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: cassandra on 13 Jun 2010 09:18 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.
From: cassandra on 13 Jun 2010 09:29 On Jun 12, 9:45�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. I agree with your point above. OTOH your point applies to most of the posts from the loyal opposition. If our responses were meant for just them, there would be little point to any of the discussions here.
From: Ernest Major on 13 Jun 2010 10:51 In message <fef708b2-6179-4472-9466-aebbe62eab8d(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> writes >Where does order in the universe come from before man? Does that >question make you doubt atheism? No. That you are reduced to the "argument from 1st cause" reinforces my doubts about theism. -- alias Ernest Major
From: BURT on 13 Jun 2010 14:25 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 - Balogna. Order is an absolute. The eye of the mind sees that it exists before man. MItch Raemsch
From: BURT on 13 Jun 2010 14:28
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? |