Origin of life elsewhere and close together
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Crackpot conspiracy theory believed by millions violates laws of physics
Next: THE WORTHLESSNESS OF GOLD DUE TO TO HUGE SUBSEA DEPOSITS OF THAT COMMODITY. One only deposit is estimated to overshot the 40 millions tons
From: BURT on 13 Jun 2010 22:54 On Jun 13, 11:35�am, "richardalanforr...(a)googlemail.com" <richardalanforr...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 7:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 6:18 am, cassandra <cassandra99...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 12, 2:32 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > As I said, it is not. Hawking did not say "everything". In context, > > > he limits his question to knowledge of the material Universe, in part > > > because that is all that science can explain. As a metaphysical > > > argument, it is possible there is nothing beyond science in > > > principle. It is also possible there are things that science can not > > > explain in principle. There are some scientific explanations that put > > > limits to what we can know, but these limits may be artifacts of > > > limited knowledge. Nobody knows if we can know everything. The best > > > we can ever do is to recognize what we know and what we don't know. > > > > > > Why does Hawking's question > > > > > threaten your belief in God's existence? > > > > I have a better question than Hawking. > > > > It was your question. Does this mean you aren't interested in it > > > anymore? > > > > > Where does order in the universe come from before man? > > > > I like Burkhard's answer. How is this a better question? > > > > > Does that question make you doubt atheism? > > > > It appears you believe this question is rhetorically equivalent to > > > mine. It is not. You assert your concern about Hawking's question, > > > but I make no reference to atheism. In point of fact, you fail to > > > connect the dots between atheism and your "evidence". I wish you > > > would. Your posts are just one non sequitur after another.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If science isn't engaging in the argument why does Stephen Hawking > > bring up the question? > > Because Stephen Hawking is a human being as well as a scientist, and > free to express whatever views he wishes. So now it is more human to question God and argue against Him? LOL > > Or do you think that people should not be allowed to express such > views? Well you atheists have free speach. But you're never going to get the rights of a church. If you want equal rights then atheism must remain seperate from the state. I advocate the seperation of atheism and state. Mitch Raemsch > > RF- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: bpuharic on 13 Jun 2010 23:22 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:54:20 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jun 13, 11:35�am, "richardalanforr...(a)googlemail.com" ><richardalanforr...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 13, 7:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > If science isn't engaging in the argument why does Stephen Hawking >> > bring up the question? >> >> Because Stephen Hawking is a human being as well as a scientist, and >> free to express whatever views he wishes. > >So now it is more human to question God and argue against Him? i seem to remember someone once asked, in extremis, 'eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani'....'my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?' but, then, i read my bible. most creationists dont. > >LOL > >> >> Or do you think that people should not be allowed to express such >> views? > >Well you atheists have free speach. But you're never going to get the >rights of a church. If you want equal rights then atheism must remain >seperate from the state. >I advocate the seperation of atheism and state. contradictions all over the place with this little bit of gibberish >> >> - Show quoted text - >
From: cassandra on 14 Jun 2010 02:22 On Jun 13, 2:28�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > If science isn't engaging in the argument why does Stephen Hawking > bring up the question? You don't want to argue Hawking's question. You want to argue your question, but you haven't figured out what your question is.
From: Burkhard on 14 Jun 2010 03:32 On 14 June, 00:30, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2:44�am, Burkhard <b.scha...(a)ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 13 June, 03:05, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 12, 6:45 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 12, 8:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > I am sorry but that won't work. You never offered an answer to where > > > > > the order in the universe before man comes from? > > > > > You just say that you did when you didn't. > > > > > No I didn't. I said other people did, and they did. You already asked > > > > this question, and this question was already answered. I know because > > > > I read it, and you should know because you wrote it. I don't know if > > > > it was in this thread but where it is doesn't really matter; what does > > > > matter is that you're asking an answered question twice, which means > > > > to me that you ignored all the answers given the first time. No matter > > > > what anyone says, you're going to reject it if it's not in line with > > > > you think. It's just driving a car off a cliff. > > > > > So no, I'm not going to answer the question, not because I actually > > > > lack an answer, but because it won't get us anywhere. > > > > > > If you say it was the Big Bang itself then I ask you how can a lump of > > > > > matter create anything? How does that lump do it? > > > > > Phrasing a question about the Big Bang in the form of "how does a lump > > > > of matter create stuff" shows, to me, that you think it's totally > > > > stupid, and any explanation given will likely be dismissed by you as > > > > stupid. I'm speculating here, so I could be wrong. But when you ask a > > > > question in a manner that tries making the subject sound ridiculous, > > > > it kills any motive for me to answer it because I feel like I'd be > > > > throwing out an explanation to no avail, and it would just be a waste > > > > of time. > > > > > Essentially what I'm saying here is you're really just looking for a > > > > fight. If you *really* cared about how the Big Bang works, you could > > > > easily look it up, as it's an extremely common topic. But, you're > > > > BURT, and you want to entertain yourself, or so I believe. > > > > Just show where order comes from? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > It is a way of observing the world and understanding it that has > > evolutionary advantages and is hence hard-wired in our brain. Order is > > in the eye of the beholder.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Yes we observe order in the world. But where did the universe's order > come from? > So according to you the Big Bang is only in the eye of the beholder? Nope. The Big Bang is not particularly orderly. > What if you don't believe in the Big Bang? Does that mean it never > happened? Nope, that would be the source fallacy. > Mitch Raemsch
From: gregwrld on 14 Jun 2010 13:43
On Jun 13, 7:30�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2:44�am, Burkhard <b.scha...(a)ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 13 June, 03:05, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 12, 6:45 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 12, 8:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > I am sorry but that won't work. You never offered an answer to where > > > > > the order in the universe before man comes from? > > > > > You just say that you did when you didn't. > > > > > No I didn't. I said other people did, and they did. You already asked > > > > this question, and this question was already answered. I know because > > > > I read it, and you should know because you wrote it. I don't know if > > > > it was in this thread but where it is doesn't really matter; what does > > > > matter is that you're asking an answered question twice, which means > > > > to me that you ignored all the answers given the first time. No matter > > > > what anyone says, you're going to reject it if it's not in line with > > > > you think. It's just driving a car off a cliff. > > > > > So no, I'm not going to answer the question, not because I actually > > > > lack an answer, but because it won't get us anywhere. > > > > > > If you say it was the Big Bang itself then I ask you how can a lump of > > > > > matter create anything? How does that lump do it? > > > > > Phrasing a question about the Big Bang in the form of "how does a lump > > > > of matter create stuff" shows, to me, that you think it's totally > > > > stupid, and any explanation given will likely be dismissed by you as > > > > stupid. I'm speculating here, so I could be wrong. But when you ask a > > > > question in a manner that tries making the subject sound ridiculous, > > > > it kills any motive for me to answer it because I feel like I'd be > > > > throwing out an explanation to no avail, and it would just be a waste > > > > of time. > > > > > Essentially what I'm saying here is you're really just looking for a > > > > fight. If you *really* cared about how the Big Bang works, you could > > > > easily look it up, as it's an extremely common topic. But, you're > > > > BURT, and you want to entertain yourself, or so I believe. > > > > Just show where order comes from? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > It is a way of observing the world and understanding it that has > > evolutionary advantages and is hence hard-wired in our brain. Order is > > in the eye of the beholder.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Yes we observe order in the world. But where did the universe's order > come from? Why don't you tell us where order comes from? And don't forget to explain how it's actually done. You know, the details and all. > So according to you the Big Bang is only in the eye of the beholder? > What if you don't believe in the Big Bang? Does that mean it never > happened? > > Mitch Raemsch You can believe the universe has a soft, creamy center for all I care. But if you can't explain how it actually got that way it counts for nothing. gregwrld |