are
inhabited by Man, and all of them would have at least one religion
that worships a triune God. IOW, it is only logical that the universe
be a *Christian* universe.
If this turns out not to be true, then Christianity will have been
shown to be false, wouldn't you agree?
Tim
Kermit
> Inez wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> For the creationist:
>
> >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> >> change your mind about creationism?
>
>
> >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> >> origin?
>
>
> > For one other planet? I really don't think so.
>
> > If you could show that there was no life anywhere else in the
> > universe, that might give me pause.
>
> You can't assume there is life elsewhere in the Universe.
If we think, in the near future, that we have the process of
abiogenesis worked out, then we would expect to find it in most places
where those conditions are met. One planet might be an outlier, but if
we fail to find life in multiple places where we would expect to find
it, then the theory would be called into question.
>
> > But then the question becomes
> > where do you go from there? There's still no rational basis for
> > believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the
> > current crop of religions.
>
> And why should anybody care about your thoughts?
>
Other people are sane, polite, and interested in various subjects,
including this one. The question might better be phrased, why the
bloody hell do you hang out here if you are *not interested?
>
>
> > My personal belief is that if there is a god or gods they don't really
> > crave attention and have left us to sort things out on our own.
>
> You're contradicting yourself.
Not at all. You and most other creationists are claiming that one or
more gods made everything, but it certainly appears as though those
gods are not interested in making themselves known. The only
alternative would be that the creators are incapable of contacting us,
which seems unlikely for such powerful entities, don't you think?
Besides, magical solutions which can't be tested are not scientific
hypotheses.
> > I
> > think that the question of whether gods exist or not is intriguing but
> > ultimately unimportant.
>
> Who cares what you think?
>
>
I do, which is why I frequent this newsgroup.
Why are *you here?
<bratty kid>
"I don't care what you think."
"I still don't care what you think."
<three weeks later>
"I *still don't care what you think!"
"Don't you hear me?!"
<repeat for years>
This is a puzzle. Not an particularly interesting one, but a puzzle
nonetheless.
Kermit
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
True, I have implied that creationism and atheism are mutually
exclusive. But nothing I wrote implies that these two viewpoints are
the only two possible.
Tim
John Harshman
> On Nov 3, 11:07 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Tim DeLaney wrote:
>>> For the creationist:
>>> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
>>> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
>>> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
>>> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
>>> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
>>> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
>>> change your mind about creationism?
>>> For the non-believer:
>>> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
>>> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
>>> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
>>> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
>>> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
>>> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
>>> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
>>> origin?
>> Because two data points give you so much more information than one?
>>
>> And let me point out that you have entertained the Pagano fallacy here,
>> assuming that there are only two possible viewpoints: creationism and
>> atheism.
> True, I have implied that creationism and atheism are mutually
> exclusive. But nothing I wrote implies that these two viewpoints are
> the only two possible.
You may not have intended that implication. But why ask question two
only of non-believers?
Steven L.
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
I would argue that your premise is invalid.
You will NEVER find an identical twin to the Earth, anywhere in the
Universe.
All real estate (including planetary real estate!) is governed by
location, location, location.
The mere fact that this putative planet is elsewhere in the Galaxy,
means that it has been exposed to different radiation fluxes from
different nearby supernovae, different gravitational perturbations from
nearby stars resulting in more (or fewer) cometary impacts and asteroid
impacts, etc. Perhaps the planet itself sustained more (or fewer)
collisions, like the one in Earth's distant past that seems to have
given us our large Moon and the tides it raises in our oceans.
So the Earth is unique. No other planet in the entire Universe is
*exactly* like it. This putative planet you speak of may be similar to
the Earth in some ways, different in others.
And we don't know if those differences are why life on Earth developed
here, but not there. It could well be that life on Earth developed
precisely because of the conditions at its location--at the edge of the
Orion Arm of the Galaxy.
At the present time, we just don't know which characteristics of Earth
were necessary for the emergence of life--and which were irrelevant or
extraneous.
Hence there is no reason to invoke supernaturalism to explain life on
Earth. At least, not yet.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Vend
> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> change your mind about creationism?
I'm no creationist, but I think that their answer would be 'goddidit'.
> For the non-believer:
>
> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> abiogenesis on earth?
No.
Unless you can show that spontaneous abiogenesis is impossible in
earth-like planets, but it is possible elsewhere.
> i.e. would it make you consider
> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> origin?
No.
hersheyh
> On Nov 3, 5:46 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > For the creationist:
>
> > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > change your mind about creationism?
>
> > an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> > several interesting scenarios could come up:
>
> > Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong.
>
> [cut to a specific point]
>
> condition before they took of the forbidden fruit. Once they took the
> forbidden fruit (the knowledge offered by Satan) their eyes were
> opened. They became like God and the Angels knowing the concept of
> good and evil, right or wrong.
>
> And just LOOK at what humans did with that knowledge..
I have always wondered about the morality of a God who would create
creatures without the knowledge of "good and evil, right or wrong",
proceeds to tell them not to do something, and then punishes them for
doing it. Even though they have just been described as having no idea
that disobeying God's demands was "evil or wrong". It would be like
torturing an infant for pooping in its diapers rather than on the
toilet.
[BTW, don't we call people without a sense of "good and evil, right
or wrong" sociopaths? Did God intentionally create humans to be
sociopaths? I am looking at what humans did with the knowledge of
"good and evil". Most of them choose to do good (as defined locally)
most of the time.]
Steven L.
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
>> For the creationist:
>>
>> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
>> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
>> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
>> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
>> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
>> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
>> change your mind about creationism?
>>
> It shouldn't, but some subgroups will most certainly find a way to make
> an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> several interesting scenarios could come up:
>
> if in addition they also live lives that from the perspective of our
> religious folks look sin free, that would be a boost for
> Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, I'd have guessed (Paradise
> regained)If however they do all sorts of things that from "our"
> perspective look sinful, the churches have a problem, this can only
> lead to moral relativism.
I've often wondered what would happen if SETI made contact with an
intelligent alien civilization, and those aliens told us that they
consider themselves to be the chosen people of God--"not you Earth people."
Vend
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > For the creationist:
>
> > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > change your mind about creationism?
>
> It shouldn't, but some subgroups will most certainly find a way to make
> an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> several interesting scenarios could come up:
>
> Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong. Now
> if in addition they also live lives that from the perspective of our
> religious folks look sin free, that would be a boost for
> Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, I'd have guessed (Paradise
> regained)
Why?
>If however they do all sorts of things that from "our"
> perspective look sinful, the churches have a problem, this can only
> lead to moral relativism.
The religious people would just say that the aliens are uncivilized
heathens.
> Or they do have a concept of right and wrong. Again several scenarios
> possible. The "best" outcome for the churches obviously would be one
> where a) their moral codes are similar to our AND there is a clear local
> equivalent of the earth religion. So if we find that they too have a
> story of some guy nailed to the local equivalent of wood and rising from
> the death etc etc, well, that would give food for thought even for the
> die hard atheist, I'd say (especially as your scenario has ruled out
> contamination).
Maybe they just have similar needs and came up with a similar
religion.
In fact, the concept of a death-and-rebirth man-god appeared multiple
times on the earth.
> More difficult potentially is if they don't have such a story, but my
> guess is that we just get a rerun of the "innocent heathen" debate we
> had in Christianity when the new world was discovered. I.e. it simply
> gives "us" an even bigger task to redeem these poor creatures, roll out
> the interstellar crusade etc.
If they have some valuable resource on their planet and they are
military inferior to us that's pretty sure.
> One planet? No, for this we don't know enough about abiogenesis. As
> Inez said, _no_ planet would be more of a concern. I wonder though about
> the inverse; if we found life on all planets capable of sustaining life,
> we may have to revisit some of our probabilistic models. If all planets
> had life that would be extremely similar to ours (i.e. all the earth
> species, with maybe slight variation), that would be positively creepy
> and be a serious problem for the ToE which predicts that different
> environments should have generated different life forms. At least
> directed abiogenesis by space aliens woudl have to be on the cards
Correct.
>,and
> form there it is but a small step to supernatural origins.
I don't think so.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
They recommended a lobotomy, but when they *finally* cut through his
skull, there was nothing to labotomise.
Steven L.
> On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> For the creationist:
>>
>> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
>> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
>> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
>> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
>> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
>> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
>> change your mind about creationism?
>>
>>
>> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
>> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
>> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
>> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
>> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
>> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
>> origin?
>>
>
> For one other planet? I really don't think so.
>
> If you could show that there was no life anywhere else in the
> where do you go from there? There's still no rational basis for
> believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the
> current crop of religions.
I think what the OP is driving at is: Could there be any evidence for
supernaturalism that would make a skeptic like you finally accept that
the supernatural exists?
We often ask creationists what scientific evidence would finally
convince them of the validity of the ToE.
What sort of evidence (if it could be found) might finally convince you
of the existence of the supernatural? Or are you so firmly convinced of
its non-existence that no evidence could possibly change your mind?
This question has come up with investigators into ESP. Most scientists
even refuse to examine the evidence the investigators claim to have
found (and in some cases, refuse to even talk to the investigators),
because they've already decided a priori that ESP is a crock.
The evidence for ESP isn't conclusive. But should it all be dismissed
out of hand, without review, because we've already decided that the
paranormal doesn't exist?
wf3h
>
> > > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> > > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
> >
> Old Wf-retard is in serious need of a competent mental health
> professional.-
funny you creationists say that about EVERYONE. is that the ONLY
response you've developed in 2000 years?
wf3h
> On Nov 2, 8:30 pm, Musycks <michael.j.robe...@sonydadc.com> wrote:
>
> > For creationists they do have the 'out' of lack of biblical account of
> > extra terrestrial life.. but any close reading of those texts reveal
> > what it is inferring. ie.
> > God created the earth for humans, who are made in his image.No mention
> > of ET because for those people he wasn't even a remote possibility. Of
> > course if it was written by a divine hand we might have expected some
> > information on the possibility?
>
> heh.. What do you think "sons of god" coming down to earth from the
> heavens and taking "mortal" women as wives (as plainly stated in
> Genesis) means?
NOW the creationist is saying god lives in roswell, NM. who knew?
>
> They were extraterrestrial.
>
> > The bible is useless for many things that matter, it is a stone age
> > collection of 'existential poetry'... mostly turgid and uninspired and
> > the fact it doesn't address this issue is more evidence of it's man
> > made genesis.
>
> You freaks just do not understand the book you love to criticize so
> much.
you've never read it. what do you know about the bible>?
wf3h
> skull, there was nothing to labotomise.-
which is funny, given that creationism is unable to tell us what the
brain does, or even the most basic facts about it
more proof that creationism is a parasite ideology
wf3h
> On Nov 3, 8:22 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
> > so it was god's intention that we were mindless robots and, when we go
> > to heaven we'll be mindless robots again, but in the meantime we get
> > fucked because we're smart.
>
> > gee. some view of god you got
>
> Actually you are correct for a change. My jaw hit the floor.
>
> In order to actually enjoy a utopia you need free will. With free will
> you can understand exactly what the difference is between a real
> Utopian and a non-Utopian existence. Not knowing the difference
> between right and wrong is not having free will. One cannot understand
> what hot is until they experience what cold is to compare.
>
> But having free will comes with responsibility to use it properly.
> This is where mankind has always had a problem. Let's take you for
> instance. You deny the existence of your creator with your free will
> based on your five senses that are limited when compared to even the
> animals senses. You assume because you cannot see a creator, then a
> creator must not exist.
uh...no. i assume that your evidence for a creator is wrong, and
therefore YOUR creator does not exist.
you creationists. you're so arrogant and narcissistic you think only
YOUR view of god is right.
>
> Which is quite self limiting if you ask me. But then all evolutionist
> seem to be self limited and living in a world that self imposes
> physical limitations.
you think there are no physical limitations in this world? i suggest
you walk out a 10th story window. let me know if creationism saves
you.
>
> Can't you even TRY to develop your perception? When you do, you will
> find it to be sharper then your other senses.
you're gullible. there's a difference in being open minded and in
being gullible. you've crossed the line.
creationism is a worldview for children.
Desertphile
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> BuT As the BIblE SaYS.. God'S fAVOrItE PLaCE Is HiS hOly mounTAIN In
>> isrEaL. WhICH SuggESt ThAt THE eaRTH iS GOD's faVorItE PlACE in THe
>> unIveRse.
> if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
>
> god's some jokester
It depends on the god, of course: most gods at that time stayed in
one place.
As for Israel, the god of that place was a Canaanite one named
"yahweh," though there were two competing temples for that god in
the area: one in Judah at Jerusalem, and the other in Israel in a
city which name I forget at the moment. Judah didn't like the
competition and invaded Israel, destroying the rival temple and
its priests and holy prostitutes, and then retroactively writing
"prophesy" stating that would happen.
Yahweh only knows what Yahweh thought of all this. No doubt the
god was board with ignorant superstitious savages telling it where
it may live.
(CUTS)
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
spintronic
> On Nov 3, 4:39 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
> > Interestingly, jerusalem is literally, "the centre of the world, when
> > you work it out on a map. Just as the Bible says.
>
> >http://img156.imageshack.us/i/83589738.jpg
>
> The Chinese name for China translates as "The Middle Kingdom". Look at
> any Chinese map, and it is clearly in the center of the world.
I doubt it.
Heres what I found.
Red dot = Jerusalem
Black Dot = China.
Ken Denny
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
I perceived God years ago before I gained another perception. The
second perception I gained was the realization that my perception of
God was simply my imagination. That's all anybody's is.
Perception of God is nothing more than imagination.
Inability to distinguish between imagination and reality is a mental
defect.
spintronic
> On Nov 3, 12:17 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
> > > Old Wf-retard is in serious need of a competent mental health
> > > professional.-
>
> > skull, there was nothing to labotomise.-
>
> which is funny, given that creationism is unable to tell us what the
> brain does,
And you can?
How little you know about science.
Desertphile
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
> The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple,
> the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as
> being physical representations of heavenly israel.
Why should anyone care what the Bible says?
> Interestingly, jerusalem is literally, "the centre of the world, when
> you work it out on a map.
> http://img156.imageshack.us/i/83589738.jpg/]
> [IMG] http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1834/83589738.th.jpg
> Just as the bible says.
ROTFL! Er, ah, you do realize Earth is an oblate spheroid, right?!
The center of Earth is deep in the core, under extreme pressure
and heat, made out of what appears to be crystalized iron. There
isn't anyone living down there, you silly goose.
Desertphile
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 7:39 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> > .
> > .
> >
> > > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> > > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
> > THe bibLe sPeaks Of ThE PhYsICal rEPrEsentATIOn oF isRAeL, ThE TemPLe,
> > The TAbErNacKLE, ThE ark, thE cHeRUbs Etc Etc, aS
> > BEIng pHySicaL rEprEsEnTAtiONS oF heAvEnLY iSRAeL.
> >
> > inTERestinGLy, jErUsALeM IS LITeRAlly, "ThE cENtRE Of ThE World, WheN
> > YOU woRK iT ouT oN A map.
> so god is a god of war? whatever happened to the 'prince of peace'?
> and how does a sphere's surface have a 'center?'
Someone probably pointed out to him that "Mediterranean" means
"Middle Earth," and his occult beliefs kicked in and added the
rest. Or he believes the Bible when it says Earth is a circle, not
a spheroid.
Ken Denny
> They settled south and west of the dead sea
> which is Arabia and from Gaza westward.
I see that your knowledge of geography is as lacking as your knowledge
of science.
Anyone settling west of Gaza would be settling in the Mediterranean
Sea.
The majority of the Arabian peninsula is EAST of the Dead Sea.
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 5:46 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > > For the creationist:
> >
> > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > change your mind about creationism?
> >
> > It shouldn't, but some subgroups will most certainly find a way to make
> > an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> > several interesting scenarios could come up:
> >
> > Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong.
> [cuT tO A sPEciFIc PoinT]
>
> YOu PrObablY Do NoT REalIZE thIS But yOU Just deScriBeD adAM anD eVE'S
> condItIoN BeFOre theY Took oF thE ForBIDdEN FrUit. oNcE THeY ToOK tHe
> fOrbiddeN FRuIt (THE knowlEdgE oFFeReD By sAtaN) THeIr EyEs wERE
> opeNED. thEY BEcAme like gOd ANd The AnGeLs KnoWING THe CoNcEpt oF
> goOD aNd evIl, RigHt or WrONG.
>
> aND juSt LooK AT WhAt hUMans dID wIth thAT knOwLeDge..
It's a myth, retard: a stupid Canaanite myth retold and written
down by ignorant superstitious savages. And you fell for it,
Sheeeish.
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
Have you considered that the "ability to perceive God" might be a
mental disorder akin to schizophrenia, or the inability to distinguish
between fantasy and reality?
Desertphile
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:54 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You probably do not realize this but you just described Adam and Eve's
> > condition before they took of the forbidden fruit. Once they took the
> > forbidden fruit (the knowledge offered by Satan) their eyes were
> > opened. They became like God and the Angels knowing the concept of
> > good and evil, right or wrong.
> so it was god's intention that we were mindless robots and, when we go
> to heaven we'll be mindless robots again, but in the meantime we get
> fucked because we're smart.
>
> gee. some view of god you got
Imagine there was a god that created everything; that god would
surely be royally pissed at the people who wrote the Bible, and
the people who believe the Bible accurately reflects the god. The
Bible is one long libel.
Desertphile
What if SETI contacted the god, and the god said "Humans? What are
Humans?"
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 7:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> For the non-believer:
> >
> > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> > >> origin?
> >
> > Why do you idiots keep coming up with crap like this...?
> >
> > The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
> sO yOu sugGesT thAt AlL Of tHe aNcIent texTS, hIStoRiCAl dOCUmENts,
> stOnE and Clay TABLetS, hieRoglyPHics, LEdgEnDS AND TradItiOnS
> RegArDIng THe SupErnaTural ThaT haS BEEN hANDed dOwN To US FrOM
> anCienT MaN in EvERy cUlture On ThE PLANET IS all obe BiG LiE?
>
> BWaHaHAhaHahAHA!!!! GIgabytEs Of LAuGHteR!!!! Oh! hahahA!!!!!
Argumentum ad populum, therefore *DISMISSED!*
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> hEH.. WHaT dO yOu thINK "SoNS oF god" COmINg dOWn To eaRTh frOm the
> HeAVeNs aND taKInG "morTAl" WoMEN as wIveS (AS PlAInLY STaTEd IN
> GeNESIs) MEaNs?
>
> thEy WERE EXTratERreSTriaL.
Ah, no; the sons of the gods, according to the Bible, were right
here on Earth along with the gods, the goddesses, and the
daughters of the gods. The people who created them believed the
gods were just bigger and stronger versions of humans. Since the
myths claim that children were produced, that means the sons of
the gods were human.
Try to keep up.
Desertphile
<wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 10:06 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 8:30 pm, Musycks <michael.j.robe...@sonydadc.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > > For creationists they do have the 'out' of lack of biblical account of
> > > extra terrestrial life.. but any close reading of those texts reveal
> > > what it is inferring. ie.
> > > God created the earth for humans, who are made in his image.No mention
> > > of ET because for those people he wasn't even a remote possibility. Of
> > > course if it was written by a divine hand we might have expected some
> > > information on the possibility?
> >
> > heh.. What do you think "sons of god" coming down to earth from the
> > heavens and taking "mortal" women as wives (as plainly stated in
> > Genesis) means?
> NOW the creationist is saying god lives in roswell, NM. who knew?
Actually they live near Monument Valley, in The Valley of the
Gods.
wf3h
says the guy who believes in an idea that's been wrong for 2000 years.
ah, the sweet contradictions of creationism. i always love it when a
guy who believes that ghosts cause the wind to blow tells me how
little i know about science.
wf3h
> On Nov 2, 8:05 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >
> > I am always amused when believers are unable to
> > construct a legible English sentence, or a coherent
> > thought. I am dismayed when another non-believer
> > does the same.
>
> > Tim
>
> Why? You athiest pukes cannot undersatand the simplest of biblical
> concepts.
nor, of course, can you
>
> I putforth a theory why. Here. I'll save you the trouble of finding
> it.
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================- Hide quoted text -
>
this isn't even wrong enough to be a hypothesis.
Burkhard
> On Nov 3, 12:46 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > > For the creationist:
>
> > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > change your mind about creationism?
>
> > It shouldn't, but some subgroups will most certainly find a way to make
> > an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> > several interesting scenarios could come up:
>
> > Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong. Now
> > if in addition they also live lives that from the perspective of our
> > religious folks look sin free, that would be a boost for
> > Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, I'd have guessed (Paradise
> > regained)
>
> Why?
Because it woudl give evidence for the the causal correlation between
the fall and immorality. For the Garden Eden narrative to work,
"doing the right thing has to come naturally". In the state of nature
before knowledge of right and wrong, these beings did nonetheless the
"right" thing.
There would be a residual problem if these beings nonetheless die, as
of course woudl to be expected. But most Christian sects have already
modified their concept of "death" sufficiently to deal with that I'd
say.
>
> >If however they do all sorts of things that from "our"
> > perspective look sinful, the churches have a problem, this can only
> > lead to moral relativism.
>
> The religious people would just say that the aliens are uncivilized
> heathens.
>
Ah, but they do ex hypothesis lack the very concept of right and
wrong. That means they are free of sin. But if beings that are free of
sin nonetheless do things that we would otherwise consider sinful,
something is wrong with our notion of sin. The equivalent would be to
find an OT manuscript detailing how _pre-fall_ Adam tortured gerbils
for sexual gratification - not the sort of manuscript the church would
like to find.
The only way around this would be to classify them as animals and
lacking free will, but again ex hypothesis we assumed that they are at
least of similar intelligence to us, so that may not be possible
> > Or they do have a concept of right and wrong. Again several scenarios
> > possible. The "best" outcome for the churches obviously would be one
> > where a) their moral codes are similar to our AND there is a clear local
> > equivalent of the earth religion. So if we find that they too have a
> > story of some guy nailed to the local equivalent of wood and rising from
> > the death etc etc, well, that would give food for thought even for the
> > die hard atheist, I'd say (especially as your scenario has ruled out
> > contamination).
>
> Maybe they just have similar needs and came up with a similar
> religion.
> In fact, the concept of a death-and-rebirth man-god appeared multiple
> times on the earth.
Sure. It is a classical evaluation of evidence problem: if we find
similarities that are unexpected (e.g. they really all are nailed to
something and come back after exactly three days, or it is always a
god bound to a tree-like thingy to gain wisdom, or it is always 12
gods on a mountain and the head honcho is related to a jealous wife
etc), that would be strong evidence for the "common origin" of all
these interstellar stories - and in the absence of "natural"
contamination as per hypothesis, an issue for secular explanations.
If on the other hand we find only generic similarities, our secular
theories of the origin of religion can not only cope with it, but one
it even argue they are gaining confirmation.
>
> > More difficult potentially is if they don't have such a story, but my
> > guess is that we just get a rerun of the "innocent heathen" debate we
> > had in Christianity when the new world was discovered. I.e. it simply
> > gives "us" an even bigger task to redeem these poor creatures, roll out
> > the interstellar crusade etc.
>
> If they have some valuable resource on their planet and they are
> military inferior to us that's pretty sure.
>
> > One planet? No, for this we don't know enough about abiogenesis. As
> > Inez said, _no_ planet would be more of a concern. I wonder though about
> > the inverse; if we found life on all planets capable of sustaining life,
> > we may have to revisit some of our probabilistic models. If all planets
> > had life that would be extremely similar to ours (i.e. all the earth
> > species, with maybe slight variation), that would be positively creepy
> > and be a serious problem for the ToE which predicts that different
> > environments should have generated different life forms. At least
> > directed abiogenesis by space aliens woudl have to be on the cards
>
> Correct.
>
> >,and
> > form there it is but a small step to supernatural origins.
>
> I don't think so.
Well, an allusion to Clarke's law, really. Any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim DeLaney
<delaney...@comcast.net>:
<snip>
>For the non-believer:
(Make that "non-creationist"; most religious believers
aren't creationists)
>Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
>that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
>average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
>establish that it had never developed life. Would that
>change your mind about the likelihood of natural
>abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
>the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
>origin?
Nope; we have a sample of 1, which hardly allows us to make
predictions.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Wilkins
<fec38941-282a-4cad...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 9:42�am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > For the creationist:
> >
> > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. �Or suppose
> > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). �Would this
> > > change your mind about creationism?
> >
> > Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience
> > for a much better christian puzzle.
>
> Care to provide a Coles Notes summary?
>
Jesuit priest scientist is sent to a planet of entirely rational and
unemotional reptilians. They use reason alone. Have no religion or
rituals but behave exactly according to rational self interest. They
are very nice.
A scientific experiment on that planet causes a major catastrophe that
extinguishes all life on the planet just as the priest decides he is
forced by theological considerations to exorcise the planet as demonic.
He then presents himself for trial as a heretic (as Satan cannot
create, but he decided that the planet was created by Satan).
J. J. Lodder
> On Nov 3, 9:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > For the creationist:
> >
> > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > change your mind about creationism?
> >
> > Boring. See James Blish, A Case of Conscience
> > for a much better christian puzzle.
>
> Care to provide a Coles Notes summary?
Wiki will do for a summary
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Case_of_Conscience>
The problem is that the Lithians are sentient beings,
live in a paradisical circumstances,
have not committed original sin,
and therefore should have perfect knowledge of god.
Instead the idea of god is completely foreign to them.
There are several subplots as well,
Jan
Will in New Haven
Which may mean that they _do_ have perfect knowledge of god.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> There are several subplots as well,
>
> Jan- Hide quoted text -
J. J. Lodder
Of course, hence the crisis the Jesuit falls into,
Jan
Vend
> On 3 Nov, 17:10, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 12:46 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > > > For the creationist:
>
> > > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > > change your mind about creationism?
>
> > > It shouldn't, but some subgroups will most certainly find a way to make
> > > an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> > > several interesting scenarios could come up:
>
> > > Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong. Now
> > > if in addition they also live lives that from the perspective of our
> > > religious folks look sin free, that would be a boost for
> > > Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, I'd have guessed (Paradise
> > > regained)
>
> > Why?
>
> Because it woudl give evidence for the the causal correlation between
> the fall and immorality. For the Garden Eden narrative to work,
> "doing the right thing has to come naturally".
If doing the right thing came naturally before the Fall, how could
possibly the Fall happen?
I think that even the creationists who accept the Fall story as
litteral believe that Adam and Eve somehow knew that disobbeying god
was wrong, even before they ate the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil".
Non-creationist Abrahamic theists usually consider the story as a
metaphor for humans evolving from amoral beasts to moral agents.
> > >If however they do all sorts of things that from "our"
> > > perspective look sinful, the churches have a problem, this can only
> > > lead to moral relativism.
>
> > The religious people would just say that the aliens are uncivilized
> > heathens.
>
> Ah, but they do ex hypothesis lack the very concept of right and
> wrong. That means they are free of sin. But if beings that are free of
> sin nonetheless do things that we would otherwise consider sinful,
> something is wrong with our notion of sin.
Well, no. One of the most common argument in support of religion is
the claim that religion inspires morality.
Many theists expect that a society of atheists, where the concept of
sin obviously doesn't exist, would be full of immorality.
> The equivalent would be to
> find an OT manuscript detailing how _pre-fall_ Adam tortured gerbils
> for sexual gratification - not the sort of manuscript the church would
> like to find.
Non-creationist churches accept the notion that the pre-fall "Adam" is
a collective terms for the non-human ancestors of modern humans, so
they wouldn't be particularly ashamed to find that some chimp-like
great grandparent of us had some strange sexual habits.
> The only way around this would be to classify them as animals and
> lacking free will, but again ex hypothesis we assumed that they are at
> least of similar intelligence to us, so that may not be possible
Ask any racist.
> > Maybe they just have similar needs and came up with a similar
> > religion.
> > In fact, the concept of a death-and-rebirth man-god appeared multiple
> > times on the earth.
>
> Sure. It is a classical evaluation of evidence problem: if we find
> similarities that are unexpected (e.g. they really all are nailed to
> something and come back after exactly three days, or it is always a
> god bound to a tree-like thingy to gain wisdom, or it is always 12
> gods on a mountain and the head honcho is related to a jealous wife
> etc), that would be strong evidence for the "common origin" of all
> these interstellar stories - and in the absence of "natural"
> contamination as per hypothesis, an issue for secular explanations.
Correct.
> > >,and
> > > form there it is but a small step to supernatural origins.
>
> > I don't think so.
>
> Well, an allusion to Clarke's law, really. Any sufficiently advanced
> technology is indistinguishable from magic.
It depends on what do you mean by "magic":
Magic in modern fantasy books is essentially a form of fictional
technology, so yes, advanced technology might appear magical to us in
this sense.
Magic as religious miracles would require making deals with
supernatural gods/spirits/deamons who have their own objectives and
could accept or refuse the deal or cheat. That would have little in
common with technology.
We might possibly mistake technology for miracles, as happened to
cargo cultists, but that would be an error on our part.
spintronic
wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:39:02 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> > On Nov 3, 11:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> > > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
> > The bible speaks of the physical representation of Israel, the temple,
> > the tabernackle, the ark, the cherubs etc etc, as
> > being physical representations of heavenly israel.
>
> Why should anyone care what the Bible says?
>
> > Interestingly, jerusalem is literally, "the centre of the world, when
> > you work it out on a map.
> >http://img156.imageshack.us/i/83589738.jpg/]
> > [IMG]http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1834/83589738.th.jpg
> > Just as the bible says.
>
> ROTFL! Er, ah, you do realize Earth is an oblate spheroid, right?!
> The center of Earth is deep in the core, under extreme pressure
> and heat, made out of what appears to be crystalized iron. There
> isn't anyone living down there, you silly goose.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Centre of the surface land you RETARD!
spintronic
I don't believe in ghosts.
Burkhard
True, and a big problem it is for them. But I'd say it would be an even
bigger problem if the type of activity they engaged in prior to the fall
was, by post-fall standards, revolting. Don't you think that would
result in mortal relativism? If pre-fall, every action was morally OK,
where would that leave absolute moral standards? Personally, i like the
idea, it is a bit like saying the cause for crime is the police, but I
see even the mroe liberal churches struggling with that idea.
>
> Non-creationist Abrahamic theists usually consider the story as a
> metaphor for humans evolving from amoral beasts to moral agents.
>
Mhh, but don't they have the other horn of the dilemma? I'd say free
will must have existed before the fall, otherwise a) as you say above,
it could not have happened and b) even if it did, they woudl have been
blameless. but with free will comes moral agency.
>>>> If however they do all sorts of things that from "our"
>>>> perspective look sinful, the churches have a problem, this can only
>>>> lead to moral relativism.
>>> The religious people would just say that the aliens are uncivilized
>>> heathens.
>> Ah, but they do ex hypothesis lack the very concept of right and
>> wrong. That means they are free of sin. But if beings that are free of
>> sin nonetheless do things that we would otherwise consider sinful,
>> something is wrong with our notion of sin.
>
> Well, no. One of the most common argument in support of religion is
> the claim that religion inspires morality.
> Many theists expect that a society of atheists, where the concept of
> sin obviously doesn't exist, would be full of immorality.
>
Mhh, I don't think that quite works. First, they would claim that even
in that society, the concept of sin _exists_, even if it is not
recognised or translated into secular vocabulary - simply because by its
own standards, this society would distinguish right from wrong and since
have a concept of "wrongness". and this is of course what happens - even
secular legal systems have a test for attribution of responsibility of
the person is able to distinguish right from wrong. That makes it
different form our hypothesised society where the very idea does not
exist.
>> The equivalent would be to
>> find an OT manuscript detailing how _pre-fall_ Adam tortured gerbils
>> for sexual gratification - not the sort of manuscript the church would
>> like to find.
>
> Non-creationist churches accept the notion that the pre-fall "Adam" is
> a collective terms for the non-human ancestors of modern humans, so
> they wouldn't be particularly ashamed to find that some chimp-like
> great grandparent of us had some strange sexual habits.
That is an interesting interpretation, and yes, that would work - if you
also throw out most of the descriptive content of the garden Eden story.
. Pre-fall Adams life would then have been nasty, brutish and full of
strange sexual encounters. And it it would bring the problem of moral
responsibility for the fall even more into the foreground. It woudl also
meant that
the connection between sin and death is purely metaphorical
>
>> The only way around this would be to classify them as animals and
>> lacking free will, but again ex hypothesis we assumed that they are at
>> least of similar intelligence to us, so that may not be possible
>
> Ask any racist.
>
Point. But I meant "possible" more in a logical than a practical sense.
wf3h
sure you do. you're a creationist. if you're a creationist, that's
what you used to explain nature. scientists use the forces of nature.
you use ghosts
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are only three points that could be considered unique from a
geometric point of view. The center as Desertphile points out and the
two poles (OK, OK, -- semi-unique)
I suspect some point near the North pole meets your criterion better
than Jerusalem, but I doubt it really matters.
Tim
Kermit
> On Nov 3, 3:58 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 3, 4:39 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
>
> > >http://img156.imageshack.us/i/83589738.jpg
>
> > The Chinese name for China translates as "The Middle Kingdom". Look at
> > any Chinese map, and it is clearly in the center of the world.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> Heres what I found.
>
> Red dot = Jerusalem
> Black Dot = China.
>
> http://img101.imageshack.us/i/centreq.jpg/][IMG]http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6550/centreq.th.jpg
Oh good grief.
<rolls eyes>
That's why I specified a *Chinese map. All countries go through a
phase where they note that they are the middle of the world...
From wikipedia:
"By the Han Dynasty, three usages of "Zhōngguó" are common. The Book
of Poetry explicitly gives this definition that "Zhōngguó" is the
capital; the Records of the Grand Historian uses the concept that
China is the centre of civilization: "Eight famous mountains are there
in Tianxia. Three are in Man and Yi. Five are in Zhōnghuá." The
Records of Three Kingdoms uses the concept of the central states in
"Zhōnghuá", or the states in "Zhōnghuá" which is the centre, depending
on the interpretation. It records the following monologue: "If we can
lead the host of Wu and Yue to oppose Zhōngguó, then let us break off
relations with them soon." In this sense, the term Zhōngguó is
synonymous with Zhōnghuá (中华/中華) and Huáxià (华夏/華夏), a name for
"China" that comes from the Xia Dynasty."
When countries first make maps, they see that they are at the
geographical or cultural center of the world. It doesn't hurt anything
to think of it that way. What does it mean to say that Jerusalem is
the "real" center of a sphere?
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 3, 5:37 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:00 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > For the creationist:
>
> > > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > > change your mind about creationism?
>
> > > foolish.
>
> > > If God created "life" then that life has the potential to exist every
> > > where that conditions allow it to exist.
>
> > > But as the bible says.. God's favorite place is His Holy Mountain in
> > > Isreal. Which suggest that the Earth is God's favorite place in the
> > > universe.
>
> > if god's holy place is israel he's sure got it in for the israelis,
> > doesn't he? unrelenting war for 50 years.
>
>
> You lack a genuine understanding of the material you criticize.
>
>
>
> > > Considering the amount of idiots on the earth, I have no idea why
> > > earth is God's favorite place however. If you murdered my son i would
> > > be very pissed.
>
> > you murdered his son. i didn't
>
> Everyone that thinks like you think murdered him.
He wasn't murdered; he was sacrificed, remember?
Sheesh. For a so-called expert in ancient texts you sure are unaware
of ancient magics. When a tribe is undergoing a bad time, a sure-fire
fix is to sacrifice the king. Jesus set himself up to get the tribe
out of a bad time. Did it work?
Kermit
Kermit
> Inez wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> For the creationist:
>
> >> Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> >> life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> >> system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> >> rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> >> we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> >> system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> >> change your mind about creationism?
>
>
> >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> >> origin?
>
>
> > For one other planet? I really don't think so.
>
> > If you could show that there was no life anywhere else in the
> > universe, that might give me pause. But then the question becomes
> > where do you go from there? There's still no rational basis for
> > believing in magic, and I don't see any evidence to support the
> > current crop of religions.
>
> I think what the OP is driving at is: Could there be any evidence for
> supernaturalism that would make a skeptic like you finally accept that
> the supernatural exists?
>
> We often ask creationists what scientific evidence would finally
> convince them of the validity of the ToE.
>
> What sort of evidence (if it could be found) might finally convince you
> of the existence of the supernatural? Or are you so firmly convinced of
> its non-existence that no evidence could possibly change your mind?
>
> This question has come up with investigators into ESP. Most scientists
> even refuse to examine the evidence the investigators claim to have
> found (and in some cases, refuse to even talk to the investigators),
> because they've already decided a priori that ESP is a crock.
>
> The evidence for ESP isn't conclusive. But should it all be dismissed
> out of hand, without review, because we've already decided that the
> paranormal doesn't exist?
It should be dismissed because only the poor-quality data is
inconclusive. The better the data, the worse the possibility looks -
like acupuncture and a few other subjects. I have no emotional horse
in these races, but they have been looked at, by decent and hopeful
scientists.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Kermit
RAM
> On Nov 3, 5:46 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > > For the creationist:
>
> > > Suppose we were to find unmistakeable signs that
> > > life exists on another planet or satellite in the solar
> > > system, and it turned out to be different enough to
> > > rule out cross-contamination from Earth. Or suppose
> > > we found unmistakeable signs of life on another star
> > > system (not necessarily intelligent life). Would this
> > > change your mind about creationism?
>
> > an issue out of it. Intelligent life would pose more difficulties.
> > several interesting scenarios could come up:
>
> > Despite their intelligence, they have no concept of right or wrong.
>
>
> You probably do not realize this but you just described Adam and Eve's
> condition before they took of the forbidden fruit. Once they took the
> forbidden fruit (the knowledge offered by Satan) their eyes were
> opened. They became like God and the Angels knowing the concept of
> good and evil, right or wrong.
>
Damn that's stupid. Adam and Eve learning about evil is supposed to
be a metaphor.
Morality is an emergent property of social life. It is not God given
but inherent in nature. It comes from the evolutionary processes
that makes the human animal social.
The Bible story is to transmit the idea that one should learn about
the moral consequences of ones actions. It is a poorly articulated
Bible metaphor and as a result it is totally missed or dismissed by
literal fundamentalist.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> [...]=============================================
>
> > "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> > "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> > lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> > will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> > =============================================
>
>
> If not, why does he allow it?
> If he doesn't mind, then it doesn't matter.
>
> Or is he some sort of Celestial Daily Mail editor who needs to create
> things to hate?
>
> --
> Mike.
He does not need to create hate. YOU need to create hate. Mankind
needs to create hate.
God simply set up the conditions for a left and a right; a top and a
bottom. Love and hate.
Mankind can choose all love, all hate, or a bit of both.
You have to have both in existance. How would you understand what love
is if you did not have it's opposite, which is hate, to compare it to.
You atheists are not too bright , are you?
wf3h
>
> God simply set up the conditions for a left and a right; a top and a
> bottom. Love and hate.
>
> Mankind can choose all love, all hate, or a bit of both.
>
> You have to have both in existance. How would you understand what love
> is if you did not have it's opposite, which is hate, to compare it to.
>
> You atheists are not too bright , are you
guess the moron creationist forgot that it was god's original plan
that man wouldn't know any of this, when he 'created' man in the
garden of eden
typical idiot creationist...doesn't know the bible
All-Seeing-I
> On Nov 3, 6:16 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 7:27 pm, "Hairesis" <a??e...@hairesis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 2, 4:28 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> For the non-believer:
>
> > > >> Suppose we were to find a planet on another system
> > > >> that was very similar to earth in composition, size,
> > > >> average temperature, age, etc., but we could definitely
> > > >> establish that it had never developed life. Would that
> > > >> change your mind about the likelihood of natural
> > > >> abiogenesis on earth? i.e. would it make you consider
> > > >> the possibility that life on earth began has a supernatural
> > > >> origin?
>
>
> > > The fact is, *you don't have a supernatural agent to show us*.
>
> > stone and clay tablets, hieroglyphics, ledgends and traditions
> > regarding the supernatural that has been handed down to us from
> > ancient man in every culture on the PLANET is all obe big lie?
>
> Lies, poetry, metaphor, shamanistic training, moral instruction,
> history, a call to rebellious arms, cultural communications the
> nature of which we have forgotten, best guesses based on little
> reliable evidence, all mixed in different proportions.
>
> Why do you think that the most fantastic stories, contrary to
> observable facts, are concrete and true?
Because I can make the necessary distinction between them that you
cannot.
Prolly because you lack perception is another reason.
[]
>
> > Oh my. You really are a freak of nature.
>
> Yes, yes. And we know this because you say so. Certainly not because
> you have any actual evidence.
Well. What do you consider evidence? If you say scientific evidence
then that is rather self limiting K.
Your human senses are well known to have flaws, to be inadequate. Even
a common house cat can hear and see better then you can. Why would you
want evidence for God to be based on a science that is interpreted
with your rather limited human senses?
You crack me up!
But OTOH, if you are willing to accept the proper evidence for God,
that goes beyond what your human senses are able to acquire, then I am
sure I have something laying around that will convince you.
BTW. I knew you would respond K. You had to. It was compelling. Wasn't
it? So don't for a moment think my reply-post to Hairesis-the-dip-shit
was meant only for Hairesis-the-dip-shit. I had you in my sights.
You happen to be a sucker for these kinds of threads. Why is that?
Still searching for the real truth? Good. That is very good. So am I.
> > > We aren't any further advanced when something we haven't accounted for is
> > > explained by something we haven't got.
>
> > Having SO much recorded about the supernatural that is still
> > unexplained is not advancing mankind. Probably because people such as
> > your self have your head buried too far up your ass to want to find
> > out more about it.
>
> Sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know". More often than not,
> the answer is "we don't know, but it's probably something quite
> mundane".
That is rather presumptuous on your part considering you have such
limited skills of perception.
> > > Fool.
>
> > THAT would be you.
>
> Yes, we know. We are idiots because we don't believe your fantastic
> claims which are refuted by facts. After all, you *say that you are
> correct. Say, are you interested in buying a bridge?
I should be asking YOU that question. After all it is YOU, not me,
that limits the scope of human knowledge to what can be discovered
with science. A science that can only be intrepretated with your human
senses. Senses that just so happen to have less perception and ability
then that of the average house cat, Or dog for that matter.
> > --
> > The face of an Angel, the mind of a god has
>
> > The All Seeing I
>
> You forgot "humble". You should remind people of how humble you are.
> Your humility is only matched by the convincing nature of your
> arguments.
>
When in Rome and all that K..... (you know the rest)
> Kermit-
*smoochies*
I hope your garden is doing well.
--
The All Seeing I.
Will in New Haven
But you have postulated that I _can't_ sense god because of a genetic
deficiency. Then you want me punished for it. I'm glad you are not in
charge. And that your god, your twisted ugly vengeful little monkey-
god doesn't exist.
If there is a creator-god, I don't think it could possibly be as
horrible as your concept. Your ideas make the Old Testament demon that
they thought was god.