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: Glenn on 11 Jun 2010 17:12 On Jun 11, 8:01�am, Desertphile <desertph...(a)invalid-address.net> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:37:51 -0700 (PDT), 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. > > Translation: you couldn't refute or even deny what he wrote, so > you restorted to the only thing left to you---- an attempt to > insult. > Is that a fact.
From: Kermit on 11 Jun 2010 18:00 On Jun 11, 11:55�am, 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. I am nearly as surprised to hear that he is a high priest as he would be. He is a real scientist, but you know him because he is a pop science book writer, and because his physical affliction makes him popular with the human interest magazines. Neither fact gives him particular status in the scientific community. His scientific training and activity gives him no particular authority on religious matters. His pronouncements there rest on his reasoning. It is not the science of physics which argues for or against gods, but only some physicists. Some physicists claim there *are gods, but they know that they have no scientific evidence for it. When you claim that God has material characteristics that can be verified, then science can study her. It, Him, Them, Whatever. Does your god have a mass, or a temperature? Does she reside somewhere and leave footprints which can be photographed? I so, then he is a fit subject for science. But until you make claims that imply material effects which can be verified by others, there is nothing science can do with it. > > 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 - Kermit
From: BURT on 11 Jun 2010 18:10 On Jun 11, 2:00�pm, cassandra <cassandra99...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If your asking the question it is because you really are an atheist because a religious person would never ask it. That part of science is not going to win the argument against God. Mitch Raemsch
From: cassandra on 12 Jun 2010 01:59 On Jun 11, 6:10�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 2:00�pm, cassandra <cassandra99...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > If your asking the question it is because you really are an atheist > because a religious person would never ask it. That part of science is > not going to win the argument against God. You keep mentioning some argument against God, but you don't say clearly what you think that argument actually is. Clearly you misrepresent what Hawking meant. Why does Hawking's question threatens your belief in God's existence?
From: BURT on 12 Jun 2010 14:32
On Jun 11, 10:59�pm, cassandra <cassandra99...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 6:10�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 2:00�pm, cassandra <cassandra99...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If your asking the question it is because you really are an atheist > > because a religious person would never ask it. That part of science is > > not going to win the argument against God. > > You keep mentioning some argument against God, but you don't say > clearly what you think that argument actually is. �Clearly you > misrepresent what Hawking meant. � The argument is whether we need God if science can exlain everything. That is exactly what Hawking meant. Is it not? Why does Hawking's question > threatens your belief in God's existence?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have a better question than Hawking. Where does order in the universe come from before man? Does that question make you doubt atheism? Mitch Raemsch |