Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
They discovered bacteria life on Mars already. The name of the article is "Fossilized Bacteria May Point to Life on Mars" on fox news Air & Space. Simply Amazing.
You rely on Fox News for scientific advice? That is just stupid. No evidence of any life on Mars has ever been found I assure you. Get your facts straight.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
lol! I saw your comment and thought ''hmm I wonder what profound, controversial philosophical opinion I must have expressed to elicit such a response''
@AstronomyGuru1 While I do get a chuckle out of that. (Intelligent Earthling seeks same. Must like dogs.) I should point out that while SETI projects have existed for 50 years. The sum total of research conducted has only covered about 700 out of about a sextillion stars in the observable Universe. (About 200 billion of which are in our galaxy.) And those very incompletely. If 1 in a billion stars harbored a technological civ, yielding a total of a trillion, we wouldn't have detected them yet.
Earth is not special because humans are here, humans are here because Earth is special. Why don't we find life anywhere else? Because we haven't found anywhere else that can sustain life. Its not that complicated people.
@CommanderC4 thats not true! Using planetary Drake equation, we calculated that around 50 million exoplanets are habitable in our Milky Way. Furthermore, Kepler investigated a tiny fraction of space in our galaxy, and found at least 68 Earth-like planets. So its not a question of can life exist elsewhere, but does life exist elsewhere!
@eleminatus I never implied otherwise. My point was that we have EXTREMELY limited means of exploring other planets at this time and as such have no means of asserting weather or not it does.
Stop telling lies silly goose. We've only discovered a few hundred planets since 2009 by the Kepler telescope and only a handful of them are "Earth-like".
@D4R3W the point is if the percentage of earth like planets in the area surveyed is indicative of galactic averages then our galaxy hold some 100 million of them. So we don't have an great error bar to work with yet. So take that number and say +/- 90% do you prefer 10 million earth like planets or190 million? Multiply that by the number of galaxies.
The volume of the Earth is about 2 thousand billion times the total volume of every human who has ever lived. The Universe is at least a thousand million million billion trillion trillion trillion Earth-volumes in size, and contains about 70 thousand million trillion stars. And we're finding that a goodly percentage of those have planets. Are there really people so foolish and vain as to think all that was created just for them? Sadly, the answer is yes. And our planet is suffering for it.
@sbergman27 Most likely there are some other races of beings out there who think--or who have thought--the same thing at some point during their history. Then they evolved.
@shantih433 My personal opinion, based upon the the statistical sample of 1 which is available to us (admittedly a very limited data set) is that it's likely that many civilizations self-destruct at about this point in their development. The good news is that it's easier to destroy a civilization than it is to drive a global species to actual extinction. So the same species might have another go in only a few more thousand years. But likely without the benefit of an historical memory.
@sbergman27 Sounds about right. I can't remember who said it..maybe Terence McKenna... that we're reaching a very crucial point, where we'll either destroy ourselves, or transition on to a new, further stage. The precariousness inherent in this epoch is that if we fail, we may survive in smaller numbers, but will have exhausted our resources so completely that we may never have this chance again. Not sure how realistic it is, but it's worth thinking seriously about.
@shantih433 That's interesting. Different starting conditions for successive attempts. A future civ might be forced to move from localized resources like coal, to other (perhaps less localized) resources like thermal solar, much earlier during their development. It's not like thermal solar is high tech or prohibitively expensive. It's just traditionally relatively expensive compared to oil and coal. Such a civilization would not care about invading Iraq, e.g.. And might last longer.
@sbergman27 Right. My guess is that a focus on sustainability and greater ability for long-term thinking/planning would be a feature of such a civilization. This is something most of us (at least those in power) seem to lack at this point.
@sbergman27 When you consider all that universe and our minimal place in it, consider that here you are contemplating the creator of all of that. Are people so foolish as to think that in those 70 thousand million trillion stars you mentioned, why are you here contemplating the creator. If you consider that to be just an accident, then that is truly foolish. So thats one hell of an accident isnt it? If this planet suffers, its because we are ignoring the reality instead of accepting it.
@Sophmega No. I'm not contemplating any creator. I'm reporting on empirical observation. You're trying to sneak that "creator" bit into the conversation as though I introduced it. And I'm not having it. Don't you see that if the goal is to explain the Universe, then the arbitrary introduction of some sort of complex "creator" simply makes the problem worse by orders of magnitude? You want to believe in fairies and angels and your imaginary friend? Fine. But don't pretend it's science.
@sbergman27 Can you explain dark matter and dark energy, Science cannot. Look around you, everything you have was created, including the DNA that you are composed of. Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome project was an Atheist and now he claims DNA was Gods plan. The man is the authority on DNA and is now convinced there was no accident possible. The Big Bang has shown a beginning and that the universe is spreading out, exactly as the Bible described.
@Sophmega "In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design". Straight from wikipedia. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
@wHisperis001 In his book? You mean the books he wrote before he became a Christian. Francis S.Collins: " Why this scientist believes in God" He is the director of the Human Genome Project and a former Atheist . He also wrote "A Scientist presents evidence for belief" He said DNA is the information molecule in all things, and he is now convinced as Gods plan. If you have anything give the name of the book otherwise its just the same old Atheist propaganda as usual.
@Sophmega "In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos" (go read wikipedia..)
I'm not saying he rejects god, but he does reject creationism (ID). No propaganda, unless you're deaf.....
@TomFynn What? Get off your high horse and read what I've said. I'm an atheist myself and I don't support collins. Someone said collins was for creationism and it wasn't true and i quoted wikipedia to prove it and said he believes in some sort of divine evolution. But I did not say I believe what he believes so fuck off, ok? Pisses me off when people read the last reply of a debate with someone and assume they know what your stance is. Fucking ignorant
@sbergman27 Atheism violates the laws of mathematics.Faith is required for all humans. Anything that you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle, you can assume but cannot prove. No statement can prove its own truth. You always need an outside reference point. Faith and reason cannot exist one without the other. All reasoning ultimately must trace back to faith in something you cannot prove.
@sbergman27 Science is not justified in posting laws of Science because all Scientific laws are empiracally unverifiable throughout the universe.. Example,we can no longer be sure that light travels at 186,000 miles per second, everywhere or in the past or the future ,and actually at this time that itself is being seriously questioned. Science is assuming , but scientific laws cannot be based on assumptions, and many in fact are.
@sbergman27 You cannot dismiss God, unless you can in fact prove that our knowledge of causation is so extensive that they can confidently and positively be proven, and that is an impossibility. Modern science even concludes that beyond the natural world the laws of nature do not apply. If God made the universe, he also made the laws of nature, and he can alter them. Science becomes arrogant, God shakes the tree. .Now Quantum physics, Gods Scvience, may be as Feinman said a distant dream.
@sbergman27 And you spoke of a " complex creator" and orders of magnitude, and the goal to explain the universe? . Are you attempting to ignore the fact that this entire universe, the beginning of life, consciousness, and the entire gamut of trillions of situations that are necessary to support our existence are in fact MORE complex than we will ever explain. If the simplest answer is usually the right one (Occams Razor) then God is that answer.
@Sophmega Occams Razor is nothing of the sort, the principal is to go with the hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions if the competing hypotheses are equal in all other ways. Contrary to your 'popular' and misleading summary, the simplest answer may in fact be a complete crock of shite. Lack of complete scientific explanations are not equal to evidence for deities.
@meucunt1 Lack of Scientific theory you mean, because thats all Science can give on creation. and the basic premise of Science theory is that they are falsifiable, not fact. In the same way that all of science was wrong when they claimed the universe was always here and not expanding. The Big Bang has shown both of those theorys wrong and the Bible was right. The Universe had a beginning, and is spreading out.. So go peddle your theory shite as you called it, somewhere else.
@Sophmega I'm not peddling anything whatsoever just putting you straight on the razor. The big bang theory does supersede the steady state theory of many moons ago and indeed the bible does support creation. That in itself means absolutely fuck all about the clai that a god was responsible. The bible also says you can cure leprosy with 2 birds and a knife, I don't believe that shit either. Finally, you are not in a position to tell me what to do, I'll peddle whatever I wish, wherever I wish.
@sbergman27 Your reporting on emperical observation? How, when there is none in creation. Do you even know what emperical observation is??? We have theories when we have no real proof, otherwise its fact. Emperical observation is when we can directly observe or experiment directly on the subjects. So your trying to claim you were there during the creation and observed it? LOL, was that a joke. Have you ever done stand up comedy , you would be good at it.
@sbergman27 I will be gone for a few days on a trip, leave comments if you want, I can pick up my mail upon return. Good talking to you. Have a great week.
@sbergman27 The volume of the earth and all of that universe, and you try to equate that this somehow makes us vain to believe it was created. In all that space and so many years here we are on this tiny speck discussing that creator. Are you so foolish and vain to think this is an accident?
@Sophmega You really can't see how you are failing to explain anything by invoking this "creator" of yours. Now your problem is orders of magnitude worse. Instead of having to explain the complexity of the Universe, you have to explain the even greater complexity of this "creator". But let's get to the real issue. You want eternal life & an imaginary friend you can pray to who sometimes grants you wishes. And if you have to be irrational to get it you'll gladly do it. That's what this is about.
@sbergman27 ATLASofCREATION dot c O m ... Atheism Exposed.. See also Video on youtube *EVOLUTION DECEIT* and *COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION*, both are documentaries made from the books of the same author as of ATLASofCREATION dot c O m, Adnan Oktar(Harun Yahya). Also Visit AQIDAH.COM, type *DARWIN* in search and read the article. Evolution is a deviant Aqeedah first started by Mutazilah(and Sufis etc) dating 1000 years before Darwin. Darwins contemporary called it *Muhammden Theory*.
O course MANY SAY there is evidence of other life, just check out the Bashar vids, or the Raeliens claims to mention a couple. Though seems unusual how they only contact or channel through select individuals. Why are there so many crazy seemingly intelligent people in the world?
@dondrinkman There's a difference between the "abduction/probing" aliens, and organic material from off-Earth. For one, scientists found TRACES of carbon-based cellular materials in space-samples; there is nothing more than second-hand heresay when it comes to abductions, usually from someone with an alcohol or drug record.
It's like getting almost an unlimited amount of guesses for the lottery. All the other planets in our solar system have failed, and mostly in the universe the "guesses" have been wrong. But in this one case we are here. And how lucky of us the be here on this planet to prove lifes existance? We are life on this planet, That is very illogical to make it mysterious.
I wonder if he ever gets bored of having to counter the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
If only religious people would look some shit up for themselves...
who is to say that the rest of the universe is devoid of life? Dawkins answers this correctly where he hedges the idea that we are alone in the universe.
IMO, the universe is lousy with life, we just arnt smart enough to find it... yet.
I'm an open minded person and find his answer to the question not convincing at all, let's assume that earth is originated by chance, can you convince me how a such a sophisticated life structure , let’s say like a DNA cell, got formed ? , I find it highly improbable that sudden reaction of cells created this sophisticated life structure, even us human cannot for the past million year create it in a lab, there are many life on this earth that cannot be the chance of probability and evolution
@XDockhand hahah who's the retard? making predictions based on fuck-all. RD is way too intelligent to believe in such hocus pocus fanciful retard bullshit. all powerful god; just can't manage money and can't heal amputees. yeah, he'll change his beliefs; when 'god' does just that: heal amputees. what's so retarded about that? or is it logically an extension whereby a mythical being/placebo cannot do what is physically impossible.
@ahoyhoy79 Hey I would bet em but I can't find them. I know I left them in a glass of water somewhere. OK Evolution does not negate a God. Dawkins will come to realise that when he encounters the supenatural for the fist time.
@XDockhand dont worry. you'll never need em. my teeth are as safe as non-american houses.
sure, evolution doesnt negate 'god' perhaps in the spinozan sense. but in the judeo christian sense and in particular, the literal interpretation of the bible; yes it does. self-interpretation of the bible by people who have not studied the ancient languages of the bible, the history, anthropology, etc = subjective vague hypocritical chinese whispers
Looking at ancient texts and cultures like the Sumerians and the cosmological knowledge of the Dogons and current events like the Disclosure Project and such, I would not come to the conclusion that we have neven been visited. We can stubbornly keep saying 'no' in the face of evidence of the contrary.
Uh-huh, atheists are the dumbasses...at least we don't accept everything in a book to be 100% true and believe in someone who endorses slavery and credulity. As for the context of this video, atheists can't definitively prove where life originated, but we still search for the answer. Trying to expand our knowledge, and better ourselves, rather than simply accepting something with absolutely NO evidence, to be true. Yeah, you're right. Atheists are the dumbasses.
I wonder why people are expecting radio messages from aliens? Radio waves are slow, there has to be a faster way of communication, which we haven't discovered yet.
I'm really not any good at this trolling thing, am I?
*sigh*
Anyway, radio waves do travel at the speed of light in space, right? Yet that's not enough to have decent space communication with far away places. The lag becomes quite large even inside our solar system. So imagine exploring interstellar space and having years of lag time.
Now, if there are extra terrestrials exploring somewhere, I think they'd try being in ~constant contact with their home, so they'd need a faster way to --
So.. IF there are aliens and IF they are into interstellar exploring and IF they require faster-than-light comm and IF there is something faster than light and IF they discover it and IF what they find it suitable for faster communications... in my book that quite a ways from "there has to be".
Anyway, basically, they'd need a faster communication link between their ships and their homeworld. If wormholes exist, using them would be an answer to this. Also, I've heard about research being put into something similar to sub-space communication, which would be faster than radio waves. I need to get back to you on that, though with sources.
Still, I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here.
IF (again) QE would work for communications it would be necessary for both ends of the comm link be established BEFORE it would work. So exactly how you get the other end of the entanglement established when you don't even know there's an alien out there. This is about contacting previously uncontacted aliens, right?
That's like having super-fast telephone technology but you have no way of the getting the other guy a handset. And you don't know where he is or if he is.
I'm talking about communication in general and how I think it's kind of pointless to assume exploring aliens would use something slow as radio waves when there are possibilities for faster means of communication.
So contacting aliens? Don't know. I guess they'll contact us when we stop arguing about who's invisible friend is right and when we stop massacring each other. You wouldn't want savages to know of your existence, right?
It's pointless to assume anything about aliens including what kind of radiation they might emit into space. It's also an assumption to think an alien civilization that has faster-than-light communications would not also emit other more easily detectable electro-magnetic radiation into space.
If one is curious one either listens with the technology one has or does nothing. But to wait assuming you'll someday match up with Them is the same crap shoot we have now.
Who exactly is it that's listening only in the radio frequencies and expecting to hear aliens?
SETI, for instance, listens to many frequencies across the electromagnetic spectrum and they don't "expect" to hear anything. They are merely exploring with the technology they have. That's not silly, that's all we can do at this time. That's my point.
As for what I'm after... I dropped this conversation and you restarted it. What are you after?
I'm after, well, wondering what you're after. It seemed like your whole world went upside down when some random jackoff on youtube writes, that there's a possibility for faster-than-light communication. Did you think you could make me drop that thought? Hey, if we all thought that there is even no possibility for this, we wouldn't make any progress at all.
And in the beginning, I tried to act like a dick. Didn't like it. But yea, we're walking in circles here.
Suppose that in 'reality' intelligent life is only just emerging, as the 'World Wide Web' ...and Human life is an intermediate stage. perhaps even a stage that eventually becomes redundant? and surplus to requirements!
Was this done before water was discovered on the moon?
If water can be on the moon and it's a little closer to the sun than us. Why isn't there anything else or why hasn't it boiled off??? It's had billions of years to evaporate according to evolutionary theory.
Time 2:06 reference to the goldy locks zone. About the water boiling off if we were any closer?????? The moon is closer.....water was discovered on the moon..... Why hasn't it evaporated off already??? And since it's there, why isn't there any life of any significance??? Do you understand what double standards are??? Double talk?? Circular reasoning?? Get a clue.
Dawkins is suppose to be the expert evolutionist. You can't say evolution is the answer to how life evolved and then talk about how life started, without the inference being made. Evolution is portrayed as the answer to life, but talk about origins and all that it intels and suddenly you want to cliam it has nothing to do with evolution. So, it's nothing but double talk.
Water on the moon does, indeed, have nothing to do with life on earth. The two are unrelated.
Dawkins is an expert on evolution, not on abiogenesis (the name given to the science dedicated to learning how life started). Again, evolution and abiogensis are two different subjects. Man I mean it, your thinking really is all over the place as by every retort you make demonstrates. Words have meaning and by misusing them you do them and yourself a dis-service.
You need to talk to discovery channel then. They portray evolution as the begining of life. And like I said you can't have it both ways. Double talk!!!!!!
I am very sorry but I don't learn my science from the discovery channel. Abiogensis and evolution are two different fields of research and only related in so far as one led to the other, this however does not make them the same. Not double talk my friend, merely clarification of the technical terms that you use so carelessly, which then leads to error in understanding which you have consistently displayed. Please, go back to basics and start again.
"Abiogensis and evolution are two different fields of research and only related in so far as one led to the other." Leads to the other, exactly, and you say evolution is fact without solving or proving the begining. The only evolution is micro-evolution, which could also be called adaptation. It doesn't prove a fish can become a lizard or something like that. See, I knew you understood me, you....playing dumb.
Evolution is a fact regardless of whether we understand fully abiogenesis. Evolution does not attempt to solve or explain how life first started, that's my point! That is te filed of stufy of abiogensis. Micro-evolution IS evolution, extrapolate over eons and it is easy to see how life forms can change and develop. Just because you can't see it in your life time doesn't make it not so. Playing dumb? Me? No... you are... what I am explaining is easy to understand you are just refusing to do so.
cos in the "goldilocks zone", an earth sized planet has an atmosphere of gas including oxygen, as you know. the moon, which is in the zone too is too small to hold its own atmosphere to support creatures from earth. the atmosphere insulates the surface from the cold of space - thats why theres ice there. so the moon doesnt have ALL the prerequisites for life from earth.
Well, at least this is a better explanation, and polite. Just how far out from earth does the goldilocks zone go? Also, Dawkins says something about different kinds of life should and according to evolution theory must exist? He doesn't go into what the prerequisites are, nor that their needed. And if they are needed? Then the statistics are against life being out there, so far. Is this not correct?
ma'am, i'll try to address each of your point in turn. i can't say for sure how for out the goldilocks zone goes - but lets just say the distance from the north pole to the equator is about 6000mi. and at one extreme, it is very cold and at the equator quite hot. so if the earth was much bigger, at the extremes, itd be even hotter and colder, respectively. also, the zone applies to how far we are away from the sun. a lil bit closer and we'd be much hotter, a lil farther, and we'd be colder.
now your second point. in the universe there are quite literally so many stars that the human mind cant comprehend it (that's sorta the thing that awed Einstein when he speaks of the universe in almost biblical language). so what dawkins is doing is speculating that of those many many stars, all you need is one star system like ours (you know, just the right distance from the sun, right sized planet, etc) and there's A chance theres life there.
now, just cos there are so many stars out there, the likelihood there being more than one planet in a goldilocks zone is great. how does he come up with this? its like a lottery draw. chances of winning are one in a million -quite slim. thats SORTA like the chances of having a goldilocks planet. now, having a billion tickets is like the billions of stars out there, each with a one in a million chance of having a goldilocks planet.
so just by playing the numbers, he can speculate that there is more than one planet out there with its own goldilocks zone - once again, that doesnt mean there are humans out there ma'am. it just means the likelihood of a planet with life out there is pretty good. what kinda life? who knows? could be anything from bacteria to things more advanced than us. according to evolutionist theory, how advanced they are would depend on how long life on that planet has been around for.
ok concerning your 3rd point - the prerequisites. the best way to visualise this is to picture our solar system and earth's place in it. for life on earth, earth has the best conditions - the prerequisites for life. i dont know how to put it any other way ma'am. perhaps i can compare it to making a bread. life is like the perfect loaf. a lil too much salt, and it wouldnt be right. it'd taste funny! not enough water, same - itd taste funny. oven too hot... too cold...
umm put simply - everything you, I, the plants and animals need - are prerequistes.
4th point. umm sorta ma'am. i would say thats half correct. the chances of life out there are pretty slim; ON ANY GIVEN PLANET. take our solar system for example. we've got mercury, venus, eartth, mars all the way up to neptune and we're the only planet that has life. one planet with life. about 7 without!
dawkins says theres life out there cos there are just so many stars out there with planets of their own.
its like making sourdough. lets say i had to make 100 loaves!
if i just banged the ingredients in randomly and let them rest, and baked them, i reckon id be lucky to have one loaf that resembled a loaf as we know them.
now if i had to make a thousand loaves that way, chances are there MIGHT be one loaf that just happened to work out, then again it might not.
thats the math dawkins is using but with as many loaves as there are stars.
You dont understand statistics and you are indeed telling a fib sir! It IS NOT LIKE HAVING A BILLION LOTTERY TICKETS! that is just nonsense! The lottery is a well established system, that i directed and participated in by many already intelligent beings. There is absolutely no one directing any of the mythical processes you think resulted in life, there is absolutely nothing to even get the process started. Your cosmic lottery has no ticket buyers, sellers of any sort and as such WONT HIT!
Most importantly lets not forget folks this is not a one time "lottery" so to speak. The odds of the earth alone being in the right spot in the universe alone is one lottery. The odds of water being present is another lottery. The odds of their being every single element on earth required for life is another "cosmic" lottery.
All of which have no driving force. The only reason a lottery actually hits is because some one sells the ticket and some one else buys it! there is no such force (contd)
Some once gave me a silly example similar to yours but using a deck of cards. To which i responded it would take millions of years. And she still said it would happen ultimately. I told her it wouldnt the cards would fall apart in a matter of weeks, the person shuffling them would probably drop dead in a few days before that even happened. Same thing with natural elements in the universe. They always fall apart not together and there is no directing force if we buy your argument.
of course not, the numbers are much greater. i simply used those numbers because they are more readily comprehensible by the human mind. no point saying trillions and trillions if the mind cant wrap their heads around it. we scientists have to dumb it down for you creationists.
as to whether its a fib. well, there is no proof saying your belief is real either
well, if your god is so powerful, how come he doesn't care for amputees? is it part of his 'special plan', that theyre somehow unworthy?
i cant believe you misconstrued such a simple analogy put forth just to represent great odds; but chose to focus on the trivial matter of ticket buyers.
universe in 6 days. i reckon such omnipotence could surely find one suitable good virtuous amputee to FULLY heal.
oh yeah, one more thing. statistics is my kit and kaboodle. so just because you wish that stats is not my thing, sorry to tell you, but it is.
but hey, being anti usa, i hope you guys continue with this theist trend.
no better way to take a once powerful intelligent beacon of the world and drag her back into the dark ages. continue to wallow in your superstitions and let china, japan, india grow in fields of science and technology.
hey, you better not reply to me on the sabbath, because you know what god wants with people that do that right? or is that something you merely cherry pick out?
lol. The more and more i read the garbage you wrote i the more i realize i am dealing with the typical fundamentalist atheist scam. Typical response i get from every single one of you nuts is to attack religion being that the science and mathematics simply arent there to support your nonsensical rants.
Ever y single time i get some idiot assuming i am some christian or some crap like that.
How about you focus on the science. Oh i forgot you cant, your are too stupid to even explain ur own crap
yeah, my atheist scam. whereby i leech money for the desperate, the down trodden, the simple minded or the wayward; taking their money, paying no tax and selling them a poorly translated text written by sexist, racist, tyrannical, xenophobic men. oh wait. thats your scam be it judaism, islam or christianity.
so. any luck on giving me an answer on the amputee question? i mean why pray for people with cancer at all then if theyre gonna go to heaven? yet people do! so why not cure amputees
Again this reply goes to show your complete lack of even an iota of what you are arguing. The "ticket buyers" would represent what ever force of nature you think brought about energy, matter, the planets etc.
IF YOU DONT HAVE "TICKET BUYERS" THE I CAN 100% BE SURE THAT YOUR LOTTERY WILL NEVER EVER HAVE A WINNER.
Seems to me like you are the one who is indeed even dumber than these "creationists" that you seek to malign. You dont even understand your own analogies. That is just sad!
no fool. go back and have a better look. im talking about planets in the goldilocks zone.
if im so full of shit, lets talk about god. you know, like how someone can make a universe in 6 days - enough matter for trillions of stars (now dont get them confused with lottery tickets now), yet not take the time to fully cure amputees.
you wanna covert an agnostic? tell me why he doesn't heal them - apart from some bs spiel about 'master plan' involving them remain limbless in the REAL world.
You are full of shit indeed! And i am not here to debate religion!
I know you very much want to debate religion because you are an ignorant idiot who doesnt even comprehend the statistics and mathematics he was pretending to be a master of just a few posts back.
that is why you want to run away from that ignorant shit and start some new debate.
ah good. in that case talk to the lady whom i was posting. cos she gets even less than i.
now, back to the question of how an allpowerful dead jew in the sky who fathered himself, who created the universe in 6 days wants us to eat his flesh and drink his blood? oh, and why doesnt he cure amputees? does he love them too? i mean if he can cure cancer via prayert, why dosnt he cure amputees?
Finally and admission that you dont understand the shit coming out of your mouth.. That is progress in a way.
I see you are still running your mouth about religion..
Keep on doing it.. but ALL THAT RELIGIOUS BASHING WILL NOT HIDE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE AN IGNORAMUS WHO CANT DEFEND CRAP COMING OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH!!!
Again you are lying. Its the so called "creationists" who always scream large humanly incomprehensible numbers, so you argument of trying to dumb it down for them is totally absurd.
And i would like for you to expound on exactly what my belief is, and why you actually think that my beliefs have anything to do with the bogus and logically weak and inconsistent stories you are telling here?
your 'god' loves us all. why doesn't he heal amputees? i'd say theres been a fair few prayers that have gone out for such a request! why did the dead jew in the sky who fathered himself ignore these prayers?
haha. how can one simplify it so even you could understand?
my understanding of science is only backed by peer review. not the best, but the best of what we have. yours is based on susperstitious morally dubious antiquated poor transcribed and even worse translation chinese whispers.
now, come on god warrior:
WHY WONT GOD HEAL AMPUTEES? WHY HOLD OUT ON THEM? ALL LOVING MY ASS
disprove my science. sure the probabilities are simplified. but tell me where im wrong einstein. haha a churchie using 'religion' as a dirty word. i love it.
see? all you can say is: nyah nyah youre wrong. yet you offer no evidence to prove otherwise. remember that bit about peer review? thats what says im right. what says youre right? SFA. since you dont even understand my use of the word lottery, id go so far as to say ur a full blown churchie retard
voodoo = dead jew in the sky that fathered himself (cool, someone so dumb, like you, id fark your wife and blame it on god), created the universe in 6 days and yet cant heal amputees.
keep on waiting asshole! you can play your stupid fucking games all day long it wont hide the fact that you are some retarded bastard who doesnt know a lick of science so you want to waste every ones time arguing about fucking amputees.
I do think you are probably some lame bastard with no legs blaming god because you cant fucking walk!
tough shit bastard. Get over it and stop forcing your handicap in scientific conversations
hahaha. yet you came to me, reply everytime (but not to answer my simple question) and yet provide no data or evidence yourself, and miscontrue a simple anaolgy about lottery! all you can do is say NOPE! UR WRONG...
sorry god boy, the dead jew in the sky doesnt exist.
ROFLMAO! Darwin was very intelligent! He made a lot of money from a book that is misnamed! It isn't about the origin of species! It is about the evolution of species after the origin! The Creator intelligently designed species to change w/ their environment so that they could survive in most any environment. Digest that, Darwinists!
Against astronomical odds,...given the singular permutivities of biomolecular,geophysical,and helioseismological stressors occurring in failed fits and starts over countless eons??Oh yes---at last:LIFE
On a single planet the odds of life developing are extremely small, but when you have trillions of planets eventually you will get one. Only on those planets whom developed life can there be minds to question the odds of them being sentient. It's like having a lottery in which no one knows exists except the winners.
It would be very easy for the winners to think that they were somehow chosen since they did not know they were even entered to win.
I remember once learning in middle-school that one theory of life was that microbes from another planet seeded the earth. But then the immediate question any child would've asked which I did was, well, how did those originate?
The former theory possible DOES NOT explain the origin of life, it just transfers the problem. Just like saying God did it.
While it doesn't explain how life came about it gives us a much broader range, if life came from earth then all our theories must be built on early earth conditions, if life could have originated anywhere in the universe we have countless more possible avenues to explore.
@grimwatcher I agree that panspermia doesn't explain the origins of life, but it is a valid theory about how it came to planet earth. Now, saying it came from another planet and saying God did it are two diferent things. In one you're saying it was born somewhere else and you don't how and in the other you're saying life magically appeared because our big daddy got bored and wanted something to do...
@bernytheman You're right they're both saying different things. I probably should've been more careful with my vocabulary and elaborated on it. And Perhaps there could be way to test for Panspermia, again, hypothesis and theories live on die based on evidence and their ability to be falsified. So we would have to find a good test for it. Thanks for catching that error, I'll try to be more careful with my language next time.
He doesn't believe in aliens. He believes that there is a good chance that aliens exist, good enough to at least speculate about it. The rational mind would make the distinction between god and aliens.
@vooooom possibly. i think it's also worth thinking that if extraterrestrial intelligent life did indeed ever visit this planet while we're on it that the very fact they were able to travel to this planet might mean they are so much more technologically advanced than us that we perceive them as god or gods
I would add that often times the word "Alien" has a certain connotation. But technically an Alien could be any of form of life on a planet that isn't ours; such as bacteria, microscopic organisms, or even plants.
* it is important to understand that a belief in God does not always assert that the believer is part of a society of indoctrinated persons that is usually described with that heinous term "religion" or "religious".
I'll keep it very very simple for YOU. Science is the how. The why is unimportant. Natural Selection can be seen as a why, for instance, but it's still kind of a how. Why is "Why" so important? Is it that damaging to your ego that you weren't designed?
I seem to be leaning to the notion (at the moment) that Micro Evolution ( NOT Macro Evolution- the bollocks about the world and it's lifeforms all stemming from nothing and a near impossible explosion of matter along with all the laws of nature and physics- thats all seems ridiculous) is HOW GOD created the world to be as it is nw. He set all these amazing Laws of life into action.
Well I do get rather angered when you derogatorially and sarcastic address us as a lot and say you are going to be complicated and state two sentences. Leave your demeaning ways out of intelligent discussion. I'm asking you, what could you possibly base your belief that there has to be a why on. There is no evidence for the existence of a God, no evidence for us having to have a purpose to be here, so what do you base your beliefs on? Feeling? Upbringing?
He's forgetting the third factor: the size of the universe. There could be thousands of technologically advanced (as us) civilisations in just our galaxy alone, but how to communicate over hundreds of light-years, let alone travel? We've barely had time to explore our own solar system. One could speculate that similar conditions hold elsewhere.
That's not even addressing the fact that intelligence doesn't necessarily mean tool-making--think whales (even more highly evolved ones). Nor does even 'sapiodexterity' necessarily result in technology--think human hunter/gatherer societies. Entirely conceivable that intelligent aliens exist but have no ability or no interest in space exploration or extra-planetary life.
not to mention information is limited to the speed of light. We've only been able to interpret information like radio for less than 100 years. That is an incredibly small target for radio waves from even thousands of other species that happened to evolve with hands that could make tools to hit. Not to mention, we have to be listening to the right frequency, of which there are innumerable. Also, it's entirely possible that life exists on venus. Sulfur-based extremophiles exist on earth in similar
And to think that another race capable of intelligent communication through means of radio waves, which is the most basic form and easiest to use as can be attained through any amount of scientific study, would be unimaginable. Perhaps they forgot of radio transmission... well then they may not be looking for other intelligent life, because I'm sure we would hold to every form of communication in order to contact other life.
Not true as the conveying of much detailed information through communication (as we are capable of) would be enough for any race to want to interact with another. My guess is, if their is other life wanting to make contact, they may be studying us to see who or what country (if they know of our "countries") they should contact, how to interact, and whether or not they will be harmed. My guess is that that criteria won't be filled anytime soon so...
Atheism cannot deny to God because cannot deny to the intelligence. If the random movement of cerebral subatomic particles determines our thoughts, really we can decide and be conscious beings?. Atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption not verifiable. Richard says: God no exists, but he is based on idea not verifiable. Due to this, he is lying. My evidence is the people, the persons do science. The subatomic particles moves due to our design and due to this are
love the video really good
msjessypp 5 days ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
ttwilkable 5 days ago
Mars is the next earth
MrSpawn04 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
maybe we haven't been visited because it's too friggin' far apart.. It can't be all like Spore (R).
daddyleon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
They discovered bacteria life on Mars already. The name of the article is "Fossilized Bacteria May Point to Life on Mars" on fox news Air & Space. Simply Amazing.
bmehoota 5 months ago
@bmehoota
You rely on Fox News for scientific advice? That is just stupid. No evidence of any life on Mars has ever been found I assure you. Get your facts straight.
newfagscanttrif0rce 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Why the hell would aliens want to go to this stupid planet
wHisperis001 7 months ago
@wHisperis001 how do you know they havent, i remember this time when i was drunk in a cornfield....
MovieFusionist 7 months ago
@MovieFusionist Please don't mention probes....lol
skywize 3 months ago
Well we wouldn't have lived in the first place if we didn't have a "friendly sun". Humans are insane.
NormanAngle 10 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1
Paula Kirby's hot. I'd tap that.
ItsameAlex 11 months ago
@ItsameAlex I was just thinking the same thing. I looked at the comments to find approval, or to find out I was crazy, and thank god I'm not crazy.
ejdf870 11 months ago
@ejdf870
lol! I saw your comment and thought ''hmm I wonder what profound, controversial philosophical opinion I must have expressed to elicit such a response''
then I saw my old comment and smiled=)
as I said, I'd tap that over and over again.
ItsameAlex 11 months ago
@ItsameAlex LMFAO!!
ejdf870 11 months ago
@AstronomyGuru1 While I do get a chuckle out of that. (Intelligent Earthling seeks same. Must like dogs.) I should point out that while SETI projects have existed for 50 years. The sum total of research conducted has only covered about 700 out of about a sextillion stars in the observable Universe. (About 200 billion of which are in our galaxy.) And those very incompletely. If 1 in a billion stars harbored a technological civ, yielding a total of a trillion, we wouldn't have detected them yet.
sbergman27 1 year ago
Earth is not special because humans are here, humans are here because Earth is special. Why don't we find life anywhere else? Because we haven't found anywhere else that can sustain life. Its not that complicated people.
CommanderC4 1 year ago
@CommanderC4 thats not true! Using planetary Drake equation, we calculated that around 50 million exoplanets are habitable in our Milky Way. Furthermore, Kepler investigated a tiny fraction of space in our galaxy, and found at least 68 Earth-like planets. So its not a question of can life exist elsewhere, but does life exist elsewhere!
eleminatus 6 months ago
@eleminatus I never implied otherwise. My point was that we have EXTREMELY limited means of exploring other planets at this time and as such have no means of asserting weather or not it does.
CommanderC4 6 months ago
@Oliper666
Stop telling lies silly goose. We've only discovered a few hundred planets since 2009 by the Kepler telescope and only a handful of them are "Earth-like".
D4R3W 1 year ago
@D4R3W the point is if the percentage of earth like planets in the area surveyed is indicative of galactic averages then our galaxy hold some 100 million of them. So we don't have an great error bar to work with yet. So take that number and say +/- 90% do you prefer 10 million earth like planets or190 million? Multiply that by the number of galaxies.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
The volume of the Earth is about 2 thousand billion times the total volume of every human who has ever lived. The Universe is at least a thousand million million billion trillion trillion trillion Earth-volumes in size, and contains about 70 thousand million trillion stars. And we're finding that a goodly percentage of those have planets. Are there really people so foolish and vain as to think all that was created just for them? Sadly, the answer is yes. And our planet is suffering for it.
sbergman27 1 year ago 16
@sbergman27 Most likely there are some other races of beings out there who think--or who have thought--the same thing at some point during their history. Then they evolved.
shantih433 1 year ago
@shantih433 My personal opinion, based upon the the statistical sample of 1 which is available to us (admittedly a very limited data set) is that it's likely that many civilizations self-destruct at about this point in their development. The good news is that it's easier to destroy a civilization than it is to drive a global species to actual extinction. So the same species might have another go in only a few more thousand years. But likely without the benefit of an historical memory.
sbergman27 1 year ago
@sbergman27 Sounds about right. I can't remember who said it..maybe Terence McKenna... that we're reaching a very crucial point, where we'll either destroy ourselves, or transition on to a new, further stage. The precariousness inherent in this epoch is that if we fail, we may survive in smaller numbers, but will have exhausted our resources so completely that we may never have this chance again. Not sure how realistic it is, but it's worth thinking seriously about.
shantih433 1 year ago
@shantih433 That's interesting. Different starting conditions for successive attempts. A future civ might be forced to move from localized resources like coal, to other (perhaps less localized) resources like thermal solar, much earlier during their development. It's not like thermal solar is high tech or prohibitively expensive. It's just traditionally relatively expensive compared to oil and coal. Such a civilization would not care about invading Iraq, e.g.. And might last longer.
sbergman27 1 year ago
@sbergman27 Right. My guess is that a focus on sustainability and greater ability for long-term thinking/planning would be a feature of such a civilization. This is something most of us (at least those in power) seem to lack at this point.
shantih433 1 year ago
@sbergman27 When you consider all that universe and our minimal place in it, consider that here you are contemplating the creator of all of that. Are people so foolish as to think that in those 70 thousand million trillion stars you mentioned, why are you here contemplating the creator. If you consider that to be just an accident, then that is truly foolish. So thats one hell of an accident isnt it? If this planet suffers, its because we are ignoring the reality instead of accepting it.
Sophmega 1 year ago
@Sophmega No. I'm not contemplating any creator. I'm reporting on empirical observation. You're trying to sneak that "creator" bit into the conversation as though I introduced it. And I'm not having it. Don't you see that if the goal is to explain the Universe, then the arbitrary introduction of some sort of complex "creator" simply makes the problem worse by orders of magnitude? You want to believe in fairies and angels and your imaginary friend? Fine. But don't pretend it's science.
sbergman27 1 year ago
@sbergman27 Can you explain dark matter and dark energy, Science cannot. Look around you, everything you have was created, including the DNA that you are composed of. Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome project was an Atheist and now he claims DNA was Gods plan. The man is the authority on DNA and is now convinced there was no accident possible. The Big Bang has shown a beginning and that the universe is spreading out, exactly as the Bible described.
Sophmega 1 year ago
@Sophmega "In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design". Straight from wikipedia. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
wHisperis001 7 months ago
@wHisperis001 In his book? You mean the books he wrote before he became a Christian. Francis S.Collins: " Why this scientist believes in God" He is the director of the Human Genome Project and a former Atheist . He also wrote "A Scientist presents evidence for belief" He said DNA is the information molecule in all things, and he is now convinced as Gods plan. If you have anything give the name of the book otherwise its just the same old Atheist propaganda as usual.
Sophmega 7 months ago
@Sophmega "In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos" (go read wikipedia..)
I'm not saying he rejects god, but he does reject creationism (ID). No propaganda, unless you're deaf.....
wHisperis001 7 months ago
@wHisperis001 And the evidence for "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creation" - which are just ID under another name - are exactly what?
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn dunno why you're asking me, ask collins...
wHisperis001 6 months ago
@wHisperis001 Ah, the argument from authority. Still alive in this day and age, I see.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn What? Get off your high horse and read what I've said. I'm an atheist myself and I don't support collins. Someone said collins was for creationism and it wasn't true and i quoted wikipedia to prove it and said he believes in some sort of divine evolution. But I did not say I believe what he believes so fuck off, ok? Pisses me off when people read the last reply of a debate with someone and assume they know what your stance is. Fucking ignorant
wHisperis001 6 months ago
@wHisperis001 Whoa, cool it, we're on the same page here. I stand corrected, okay?
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn okay
wHisperis001 6 months ago
@sbergman27 Atheism violates the laws of mathematics.Faith is required for all humans. Anything that you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle, you can assume but cannot prove. No statement can prove its own truth. You always need an outside reference point. Faith and reason cannot exist one without the other. All reasoning ultimately must trace back to faith in something you cannot prove.
Sophmega 1 year ago
@sbergman27 Science is not justified in posting laws of Science because all Scientific laws are empiracally unverifiable throughout the universe.. Example,we can no longer be sure that light travels at 186,000 miles per second, everywhere or in the past or the future ,and actually at this time that itself is being seriously questioned. Science is assuming , but scientific laws cannot be based on assumptions, and many in fact are.
Sophmega 1 year ago
@sbergman27 You cannot dismiss God, unless you can in fact prove that our knowledge of causation is so extensive that they can confidently and positively be proven, and that is an impossibility. Modern science even concludes that beyond the natural world the laws of nature do not apply. If God made the universe, he also made the laws of nature, and he can alter them. Science becomes arrogant, God shakes the tree. .Now Quantum physics, Gods Scvience, may be as Feinman said a distant dream.
Sophmega 1 year ago
@sbergman27 And you spoke of a " complex creator" and orders of magnitude, and the goal to explain the universe? . Are you attempting to ignore the fact that this entire universe, the beginning of life, consciousness, and the entire gamut of trillions of situations that are necessary to support our existence are in fact MORE complex than we will ever explain. If the simplest answer is usually the right one (Occams Razor) then God is that answer.
Sophmega 1 year ago
@Sophmega Occams Razor is nothing of the sort, the principal is to go with the hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions if the competing hypotheses are equal in all other ways. Contrary to your 'popular' and misleading summary, the simplest answer may in fact be a complete crock of shite. Lack of complete scientific explanations are not equal to evidence for deities.
meucunt1 11 months ago
@meucunt1 Lack of Scientific theory you mean, because thats all Science can give on creation. and the basic premise of Science theory is that they are falsifiable, not fact. In the same way that all of science was wrong when they claimed the universe was always here and not expanding. The Big Bang has shown both of those theorys wrong and the Bible was right. The Universe had a beginning, and is spreading out.. So go peddle your theory shite as you called it, somewhere else.
Sophmega 11 months ago
@Sophmega I'm not peddling anything whatsoever just putting you straight on the razor. The big bang theory does supersede the steady state theory of many moons ago and indeed the bible does support creation. That in itself means absolutely fuck all about the clai that a god was responsible. The bible also says you can cure leprosy with 2 birds and a knife, I don't believe that shit either. Finally, you are not in a position to tell me what to do, I'll peddle whatever I wish, wherever I wish.
meucunt1 11 months ago
@sbergman27 Your reporting on emperical observation? How, when there is none in creation. Do you even know what emperical observation is??? We have theories when we have no real proof, otherwise its fact. Emperical observation is when we can directly observe or experiment directly on the subjects. So your trying to claim you were there during the creation and observed it? LOL, was that a joke. Have you ever done stand up comedy , you would be good at it.
Sophmega 7 months ago
@sbergman27 I will be gone for a few days on a trip, leave comments if you want, I can pick up my mail upon return. Good talking to you. Have a great week.
Sophmega 7 months ago
@sbergman27
Sophmega 11 months ago
@sbergman27 The volume of the earth and all of that universe, and you try to equate that this somehow makes us vain to believe it was created. In all that space and so many years here we are on this tiny speck discussing that creator. Are you so foolish and vain to think this is an accident?
Sophmega 11 months ago
@Sophmega You really can't see how you are failing to explain anything by invoking this "creator" of yours. Now your problem is orders of magnitude worse. Instead of having to explain the complexity of the Universe, you have to explain the even greater complexity of this "creator". But let's get to the real issue. You want eternal life & an imaginary friend you can pray to who sometimes grants you wishes. And if you have to be irrational to get it you'll gladly do it. That's what this is about.
sbergman27 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbergman27 ATLASofCREATION dot c O m ... Atheism Exposed.. See also Video on youtube *EVOLUTION DECEIT* and *COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION*, both are documentaries made from the books of the same author as of ATLASofCREATION dot c O m, Adnan Oktar(Harun Yahya). Also Visit AQIDAH.COM, type *DARWIN* in search and read the article. Evolution is a deviant Aqeedah first started by Mutazilah(and Sufis etc) dating 1000 years before Darwin. Darwins contemporary called it *Muhammden Theory*.
AbuRaad7373 4 months ago
@sbergman27 This should be on a plaque.
skywize 3 months ago
O course MANY SAY there is evidence of other life, just check out the Bashar vids, or the Raeliens claims to mention a couple. Though seems unusual how they only contact or channel through select individuals. Why are there so many crazy seemingly intelligent people in the world?
dondrinkman 1 year ago
@dondrinkman There's a difference between the "abduction/probing" aliens, and organic material from off-Earth. For one, scientists found TRACES of carbon-based cellular materials in space-samples; there is nothing more than second-hand heresay when it comes to abductions, usually from someone with an alcohol or drug record.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
It's like getting almost an unlimited amount of guesses for the lottery. All the other planets in our solar system have failed, and mostly in the universe the "guesses" have been wrong. But in this one case we are here. And how lucky of us the be here on this planet to prove lifes existance? We are life on this planet, That is very illogical to make it mysterious.
Kan2209 1 year ago
I wonder if he ever gets bored of having to counter the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
If only religious people would look some shit up for themselves...
blahdoot20 1 year ago
who is to say that the rest of the universe is devoid of life? Dawkins answers this correctly where he hedges the idea that we are alone in the universe.
IMO, the universe is lousy with life, we just arnt smart enough to find it... yet.
bdhcarbon 1 year ago
I'm an open minded person and find his answer to the question not convincing at all, let's assume that earth is originated by chance, can you convince me how a such a sophisticated life structure , let’s say like a DNA cell, got formed ? , I find it highly improbable that sudden reaction of cells created this sophisticated life structure, even us human cannot for the past million year create it in a lab, there are many life on this earth that cannot be the chance of probability and evolution
dpanet 1 year ago
how can she say that the earth is the only planet in the universe with life without proof?
Josh44Tube 1 year ago
@Josh44Tube she said as far as we know. which is true
bobdylan4evr 1 year ago
There is hope for Richard Dawkins. I predict he will encounter God and change his beliefs.
XDockhand 1 year ago
Comment removed
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XDockhand hahah who's the retard? making predictions based on fuck-all. RD is way too intelligent to believe in such hocus pocus fanciful retard bullshit. all powerful god; just can't manage money and can't heal amputees. yeah, he'll change his beliefs; when 'god' does just that: heal amputees. what's so retarded about that? or is it logically an extension whereby a mythical being/placebo cannot do what is physically impossible.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
i bet you your teeth he doesn't
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
@ahoyhoy79 Hey I would bet em but I can't find them. I know I left them in a glass of water somewhere. OK Evolution does not negate a God. Dawkins will come to realise that when he encounters the supenatural for the fist time.
XDockhand 1 year ago
@XDockhand dont worry. you'll never need em. my teeth are as safe as non-american houses.
sure, evolution doesnt negate 'god' perhaps in the spinozan sense. but in the judeo christian sense and in particular, the literal interpretation of the bible; yes it does. self-interpretation of the bible by people who have not studied the ancient languages of the bible, the history, anthropology, etc = subjective vague hypocritical chinese whispers
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
Comment removed
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
Looking at ancient texts and cultures like the Sumerians and the cosmological knowledge of the Dogons and current events like the Disclosure Project and such, I would not come to the conclusion that we have neven been visited. We can stubbornly keep saying 'no' in the face of evidence of the contrary.
boomtao 1 year ago
Uh-huh, atheists are the dumbasses...at least we don't accept everything in a book to be 100% true and believe in someone who endorses slavery and credulity. As for the context of this video, atheists can't definitively prove where life originated, but we still search for the answer. Trying to expand our knowledge, and better ourselves, rather than simply accepting something with absolutely NO evidence, to be true. Yeah, you're right. Atheists are the dumbasses.
squibb77 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lmfao atheists are such dumbasses
fourp1ay 1 year ago
I wonder why people are expecting radio messages from aliens? Radio waves are slow, there has to be a faster way of communication, which we haven't discovered yet.
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88
What makes you think radio waves are slow?
Just how fast do you think they are?
Please name three things that are faster.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
Your mom, your dad and your sister. (In other words, you missed my point.)
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88
What is your point? On what basis do you assume there "has to be a faster way of communications"?
Maybe there is but "has to be" is bullshit. The fact is right now radio waves are as fast as anything we know about so that's what is used.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
Has to be.
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88
Well, that settles it then.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
I'm really not any good at this trolling thing, am I?
*sigh*
Anyway, radio waves do travel at the speed of light in space, right? Yet that's not enough to have decent space communication with far away places. The lag becomes quite large even inside our solar system. So imagine exploring interstellar space and having years of lag time.
Now, if there are extra terrestrials exploring somewhere, I think they'd try being in ~constant contact with their home, so they'd need a faster way to --
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88
So.. IF there are aliens and IF they are into interstellar exploring and IF they require faster-than-light comm and IF there is something faster than light and IF they discover it and IF what they find it suitable for faster communications... in my book that quite a ways from "there has to be".
dimbulb23 1 year ago
Hm, part 2 of my comment didn't show up.
Anyway, basically, they'd need a faster communication link between their ships and their homeworld. If wormholes exist, using them would be an answer to this. Also, I've heard about research being put into something similar to sub-space communication, which would be faster than radio waves. I need to get back to you on that, though with sources.
Still, I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here.
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
Faster than light communication could be established through quantum entanglement, and that's what's being researched, as I mentioned.
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88
IF (again) QE would work for communications it would be necessary for both ends of the comm link be established BEFORE it would work. So exactly how you get the other end of the entanglement established when you don't even know there's an alien out there. This is about contacting previously uncontacted aliens, right?
That's like having super-fast telephone technology but you have no way of the getting the other guy a handset. And you don't know where he is or if he is.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
I'm talking about communication in general and how I think it's kind of pointless to assume exploring aliens would use something slow as radio waves when there are possibilities for faster means of communication.
So contacting aliens? Don't know. I guess they'll contact us when we stop arguing about who's invisible friend is right and when we stop massacring each other. You wouldn't want savages to know of your existence, right?
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88
It's pointless to assume anything about aliens including what kind of radiation they might emit into space. It's also an assumption to think an alien civilization that has faster-than-light communications would not also emit other more easily detectable electro-magnetic radiation into space.
If one is curious one either listens with the technology one has or does nothing. But to wait assuming you'll someday match up with Them is the same crap shoot we have now.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
Um.. do you think I'm saying we shouldn't search for radio transmissions from space? That has never been my point.
My point is that I personally think it's silly to assume that radio wave communication is "all there is" and be done with it.
And I still can't really understand what you're after with all this.
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88
So that's you're point?
Who exactly is it that's listening only in the radio frequencies and expecting to hear aliens?
SETI, for instance, listens to many frequencies across the electromagnetic spectrum and they don't "expect" to hear anything. They are merely exploring with the technology they have. That's not silly, that's all we can do at this time. That's my point.
As for what I'm after... I dropped this conversation and you restarted it. What are you after?
dimbulb23 1 year ago
I'm after, well, wondering what you're after. It seemed like your whole world went upside down when some random jackoff on youtube writes, that there's a possibility for faster-than-light communication. Did you think you could make me drop that thought? Hey, if we all thought that there is even no possibility for this, we wouldn't make any progress at all.
And in the beginning, I tried to act like a dick. Didn't like it. But yea, we're walking in circles here.
IconOfSin88 1 year ago
@dimbulb23 SETI is just scamming the people and the government out of money.
XDockhand 1 year ago
@XDockhand SETI is not supported by tax dollars. It's a privately funded program.
dimbulb23 1 year ago
@IconOfSin88 I think they SETI should use the chipmunks they may get results that way.
XDockhand 1 year ago
I like Dawkins when he gets into the science stuff. That info about Jupiter is new to me. His best book is called The Blind Watchmaker.
MrErisian 2 years ago
Suppose that in 'reality' intelligent life is only just emerging, as the 'World Wide Web' ...and Human life is an intermediate stage. perhaps even a stage that eventually becomes redundant? and surplus to requirements!
WarzSchoolchild 2 years ago
Was this done before water was discovered on the moon?
If water can be on the moon and it's a little closer to the sun than us. Why isn't there anything else or why hasn't it boiled off??? It's had billions of years to evaporate according to evolutionary theory.
vbirdieb 2 years ago
Huh? Water on the moon has had billions of years to evaporate according to evolutionary theory? Man... you haven't a clue.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
Time 2:06 reference to the goldy locks zone. About the water boiling off if we were any closer?????? The moon is closer.....water was discovered on the moon..... Why hasn't it evaporated off already??? And since it's there, why isn't there any life of any significance??? Do you understand what double standards are??? Double talk?? Circular reasoning?? Get a clue.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
Man your thinking is all over the place. You describe water boiling off the moon as evolution, the two are not related.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
Dawkins is suppose to be the expert evolutionist. You can't say evolution is the answer to how life evolved and then talk about how life started, without the inference being made. Evolution is portrayed as the answer to life, but talk about origins and all that it intels and suddenly you want to cliam it has nothing to do with evolution. So, it's nothing but double talk.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
Water on the moon does, indeed, have nothing to do with life on earth. The two are unrelated.
Dawkins is an expert on evolution, not on abiogenesis (the name given to the science dedicated to learning how life started). Again, evolution and abiogensis are two different subjects. Man I mean it, your thinking really is all over the place as by every retort you make demonstrates. Words have meaning and by misusing them you do them and yourself a dis-service.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
You need to talk to discovery channel then. They portray evolution as the begining of life. And like I said you can't have it both ways. Double talk!!!!!!
vbirdieb 1 year ago
I am very sorry but I don't learn my science from the discovery channel. Abiogensis and evolution are two different fields of research and only related in so far as one led to the other, this however does not make them the same. Not double talk my friend, merely clarification of the technical terms that you use so carelessly, which then leads to error in understanding which you have consistently displayed. Please, go back to basics and start again.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
"Abiogensis and evolution are two different fields of research and only related in so far as one led to the other." Leads to the other, exactly, and you say evolution is fact without solving or proving the begining. The only evolution is micro-evolution, which could also be called adaptation. It doesn't prove a fish can become a lizard or something like that. See, I knew you understood me, you....playing dumb.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
Evolution is a fact regardless of whether we understand fully abiogenesis. Evolution does not attempt to solve or explain how life first started, that's my point! That is te filed of stufy of abiogensis. Micro-evolution IS evolution, extrapolate over eons and it is easy to see how life forms can change and develop. Just because you can't see it in your life time doesn't make it not so. Playing dumb? Me? No... you are... what I am explaining is easy to understand you are just refusing to do so.
shashintokyo 1 year ago 2
cos in the "goldilocks zone", an earth sized planet has an atmosphere of gas including oxygen, as you know. the moon, which is in the zone too is too small to hold its own atmosphere to support creatures from earth. the atmosphere insulates the surface from the cold of space - thats why theres ice there. so the moon doesnt have ALL the prerequisites for life from earth.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
Well, at least this is a better explanation, and polite. Just how far out from earth does the goldilocks zone go? Also, Dawkins says something about different kinds of life should and according to evolution theory must exist? He doesn't go into what the prerequisites are, nor that their needed. And if they are needed? Then the statistics are against life being out there, so far. Is this not correct?
vbirdieb 1 year ago
ma'am, i'll try to address each of your point in turn. i can't say for sure how for out the goldilocks zone goes - but lets just say the distance from the north pole to the equator is about 6000mi. and at one extreme, it is very cold and at the equator quite hot. so if the earth was much bigger, at the extremes, itd be even hotter and colder, respectively. also, the zone applies to how far we are away from the sun. a lil bit closer and we'd be much hotter, a lil farther, and we'd be colder.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
now your second point. in the universe there are quite literally so many stars that the human mind cant comprehend it (that's sorta the thing that awed Einstein when he speaks of the universe in almost biblical language). so what dawkins is doing is speculating that of those many many stars, all you need is one star system like ours (you know, just the right distance from the sun, right sized planet, etc) and there's A chance theres life there.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
now, just cos there are so many stars out there, the likelihood there being more than one planet in a goldilocks zone is great. how does he come up with this? its like a lottery draw. chances of winning are one in a million -quite slim. thats SORTA like the chances of having a goldilocks planet. now, having a billion tickets is like the billions of stars out there, each with a one in a million chance of having a goldilocks planet.
mind you the numbers involved are much larger!
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
so just by playing the numbers, he can speculate that there is more than one planet out there with its own goldilocks zone - once again, that doesnt mean there are humans out there ma'am. it just means the likelihood of a planet with life out there is pretty good. what kinda life? who knows? could be anything from bacteria to things more advanced than us. according to evolutionist theory, how advanced they are would depend on how long life on that planet has been around for.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
ok concerning your 3rd point - the prerequisites. the best way to visualise this is to picture our solar system and earth's place in it. for life on earth, earth has the best conditions - the prerequisites for life. i dont know how to put it any other way ma'am. perhaps i can compare it to making a bread. life is like the perfect loaf. a lil too much salt, and it wouldnt be right. it'd taste funny! not enough water, same - itd taste funny. oven too hot... too cold...
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
umm put simply - everything you, I, the plants and animals need - are prerequistes.
4th point. umm sorta ma'am. i would say thats half correct. the chances of life out there are pretty slim; ON ANY GIVEN PLANET. take our solar system for example. we've got mercury, venus, eartth, mars all the way up to neptune and we're the only planet that has life. one planet with life. about 7 without!
dawkins says theres life out there cos there are just so many stars out there with planets of their own.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
its like making sourdough. lets say i had to make 100 loaves!
if i just banged the ingredients in randomly and let them rest, and baked them, i reckon id be lucky to have one loaf that resembled a loaf as we know them.
now if i had to make a thousand loaves that way, chances are there MIGHT be one loaf that just happened to work out, then again it might not.
thats the math dawkins is using but with as many loaves as there are stars.
hope this clears some things up ma'am
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
You dont understand statistics and you are indeed telling a fib sir! It IS NOT LIKE HAVING A BILLION LOTTERY TICKETS! that is just nonsense! The lottery is a well established system, that i directed and participated in by many already intelligent beings. There is absolutely no one directing any of the mythical processes you think resulted in life, there is absolutely nothing to even get the process started. Your cosmic lottery has no ticket buyers, sellers of any sort and as such WONT HIT!
karamarouge 1 year ago
Most importantly lets not forget folks this is not a one time "lottery" so to speak. The odds of the earth alone being in the right spot in the universe alone is one lottery. The odds of water being present is another lottery. The odds of their being every single element on earth required for life is another "cosmic" lottery.
All of which have no driving force. The only reason a lottery actually hits is because some one sells the ticket and some one else buys it! there is no such force (contd)
karamarouge 1 year ago
Some once gave me a silly example similar to yours but using a deck of cards. To which i responded it would take millions of years. And she still said it would happen ultimately. I told her it wouldnt the cards would fall apart in a matter of weeks, the person shuffling them would probably drop dead in a few days before that even happened. Same thing with natural elements in the universe. They always fall apart not together and there is no directing force if we buy your argument.
karamarouge 1 year ago
of course not, the numbers are much greater. i simply used those numbers because they are more readily comprehensible by the human mind. no point saying trillions and trillions if the mind cant wrap their heads around it. we scientists have to dumb it down for you creationists.
as to whether its a fib. well, there is no proof saying your belief is real either
well, if your god is so powerful, how come he doesn't care for amputees? is it part of his 'special plan', that theyre somehow unworthy?
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
i cant believe you misconstrued such a simple analogy put forth just to represent great odds; but chose to focus on the trivial matter of ticket buyers.
universe in 6 days. i reckon such omnipotence could surely find one suitable good virtuous amputee to FULLY heal.
oh yeah, one more thing. statistics is my kit and kaboodle. so just because you wish that stats is not my thing, sorry to tell you, but it is.
but hey, being anti usa, i hope you guys continue with this theist trend.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
no better way to take a once powerful intelligent beacon of the world and drag her back into the dark ages. continue to wallow in your superstitions and let china, japan, india grow in fields of science and technology.
hey, you better not reply to me on the sabbath, because you know what god wants with people that do that right? or is that something you merely cherry pick out?
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
lol. The more and more i read the garbage you wrote i the more i realize i am dealing with the typical fundamentalist atheist scam. Typical response i get from every single one of you nuts is to attack religion being that the science and mathematics simply arent there to support your nonsensical rants.
Ever y single time i get some idiot assuming i am some christian or some crap like that.
How about you focus on the science. Oh i forgot you cant, your are too stupid to even explain ur own crap
karamarouge 1 year ago
no. lets focus on the 'allpowerful god'
why doesnt he fully heal amputees even though people pray for them?
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
yeah, my atheist scam. whereby i leech money for the desperate, the down trodden, the simple minded or the wayward; taking their money, paying no tax and selling them a poorly translated text written by sexist, racist, tyrannical, xenophobic men. oh wait. thats your scam be it judaism, islam or christianity.
so. any luck on giving me an answer on the amputee question? i mean why pray for people with cancer at all then if theyre gonna go to heaven? yet people do! so why not cure amputees
waitin
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
Again this reply goes to show your complete lack of even an iota of what you are arguing. The "ticket buyers" would represent what ever force of nature you think brought about energy, matter, the planets etc.
IF YOU DONT HAVE "TICKET BUYERS" THE I CAN 100% BE SURE THAT YOUR LOTTERY WILL NEVER EVER HAVE A WINNER.
Seems to me like you are the one who is indeed even dumber than these "creationists" that you seek to malign. You dont even understand your own analogies. That is just sad!
karamarouge 1 year ago
no fool. go back and have a better look. im talking about planets in the goldilocks zone.
if im so full of shit, lets talk about god. you know, like how someone can make a universe in 6 days - enough matter for trillions of stars (now dont get them confused with lottery tickets now), yet not take the time to fully cure amputees.
you wanna covert an agnostic? tell me why he doesn't heal them - apart from some bs spiel about 'master plan' involving them remain limbless in the REAL world.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
You are full of shit indeed! And i am not here to debate religion!
I know you very much want to debate religion because you are an ignorant idiot who doesnt even comprehend the statistics and mathematics he was pretending to be a master of just a few posts back.
that is why you want to run away from that ignorant shit and start some new debate.
Sorry bozo, i wont fall for that shit!
TALK SCIENCE OR GET LOST FOOL!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
ah good. in that case talk to the lady whom i was posting. cos she gets even less than i.
now, back to the question of how an allpowerful dead jew in the sky who fathered himself, who created the universe in 6 days wants us to eat his flesh and drink his blood? oh, and why doesnt he cure amputees? does he love them too? i mean if he can cure cancer via prayert, why dosnt he cure amputees?
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
Finally and admission that you dont understand the shit coming out of your mouth.. That is progress in a way.
I see you are still running your mouth about religion..
Keep on doing it.. but ALL THAT RELIGIOUS BASHING WILL NOT HIDE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE AN IGNORAMUS WHO CANT DEFEND CRAP COMING OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH!!!
karamarouge 1 year ago
cmon man, why doesn't whoever you believe in beit wotan, zeus, yahweh, jebus, allah:
WHY DOESNT GOD FULLY HEAL AMPUTEES?
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
Again you are lying. Its the so called "creationists" who always scream large humanly incomprehensible numbers, so you argument of trying to dumb it down for them is totally absurd.
And i would like for you to expound on exactly what my belief is, and why you actually think that my beliefs have anything to do with the bogus and logically weak and inconsistent stories you are telling here?
karamarouge 1 year ago
you exist. therefore you hold the winning lottery ticket smart guy
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
then answer me this mr strong arguments:
your 'god' loves us all. why doesn't he heal amputees? i'd say theres been a fair few prayers that have gone out for such a request! why did the dead jew in the sky who fathered himself ignore these prayers?
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
haha. how can one simplify it so even you could understand?
my understanding of science is only backed by peer review. not the best, but the best of what we have. yours is based on susperstitious morally dubious antiquated poor transcribed and even worse translation chinese whispers.
now, come on god warrior:
WHY WONT GOD HEAL AMPUTEES? WHY HOLD OUT ON THEM? ALL LOVING MY ASS
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
Sorry asshole!!! wont play your stupid game.
I exposed your stupid logic now you want to hide the fact that you cant even explain your own beliefs by starting some bogus religious argument!!!
You are the ignoramus ranting and raving because he cant defend his voodoo beliefs!
karamarouge 1 year ago
like the dead jew in the sky?
WHY WONT GOD HEAL AMPUTEES?
disprove my science. sure the probabilities are simplified. but tell me where im wrong einstein. haha a churchie using 'religion' as a dirty word. i love it.
also,
WHY WONT GOD HEAL AMPUTEES?
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
see? all you can say is: nyah nyah youre wrong. yet you offer no evidence to prove otherwise. remember that bit about peer review? thats what says im right. what says youre right? SFA. since you dont even understand my use of the word lottery, id go so far as to say ur a full blown churchie retard
voodoo = dead jew in the sky that fathered himself (cool, someone so dumb, like you, id fark your wife and blame it on god), created the universe in 6 days and yet cant heal amputees.
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
i AM ARGUING WITH A FUCKING RETARD!!!!
HONESTLY MAN, GO SHOOT YOURSELF.. YOU ARE STUPID BEYOND BELIEF!
karamarouge 1 year ago
hey, whose more retarded: the retard or the retard who can't even answer a SIMPLE question from the retard?
btw, till waiting god warrior:
WHY CANT THE MYTHICAL DEAD JEW IN THR SKY FULLY HEAL AMPUTEES?
i'll answer it for you:
COS HE'S IMAGINARY!
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
keep on waiting asshole! you can play your stupid fucking games all day long it wont hide the fact that you are some retarded bastard who doesnt know a lick of science so you want to waste every ones time arguing about fucking amputees.
I do think you are probably some lame bastard with no legs blaming god because you cant fucking walk!
tough shit bastard. Get over it and stop forcing your handicap in scientific conversations
karamarouge 1 year ago
hahaha. yet you came to me, reply everytime (but not to answer my simple question) and yet provide no data or evidence yourself, and miscontrue a simple anaolgy about lottery! all you can do is say NOPE! UR WRONG...
sorry god boy, the dead jew in the sky doesnt exist.
THATS WHY HE CANT HEAL AMPUTEES
ahoyhoy79 1 year ago
@ahoyhoy79 you are worse than a retard with your WHY CANT THE MYTHICAL DEAD JEW IN THR SKY FULLY HEAL AMPUTEES.
You are an imbecile.
XDockhand 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ROFLMAO! Darwin was very intelligent! He made a lot of money from a book that is misnamed! It isn't about the origin of species! It is about the evolution of species after the origin! The Creator intelligently designed species to change w/ their environment so that they could survive in most any environment. Digest that, Darwinists!
ElShadaiLives 2 years ago
Against astronomical odds,...given the singular permutivities of biomolecular,geophysical,and helioseismological stressors occurring in failed fits and starts over countless eons??Oh yes---at last:LIFE
djnross 2 years ago
On a single planet the odds of life developing are extremely small, but when you have trillions of planets eventually you will get one. Only on those planets whom developed life can there be minds to question the odds of them being sentient. It's like having a lottery in which no one knows exists except the winners.
It would be very easy for the winners to think that they were somehow chosen since they did not know they were even entered to win.
untroubled 2 years ago
I remember once learning in middle-school that one theory of life was that microbes from another planet seeded the earth. But then the immediate question any child would've asked which I did was, well, how did those originate?
The former theory possible DOES NOT explain the origin of life, it just transfers the problem. Just like saying God did it.
grimwatcher 2 years ago 9
While it doesn't explain how life came about it gives us a much broader range, if life came from earth then all our theories must be built on early earth conditions, if life could have originated anywhere in the universe we have countless more possible avenues to explore.
Plinkington 1 year ago
@grimwatcher I agree that panspermia doesn't explain the origins of life, but it is a valid theory about how it came to planet earth. Now, saying it came from another planet and saying God did it are two diferent things. In one you're saying it was born somewhere else and you don't how and in the other you're saying life magically appeared because our big daddy got bored and wanted something to do...
bernytheman 1 year ago
@bernytheman You're right they're both saying different things. I probably should've been more careful with my vocabulary and elaborated on it. And Perhaps there could be way to test for Panspermia, again, hypothesis and theories live on die based on evidence and their ability to be falsified. So we would have to find a good test for it. Thanks for catching that error, I'll try to be more careful with my language next time.
grimwatcher 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy simply believes in aliens - he doesn't believe in God yet he makes the leap to aliens - this man is a fool!!!!Bang-Bang
micenza 2 years ago
He doesn't believe in aliens. He believes that there is a good chance that aliens exist, good enough to at least speculate about it. The rational mind would make the distinction between god and aliens.
vooooom 2 years ago 15
@vooooom possibly. i think it's also worth thinking that if extraterrestrial intelligent life did indeed ever visit this planet while we're on it that the very fact they were able to travel to this planet might mean they are so much more technologically advanced than us that we perceive them as god or gods
HappyRogueStatus 1 year ago
@vooooom
I would add that often times the word "Alien" has a certain connotation. But technically an Alien could be any of form of life on a planet that isn't ours; such as bacteria, microscopic organisms, or even plants.
YahIDontKnow 1 year ago
You clearly don't understand what he is saying, which says a lot more about you than it does him.
shashintokyo 1 year ago
i'll keep it very, very complicated you lot:
science is the how.
God (not religion*) is the why.
* it is important to understand that a belief in God does not always assert that the believer is part of a society of indoctrinated persons that is usually described with that heinous term "religion" or "religious".
patto678 2 years ago
I'll keep it very very simple for YOU. Science is the how. The why is unimportant. Natural Selection can be seen as a why, for instance, but it's still kind of a how. Why is "Why" so important? Is it that damaging to your ego that you weren't designed?
Aberusugi 2 years ago 3
You seem rather angered there..
Nothing happens for no reason.
There is no such thing as a coincidence.
I seem to be leaning to the notion (at the moment) that Micro Evolution ( NOT Macro Evolution- the bollocks about the world and it's lifeforms all stemming from nothing and a near impossible explosion of matter along with all the laws of nature and physics- thats all seems ridiculous) is HOW GOD created the world to be as it is nw. He set all these amazing Laws of life into action.
I
patto678 2 years ago
dont see how the Laws of Physics created themselves - they- and all other laws that hold this world together- were designed by God.
On alighter note, if you take all this shit realt literally your going to have a rewally sad life
patto678 2 years ago
you already have a sad life, a believer in fairy tales and superstition.
Stonewalljackson7 2 years ago
Well I do get rather angered when you derogatorially and sarcastic address us as a lot and say you are going to be complicated and state two sentences. Leave your demeaning ways out of intelligent discussion. I'm asking you, what could you possibly base your belief that there has to be a why on. There is no evidence for the existence of a God, no evidence for us having to have a purpose to be here, so what do you base your beliefs on? Feeling? Upbringing?
Aberusugi 2 years ago
you seem rather stupid here..
cricketlover1117 2 years ago
He's forgetting the third factor: the size of the universe. There could be thousands of technologically advanced (as us) civilisations in just our galaxy alone, but how to communicate over hundreds of light-years, let alone travel? We've barely had time to explore our own solar system. One could speculate that similar conditions hold elsewhere.
Ibis333 2 years ago
That's not even addressing the fact that intelligence doesn't necessarily mean tool-making--think whales (even more highly evolved ones). Nor does even 'sapiodexterity' necessarily result in technology--think human hunter/gatherer societies. Entirely conceivable that intelligent aliens exist but have no ability or no interest in space exploration or extra-planetary life.
Ibis333 2 years ago 2
not to mention information is limited to the speed of light. We've only been able to interpret information like radio for less than 100 years. That is an incredibly small target for radio waves from even thousands of other species that happened to evolve with hands that could make tools to hit. Not to mention, we have to be listening to the right frequency, of which there are innumerable. Also, it's entirely possible that life exists on venus. Sulfur-based extremophiles exist on earth in similar
chuckinator0 2 years ago
what if WE are technologically poor form of life ?
corezone22 2 years ago 2
And to think that another race capable of intelligent communication through means of radio waves, which is the most basic form and easiest to use as can be attained through any amount of scientific study, would be unimaginable. Perhaps they forgot of radio transmission... well then they may not be looking for other intelligent life, because I'm sure we would hold to every form of communication in order to contact other life.
notbill9465 2 years ago
Not true as the conveying of much detailed information through communication (as we are capable of) would be enough for any race to want to interact with another. My guess is, if their is other life wanting to make contact, they may be studying us to see who or what country (if they know of our "countries") they should contact, how to interact, and whether or not they will be harmed. My guess is that that criteria won't be filled anytime soon so...
notbill9465 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
good vid.
Zentz29 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism cannot deny to God because cannot deny to the intelligence. If the random movement of cerebral subatomic particles determines our thoughts, really we can decide and be conscious beings?. Atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption not verifiable. Richard says: God no exists, but he is based on idea not verifiable. Due to this, he is lying. My evidence is the people, the persons do science. The subatomic particles moves due to our design and due to this are