Origin of life elsewhere and close together
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Scientists present first bread-and-butter results_from_LHC_collisions
Next: Who is really the 'personality' that calls himself 'Inertial'??!!
From: Desertphile on 11 Jun 2010 11:01 On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 4:37�pm, Glenn <GlennShel...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > On Jun 10, 12:22 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 10, 3:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Then don't wait, no one is stopping you. My point here is that it's > > > > > pointless to speculate. We'll be long gone before it happens. Probably > > > > > as a species, but who knows? > > > > Please prove your point. I am dealing in fact. > > > What fact? Facts about what? > > > > How is space travel pointless speculation? > > > For two reasons. 1) The global climate change is a far more pressing > > > concern than space travel; we don't have the time or resources to > > > worry about sending manned missions out to colonize Mars. 2) It's > > > pointless speculation because, with the exception of the moon or Mars, > > > you and I will be long dead before we ever manage to get anyone > > > outside the solar system to colonize other systems. That much is most > > > certainly a fact. > > You're as goofy as he is. > Science isn't going to win the argument against religion about god. Science is not engaging in any such argument, silly. -- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
From: BURT on 11 Jun 2010 14:55 On Jun 11, 8:01�am, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT), BURT > > > > > > <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 10, 4:37�pm, Glenn <GlennShel...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 10, 12:22 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 3:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Then don't wait, no one is stopping you. My point here is that it's > > > > > > pointless to speculate. We'll be long gone before it happens. Probably > > > > > > as a species, but who knows? > > > > > Please prove your point. I am dealing in fact. > > > > What fact? Facts about what? > > > > > How is space travel pointless speculation? > > > > For two reasons. 1) The global climate change is a far more pressing > > > > concern than space travel; we don't have the time or resources to > > > > worry about sending manned missions out to colonize Mars. 2) It's > > > > pointless speculation because, with the exception of the moon or Mars, > > > > you and I will be long dead before we ever manage to get anyone > > > > outside the solar system to colonize other systems. That much is most > > > > certainly a fact. > > > You're as goofy as he is. > > Science isn't going to win the argument against religion about God. > > Science is not engaging in any such argument, silly. The high priest of sience Stephen Hawking said that we do not need God. Mitch Raemsch > > --http://desertphile.org > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: cassandra on 11 Jun 2010 15:12 On Jun 11, 2:55�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 8:01 am, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT), BURT > > > <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 10, 4:37 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 12:22 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Then don't wait, no one is stopping you. My point here is that it's > > > > > > > pointless to speculate. We'll be long gone before it happens. Probably > > > > > > > as a species, but who knows? > > > > > > Please prove your point. I am dealing in fact. > > > > > What fact? Facts about what? > > > > > > How is space travel pointless speculation? > > > > > For two reasons. 1) The global climate change is a far more pressing > > > > > concern than space travel; we don't have the time or resources to > > > > > worry about sending manned missions out to colonize Mars. 2) It's > > > > > pointless speculation because, with the exception of the moon or Mars, > > > > > you and I will be long dead before we ever manage to get anyone > > > > > outside the solar system to colonize other systems. That much is most > > > > > certainly a fact. > > > > You're as goofy as he is. > > > Science isn't going to win the argument against religion about God. > > > Science is not engaging in any such argument, silly. > > The high priest of sience Stephen Hawking said that we do not need > God. Typical quote-mining. From what I have read, Hawking never said any such thing. > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > --http://desertphile.org > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 11 Jun 2010 15:38 On Jun 11, 12:12�pm, cassandra <cassandra99...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 2:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 8:01 am, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net> > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT), BURT > > > > <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 4:37 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 12:22 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Then don't wait, no one is stopping you. My point here is that it's > > > > > > > > pointless to speculate. We'll be long gone before it happens. Probably > > > > > > > > as a species, but who knows? > > > > > > > Please prove your point. I am dealing in fact. > > > > > > What fact? Facts about what? > > > > > > > How is space travel pointless speculation? > > > > > > For two reasons. 1) The global climate change is a far more pressing > > > > > > concern than space travel; we don't have the time or resources to > > > > > > worry about sending manned missions out to colonize Mars. 2) It's > > > > > > pointless speculation because, with the exception of the moon or Mars, > > > > > > you and I will be long dead before we ever manage to get anyone > > > > > > outside the solar system to colonize other systems. That much is most > > > > > > certainly a fact. > > > > > You're as goofy as he is. > > > > Science isn't going to win the argument against religion about God. > > > > Science is not engaging in any such argument, silly. > > > The high priest of sience Stephen Hawking said that we do not need > > God. > > Typical quote-mining. �From what I have read, Hawking never said any > such thing. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > --http://desertphile.org > > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > > > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - He said it on camera. I saw the video. I think it was Stephen Hawking master of the Universe first episode. He said it publically. He said if the science created the universe then we don't need God. That is all there is to this argument. Mitch Raemsch
From: cassandra on 11 Jun 2010 17:00
On Jun 11, 3:38�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 12:12 pm, cassandra <cassandra99...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 2:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 8:01 am, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT), BURT > > > > > <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 10, 4:37 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 10, 12:22 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Then don't wait, no one is stopping you. My point here is that it's > > > > > > > > > pointless to speculate. We'll be long gone before it happens. Probably > > > > > > > > > as a species, but who knows? > > > > > > > > Please prove your point. I am dealing in fact. > > > > > > > What fact? Facts about what? > > > > > > > > How is space travel pointless speculation? > > > > > > > For two reasons. 1) The global climate change is a far more pressing > > > > > > > concern than space travel; we don't have the time or resources to > > > > > > > worry about sending manned missions out to colonize Mars. 2) It's > > > > > > > pointless speculation because, with the exception of the moon or Mars, > > > > > > > you and I will be long dead before we ever manage to get anyone > > > > > > > outside the solar system to colonize other systems. That much is most > > > > > > > certainly a fact. > > > > > > You're as goofy as he is. > > > > > Science isn't going to win the argument against religion about God. > > > > > Science is not engaging in any such argument, silly. > > > > The high priest of sience Stephen Hawking said that we do not need > > > God. > > > Typical quote-mining. From what I have read, Hawking never said any > > such thing. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > --http://desertphile.org > > > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > > > > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > He said it on camera. I saw the video. I think it was Stephen Hawking > master of the Universe first episode. He said it publically. He said > if the science created the universe then we don't need God. That is > all there is to this argument. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I just watched the YouTube version of "Master of the Universe". At around 2:20 of Part 1, he asks the question "Do we still need a God?". And that's as close as he gets to what you say he said. The context of his question is in relation to understanding the nature of the Universe. From the context, I understand this to mean, paraphrasing, that a supernatural deity may be unnecessary to understanding the physical nature of the Universe. This is also what I get from what I have read. This is quite different from your assertion. Unless you can cite something more substantial than "I saw it", then I agree you have nothing more to add. |