They've been identifying meteorites like this for three generations. Old news.

It takes a tremendous imagination to think there's not life elsewhere in this universe. Personally I'd be surprised if Earth was the only place in the Solar System that harbored it.

europa!

It takes a tremendous imagination to think there's not life elsewhere in this universe.

Imagination?

Spud woulda gone with "hubris" or "egocentrism" there.

We are stardust, btw.

Joni was right about that.

Be Well.

Old news.

Doesn't make it any less awe-inspiring.

The constipated conservative are clinging just a bit tighter to their bibles and guns today.

The Universe just doesn't possess life...

...it is alive.

Just like the Earth itself, the Universe is a living thing.

There is *NO* life anywhere else in the universe! It isn't there. No one has ever seen it. No one has ever made contact with it. Period! Someone finds a space rock and concludes life exists elsewhere?? Don't bible believers do the same with the Bible and the existence of God?

Come on now, if you cannot prove the existence of extraterrestrial life by actually showing us evidence, then one might just as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Don't you love the way the Atheist's argument can be used against the very SETI atheists (like Sagan) who enjoy poo pooing the existence of God?

Sab, why should anyone listen to someone who is too stupid to spell pooh-pooh ??

There is *NO* life anywhere else in the universe! It isn't there. No one has ever seen it.

Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence

If god is all powerful, and he/she lets the shit happen that goes on everyday, he/she must have a very poor opinion of his/her creation.

Seems like many choose to believe in either God or extraterrestrial intelligent life, but not both.

Why can't it be both? I have no proof of either, but as Goatman pointed out, "Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence."

feast? really? wtf......

I am always amazed that humans feel the need to fill a lack of knowledge with unsubstantiated belief.

"...Don't you love the way the Atheist's argument can be used against the very SETI atheists (like Sagan) who enjoy poo pooing the existence of God? #8 | Posted by Sabbatai..

Religious Moron: The Meteorite does not PROVE life exists elsewhere. It UPS THE ODDS that life exists elsewhere.

Only a religious moron believes in absolutes: God, Devil. Good, Bad.

Although every day that goes by Scientists are inspired by the discoveries they make along the way towards awesome Scientific Theories...

You just sit there, clinging to your bible and ranting about how it's all true. And you offer no proof, and you are conducting ZERO experiments.

Just a lot of moronic lip service.

Humiliated, you should just go away.

(Quotes proving God 'from the bible' begin in 5-4-3-2-...)

It is old news, and has been used by Eastern geologists and engineers for years as evidence of the abiotic oil theory. Organic material didn't necessarily have to be "alive"--it could merely be the product of natural processes similar to, as they say, fossil fuels, which aren't "fossils" at all.

It's interesting. I had never heard of it until an energy conference in Houston a few years ago. The speaker--who was very persuasive--was discussing how they're able to find oil in places nothing has ever lived, and that oil fields abandoned years ago seem to be filling up again.

Only a religious moron believes in absolutes

#15 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2010-02-16 01:48 PM

Ummmmm....organic rock......arrrgggghhhllllllll

You're alive.

You're in the Universe.

Therefore, there is life in the Universe.

It would be harder to prove there wasn't life in the Universe.

Since "we" have life, the probabilities overwhelmingly suggest, that life can not be confined to only one rock in space.

In fact, to think that life does NOT exist outside the confines of Earth's atmosphere, is not even logical.

It is old news, and has been used by Eastern geologists and engineers for years as evidence of the abiotic oil theory. Organic material didn't necessarily have to be "alive"--it could merely be the product of natural processes similar to, as they say, fossil fuels, which aren't "fossils" at all.

It's interesting. I had never heard of it until an energy conference in Houston a few years ago. The speaker--who was very persuasive--was discussing how they're able to find oil in places nothing has ever lived, and that oil fields abandoned years ago seem to be filling up again.

#16 | Posted by rightisright

Billions of tons of organic material finds its way to the bottom of the oceans - every single day.

What happens to this organic material?

Oil is renewable. It is formed, on a self-sustaining basis, by the reaction of sea water on organic compounds under tremendous pressure and heat.

Oil will run out as soon as the oceans dry up.

You are either right, or you are wrong.
Period.
History either hapened or it didn't

The gold standard is the time machine. The truth would be what a time machine could see if it went back in time.

In other words there is not many paths to God.
there is one God
there is one history and there is one path

the others are inventions.

there is one history at any point.

We cannot imagine the world came from dryers ice cream facotry and then go looking for clues to ice cream in venezuella, youll find it but the premise is worng.

Science has left us, most of these scientists are so specialist trained they can't see the big picture.

The big picture still is the fact that if organic molecules happened to be created in a slush sludge or solution you would have an equal mix of racemic left and right amino acids it

and it is scientifically totally impossible
to create LEVO amino acid proteins out of a mix
totally
impossible.

Like looking for clues of bigfoot on venus, if yo find a footprint it cant be bigfoot, he would be cooked in 800 degree heat.

Evolutionists know this is a lie but since they cant explain life creating itself out of racemic mix they took away the part about BIOGENESIS and say that is not a part of evolution any longer, we just deal with early life and beyond.

Because there IS no biogenesis and they know it.

Ostriches. Head in sand, lie to keep tenure.

Omnivores.

#21 | Posted by richardrhine at 2010-02-16 02:13 PM

Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence

#10 | Posted by goatman

Indeed!!

You are either right, or you are wrong.
Period.
History either hapened or it didn't

The gold standard is the time machine. The truth would be what a time machine could see if it went back in time.

In other words there is not many paths to God.
there is one God
there is one history and there is one path

the others are inventions.

there is one history at any point.

We cannot imagine the world came from dryers ice cream facotry and then go looking for clues to ice cream in venezuella, youll find it but the premise is worng.

Science has left us, most of these scientists are so specialist trained they can't see the big picture.

The big picture still is the fact that if organic molecules happened to be created in a slush sludge or solution you would have an equal mix of racemic left and right amino acids it

and it is scientifically totally impossible
to create LEVO amino acid proteins out of a mix
totally
impossible.

Like looking for clues of bigfoot on venus, if yo find a footprint it cant be bigfoot, he would be cooked in 800 degree heat.

Evolutionists know this is a lie but since they cant explain life creating itself out of racemic mix they took away the part about BIOGENESIS and say that is not a part of evolution any longer, we just deal with early life and beyond.

Because there IS no biogenesis and they know it.

Ostriches. Head in sand, lie to keep tenure.

Omnivores.

#21 | Posted by richardrhine

Hell, I might even agree with you...

...but not entirely sure what you said.

Can you break this down into I-have-not-set-foot-inside-a-
church-for-over-20-years speak?

Although every day that goes by Scientists are inspired by the discoveries they make along the way towards awesome Scientific Theories...

You just sit there, clinging to your bible and ranting about how it's all true. And you offer no proof, and you are conducting ZERO experiments.

#15 | Posted by DUMPLING1

Ok, you go first. Show me the latest scientific discoveries that *prove* life exists elsewhere. My guess is, I will have to wait, clinging to my bible and conducting zero experiments, while you go and find the data!

In fact, to think that life does NOT exist outside the confines of Earth's atmosphere, is not even logical.

#19 | Posted by BENDOR

Some would say the same thing about the existence of God, and they lack empirical evidence too!

Ok, you go first. Show me the latest scientific discoveries that *prove* life exists elsewhere. My guess is, I will have to wait, clinging to my bible and conducting zero experiments, while you go and find the data!

#25 | Posted by Sabbata

Not proof. Probabilities.

You could be right - the odds strongly suggest you're not - but you could be.

You could also be right about the "one true church" - again, the odds strongly suggest otherwise - but you could be right.

If you are, I guess I should be happy that I haven't spent the last 20 years attending the wrong church.

Some would say the same thing about the existence of God, and they lack empirical evidence too!

#26 | Posted by Sabbatai

And they could say it about that big clock hanging on your wall.

However, that too would be illogical too. Of course your clock has a maker.

Therefore, the probabilities suggest that all things must have makers.

Including the Universe.

The probabilities are what they are.

Hell, I might even agree with you...

...but not entirely sure what you said.

Can you break this down into I-have-not-set-foot-inside-a-
church-for-over-20-years speak?

#24 | Posted by BENDOR

Probabilities? Ok, how about this:

Probabilities? Ok, how about this:

us1.harunyahya.com

#29 | Posted by Sabbatai

Thank you. We do agree then. The probabilities strongly suggest life.

Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence

#10 | Posted by goatman

Carl Sagan would agree with you, unless you are talking about God. However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Carl Sagan would agree with you, unless you are talking about God. However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Carl Sagan would be logically wrong with his postulation. Like the believers in extraterrestrial life who bear the burden of proof of its existence, the believers in god bear the burden of proof of his existence.

In other words there is not many paths to God.
there is one God there is one history and there is one path the others are inventions.

#21 | Posted by richardrhine

Okay, and what makes you so sure you found the right path to God?

Because you were born to it? For most people, religion is a function of who your parents are and where in the world you were born.

You just got lucky with it - born in the right place to the right parents - what gives?

What is the name of this one path to God? Although "Jesus" is your obvious answer, what church has it all figured out?

...a coincident? A lot of organics use started to be rampant with the 60's flower generation about 40 years ago...hence-a religion was born. Not unlike another middle-eastern religion worshiping another rock from space.

the believers in god bear the burden of proof of his existence.

#32 | Posted by goatman

Do you believe in God, or an intelligent architect?

Do you believe in God, or an intelligent architect?

No

Thank you. We do agree then. The probabilities strongly suggest life.

#30 | Posted by BENDOR

Yes, but what *Life* are we agreeing to?

I can not explain why there is something and not nothing. "Quantum fluctuation" isn't doing it for me. On that basis, I believe in a sort of God.

I do trust my observational powers and current science that lead me to conclude that there are a decillion cubic light years in the visible universe (and likely more beyond that).

To state that I suspect there are lifeforms elsewhere is a pedestrian claim. I can't say that there *are* without further proof, but suspecting it is certainly reasonable. Rocks like the one in this article only make it a more reasonable suspicion.

To state a belief in an intervening, cares what people think, ritual-ordaining God is a far less pedestrian claim. It is, as Dethspud points out, such an egotistical claim that it needs further proof before even suggesting it to someone.

I am always amazed that humans feel the need to fill a lack of knowledge with unsubstantiated belief.

#14 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2010-02-16 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Believes his paycheck won't bounce.

As has been said--All religions can't be right---but they can all be wrong.

There are forms of life on earth not yet discovered. Watching the Disovery Channel the other night, they were focusing the program on deep sea vent from volcanoes and the life that formed around them, These lifeforms did not require sunlight as a basis for their existence. If the sun went out tomorrow, their lives would be unaffected as long as the vent kept putting out its scorching hot water and minerals. In addition to those life forms, they actually sent a camera inside one of the vents and found microscopic shrimp like creatures that endured water temperatures of over 230 degrees celsius, and pressure of 5300 pounds per square inch. My point is that--to me--such life forms must have evolved. If there is a god as religions claim, and all life comes from that god, then all the evil life was created by that god also. Life like the black plague, pheumonia, AIDS, cancer, smallpox, polio and on and on. To me if there were a just and loving god and that god wanted you dead for your sins, you would just fall over and die. A just and loving god would not torture you with pain and suffering before killing you. I elect to believe there is no god rather than worship a basically evil god for whom I have no respect. In addition it seems highly improbable that the first intelligence to exist was the most complex entity ever imagined. Lastly. even if the biblical god were proven beyond doubt, I still wouldn't worship it. The worship would be out of fear, and how can you trust a god that created crib death? I would keep my integrity and spend eternity in hell with the rest of my friends. I know all responses will only focus on one or two sentences and disregard the rest of the points made.

and it is scientifically totally impossible
to create LEVO amino acid proteins out of a mix
totally
impossible.

#21 | Posted by richardrhine

And it is also scientifically totally impossible to create something out of nothing. Therefore, there can be no creation and no creator.

...Watching the Disovery Channel the other night, they were focusing the program on deep sea vent from volcanoes and the life that formed around them...My point is that--to me--such life forms must have evolved. If there is a god as religions claim, and all life comes from that god, then all the evil life was created by that god also. Life like the black plague, pheumonia, AIDS, cancer, smallpox, polio and on and on. To me if there were a just and loving god and that god wanted you dead for your sins, you would just fall over and die. A just and loving god would not torture you with pain and suffering before killing you. I elect to believe there is no god rather than worship a basically evil god for whom I have no respect.

40 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-16 05:41 PM

Sorry I missed seeing that particular show on the Discovery Channel (one of my favorite channels). I'll keep my eyes open for the re-run.

Good post and some solid thoughts, but as for the part where you blame God and religion, I'll have to come back a little later on to duke it out with you. lol Have some things to do now.

But while I'm gone...

I'm not all that familiar with the verses in the Bible but I'd sure like at least one of the atheists on DR to provide me with a quote -- any quote -- from the Bible where God Himself promised us humans nothing but a life of smooth sailing and rose gardens.

Waiting on you, and waiting and waiting and....

: )

....I know all responses will only focus on one or two sentences and disregard the rest of the points made.

#40 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-16 05:41 PM

Probably. You know how it is on DR. But, as a whole, your post contained many good points -- many things to consider -- even if one does not agree with it in its entirety.

I'm not all that familiar with the verses in the Bible but I'd sure like at least one of the atheists on DR to provide me with a quote -- any quote -- from the Bible where God Himself promised us humans nothing but a life of smooth sailing and rose gardens.

Waiting on you, and waiting and waiting and....

: )

#42 | Posted by CalifChris at 2010-02-16 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think anyone really thinks that god is disproved because not every thing is smooth sailing and rose gardens. But I think a loving and just god is disproved if god is the only life giver and he gives life to terrible things that kill innocent beings. Babies with brain cancer, children with leprosy, plagues that kill millions. If I had that power, I wouldn't use it on innocents, and any god I would worship would have to have a higher value for life than I do. So rather than believe there is an evil god---I choose to believe there is no god. That that is, is. That that is not, is not.

Buffalo, what do you suppose God do with terrible people, taking your whole post in context?

The children with brain cancer is a hard question, and a hard fact, however sometimes things take place because of the choices that parents made. Unfortunately we do not know why all forms of cancer develop, why it chooses who it chooses and where exactly it comes from.

If these things do not behave the way they curently do, you really are proposing a life of smooth sailing and rose gardens.

Pain would be gone, tiredness would be gone, fear would be gone, as all these things come from bad things, or our bodies breaking down.

"Faith is being sure of what I hope for and certain of what I do not see"

1---A god that created this universe and man

2---Exterrestrial life

3---Global Warming caused by manmade CO2 emissions

4---Commonsense and rational leftists

Can you break this down into I-have-not-set-foot-inside-a-
church-for-over-20-years speak?

#24 | Posted by BENDOR

What he was trying to say is that he is pretty sure you are going to hell. and your fancy friends too.

"Where did we come from and what happened before? We all have that question inside us."

except for the believers... they need no proof... they believe.

Ok, you go first. Show me the latest scientific discoveries that *prove* life exists elsewhere. My guess is, I will have to wait, clinging to my bible and conducting zero experiments, while you go and find the data!

#25 | Posted by Sabbata

therein lies the rub. You "believe" yet you do not seek proof nor do you have any real evidence.

We agnostics and atheists think in possibilities and we look for evidence to support our theory. So, unless your God is littering the Universe with random "evidence" to confuse and mislead us (to test our faith?) then the more we look around in this Universe the more evidence we get that life must exist outside of Earth. We have shown that the Universe is ancient beyond understanding and that even the Earth is very very old. We have now found water on Mars and even the Moon. Life is extremely hardy as the deep ocean vents prove.

And we have shown that the Universe is vast and the distances between worlds is great and it is only a matter of time before conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial Life is available.

I wonder if the same can be said of God. Or will we only "know" the truth about God's existence after we are dead. And if that is the case what good is that "knowledge" then?

The children with brain cancer is a hard question, and a hard fact, however sometimes things take place because of the choices that parents made. Unfortunately we do not know why all forms of cancer develop, why it chooses who it chooses and where exactly it comes from.

Killing children for the choices of the parents is not the action of a just and loving god. You are also ignoring the other diseases mentioned. Killing is one thing--torture is another. To a cow--a human is a god. Without humans, modern cows would soon be extinct--we hold the power of their creation---and we hold the power of life and death. We kill cows, but even humans realise the difference between killing and torturing before killing. We don't treat cows that way, and a just and loving god would not treat humans that way. That isn't to say there isn't a god---but if there is, it isn't a just and loving god. It is a petty and evil god. Rather than worship a petty and evil god, I choose to believe there is not god.

If these things do not behave the way they curently do, you really are proposing a life of smooth sailing and rose gardens.

Not at all. There are still wars, and accidental death. Where humans die by their own choices---not at the whim of an unjust god. There is plenty of misery in the world without death. If you were correct, everyone who isn't dying of some disease would have smooth sailing and be living in a rose garden. That is not the case.

Pain would be gone, tiredness would be gone, fear would be gone, as all these things come from bad things, or our bodies breaking down.

None of those things would be gone. Senseless disease and tortured death have nothing to do with those things. People who aren't dying of a deadly disease feel pain. People who aren't dying of a deadly disease feel tired. People who aren't dying of a deadly disease feel fear.

#45 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag

"He (God) must have a very poor opinion of His creation...."

It would be nice if man dealt with its poor opinion of itself for for tackling God.

Take napalm for instance. Or the variant of Ebola Marburg ZOMBIE asserts scientists would never work on.

Ah, but God LETS us create such things. Made the mistake of allowing us to have feelings, an intellect, and free will.

Poor God, too stupid to know that what we really wanted was to be automatons, or some form of really vicious ant.

"To a cow, a human is God...."

Frankly, the cows I know just don't give a flip.

"There is plenty of misery in the world without death...."

I think I'm at last getting some insigt into you. Pissed off you won't live forever. I'd advise you to get over it, you won't.

Kind of funny, really. The only thing I know who promises immortality was called Christ. And you're pissed at Him.

"Rather than worship a petty and evil God, I choose to beleive there is no God..."

And God, for His part, wonders when you'll get off the petty and evil wagon and show Him how it's done. Start any time.

and you know what god wonders, how?

"To a cow, a human is God...."

Frankly, the cows I know just don't give a flip.

#51 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-16 08:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really---ever tried kicking a bull in the nuts? Give it a shot.

I think I'm at last getting some insigt into you. Pissed off you won't live forever. I'd advise you to get over it, you won't.

I said nothing about living forever. The discussion was about torturing before death, and creating life that kiled and tortured innocents for no reason. I don't fear death. From my point of view---either you are alive or you are dead. I have only been alive for a short while, but I was dead for billions and billions of years. No problem.

Kind of funny, really. The only thing I know who promises immortality was called Christ. And you're pissed at Him.

The promise is not something I cherish. No sex--no gambling--no challenge--no winning--no losing. That isn't a life for any human. To live that existence for all eternity would be beyond hell. Any god that would torure souls for all eternity is not a just and loving god. I would do that to a dog that killed my child, and I would have to worship a god that has better morals than me---that god isn't in the bible, koran, or torah.

#52 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-16 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

And God, for His part, wonders when you'll get off the petty and evil wagon and show Him how it's done. Start any time.

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-16 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

He doesn't need any lessons.

"And God, for His part, wonders when you'll get off the petty and evil wagon and show Him how it's done"

Is that what God is doing these days? I thought he might have bigger fish to fry.

"He doesn't need in any lessons...."

That's right, BOB. Not looking for a lesson, just a little effort.

"I thought He'd have bigger fish to fry...."

He seems to think we're more important even than big fish. Jesus actually said something very close to that.

"That promise is nothing I cherish...."

Immortality? Well, you're allowed to pass it by.

"No sex--No gambling..."

And, apparently, no BOB.

"I said nothign about living forever..."

You've said over and over again what a raw deal you've think you've got. Interestingly, you're allowed to pass this by, also.

"And you know what God wonders...."

Sorry. BOB's mind-read God so often and thoroughly some appears to have rubbed off on me.

"I would have to worship a god that has better morals than me...."

Well, if I were a Hindu, I'd have to suggest that would be most of them.

There is plenty of gamble and risk and winning and losing, and if you are married, sex in this existence. Even if you follow Christ all these things are still present.

You have to try your best to live out the example, you will lose at that, you have to continue on in perseverance through difficulty, you will win if you do that, you have to take risks in following Christ even when it is not popular, trusting in God when your will and the world tell you to do the opposite and you are unsure what is going to happen, you will be gambling with each step you take closer to Christ, your friends might forget you, your family might forget you and everything around you might change.

To say these things don't exist in the life of Christ would be foolish.

Also, would you be content if God simply let you continue on in your misery to your ultimate death when he knew that there was somthing better for you? Would you not have him do something dramatic to re-direct your attention toward something better?

Would you not complain that nothing was done to change your situation, or would you take full responsibility over your ignorance of the attempts to draw you back to what is right. Sometimes a great deal of adversity is what is best if it turns us away from a greater deal of adversity.

You've said over and over again what a raw deal you've think you've got. Interestingly, you're allowed to pass this by, also.

#62 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-16 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag

Not at all. I don't think I've got a raw deal. I think I have the same deal as everyone else, and I've been luckier than most. I don't believe there is a god, so I don't blame a god for anything or think that god has done anything. Where you get this stuff from is confusing.

Sorry. BOB's mind-read God so often and thoroughly some appears to have rubbed off on me.

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-16 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't attempt to read gods mind since I don't believe in god. However, I use the christian hypothesis of god and show why I wouldn't worship such and entity.

Christians say---only god gives life.

If that is true, then god gives life to evil entities that torture humans before killing them.

If that is false, then god is not the giver of all life and is not an all powerful god.

In either case--no mind reading involved.

Any mind reading of god is solely on your shoulders. You are the believer.

There is plenty of gamble and risk and winning and losing, and if you are married, sex in this existence. Even if you follow Christ all these things are still present.

What are the gambling and risk possiblities--I haven't heard of any. So you have to be married to have sex? Doesn't sound so pleasant. So some people have vaginas and penises and others don't? You have a wierder concept of heaven than most.

You have to try your best to live out the example, you will lose at that, you have to continue on in perseverance through difficulty, you will win if you do that, you have to take risks in following Christ even when it is not popular, trusting in God when your will and the world tell you to do the opposite and you are unsure what is going to happen, you will be gambling with each step you take closer to Christ, your friends might forget you, your family might forget you and everything around you might change.

We were talking about the existence in heaven. What you describe in the above paragraph is applicable to insane people also.

To say these things don't exist in the life of Christ would be foolish.

Also, would you be content if God simply let you continue on in your misery to your ultimate death when he knew that there was somthing better for you? Would you not have him do something dramatic to re-direct your attention toward something better?

Would you not complain that nothing was done to change your situation, or would you take full responsibility over your ignorance of the attempts to draw you back to what is right. Sometimes a great deal of adversity is what is best if it turns us away from a greater deal of adversity.

What adversity is there in heaven? What challenges? Are there demons in heaven trying to trick you so you go to hell? Eternity is a long long time---they would probably succeed at some point.

#65 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

What if entities only become evil through the manipulation of humans?

If you are talking about heaven, then that is something that would be difficult to assign desires to now wouldn't it?

We don't know if there will be challenges there or not, gambles or not, you can't say one way or the other. Just because you presume that you will be unhappy with no sex there does not mean that you will be happy with no sex there.

You are foreshadowing on current understanding and not looking at it as unexplained as it is.

One, how do you know that some of those things won't be present there? Are you only challenged by being made to overcome a trick?

How do you know you will still have the same desires once you find out what it does entail there, if in fact it is something that is real to be taken part of.

What if entities only become evil through the manipulation of humans?

#69 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

What type of manipulation are you speaking of, and how does an infant manipulate any of these entities?

What if entities only become evil through the manipulation of humans?

#69 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

What type of manipulation are you speaking of, and how does an infant manipulate any of these entities?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-16 09:34 PM | Reply

What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?

"I use the Christian hypothesis about God..."

No, you don't. You've got your own squirrely ideas, and they wouldn't float in even Sunday school for the 1st Graders. They'd catch you out before the end of an hour.

In other words BOB, you just continue a long conversation you've essentially had with yourself. If one of us interupts you just return to the conversation.

If you are talking about heaven, then that is something that would be difficult to assign desires to now wouldn't it?

Then how do you know it is desirable to go there?

We don't know if there will be challenges there or not, gambles or not, you can't say one way or the other. Just because you presume that you will be unhappy with no sex there does not mean that you will be happy with no sex there.

Then it wouldn't be me if I were happy with no sex. It would be another being. If being in heaven changes my basic human condition, then the concept of eternal life for anyone is false. The being they were died. The being in heaven would be an entirely different entity.

You are foreshadowing on current understanding and not looking at it as unexplained as it is.

It has been explained by Christians as something to live your life for. If there is no concept of the heaven you will go to after death, the only reason to worship is to hedge your bets out of fear of hell.

One, how do you know that some of those things won't be present there? Are you only challenged by being made to overcome a trick?

If they are considered evil on earth, they would be considered evil in heaven. Gambling--poker--craps--sex--
and not with the same partner for all eternity.

How do you know you will still have the same desires once you find out what it does entail there, if in fact it is something that is real to be taken part of.

If I don't have the same desires--it wouldn't be me. Much like a person who has had a lobotomy is not the same person as before the operation. No thanks.

#70 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag

#69 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

What type of manipulation are you speaking of, and how does an infant manipulate any of these entities?

#71 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-16 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I am talking about any manipulation. Growing plants in areas that they are not to grow in can cause changes in the plant and its derivitaves, taking animals from one place to another can affect organisms in different ways. In todays age, genetic altering of things changes the way they interact with the human body, which effects mother, father and therefore child.

There are a great deal of things that take place today that render difficulty on the world we live in and the entities thereof.

We have a great hand in the problems that arise.

Carbon Monoxide poisoning, when we didn't live in enclosed spaces like homes that were sealed so tight it would not be as big a problem, same with the house gases that we have to watch out for all the time.

different things that we have derived have increased risks to cancer and cellular malfunction.

I read and article about the process of aging just today that talks about cells being programmed to age and break down under certain circumstances in order to prevent cancer from forming or spreading.

All of our age defying nonsense would inhibit that process and possibly create more cancer by trying to prop up damages cells.

I think the article stated something about the cells stopping their division and dying if they reach a certain damage point. Age defying products would inhibit that.

Hey Zed.

I'll give Jesus another chance.

Jesus has five nanoseconds to suck my ass or you kill yourself.

No, you don't. You've got your own squirrely ideas, and they wouldn't float in even Sunday school for the 1st Graders. They'd catch you out before the end of an hour.

#73 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-16 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

You say my ideas are squirrely---yet you don't point out the squirrely part. Back your words. Show the flaws---here is another shot at it.

Christians say---only god gives life.

If that is true, then god gives life to evil entities that torture humans before killing them.

If that is false, then god is not the giver of all life and is not an all powerful god.

In either case--no mind reading involved.

Any mind reading of god is solely on your shoulders. You are the believer.

Show the squirrely part and explain the reality.

Waiting on you

;-)

Time's up.

Are you dead yet?

BTW Zed, you are even more hilariously pitifully stupid than bOoB.

In other words BOB, you just continue a long conversation you've essentially had with yourself. If one of us interupts you just return to the conversation.

#74 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-16 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag

Try interrupting with some logic. I refute all of your points---refute mine. Hint: Calling my ideas squirrely, isn't a refutation.

Nice of you to give Jesus a second chance, ZAT. Keep that up, you'll be a Christian.

"Try interrupting with some logic..."

Many have been there and done that, BOB.

"I refute all of your points..."

Yah. In much the same way ZAT explains physics.

If you are talking about heaven, then that is something that would be difficult to assign desires to now wouldn't it?

Then how do you know it is desirable to go there?

We don't know if there will be challenges there or not, gambles or not, you can't say one way or the other. Just because you presume that you will be unhappy with no sex there does not mean that you will be happy with no sex there.

Then it wouldn't be me if I were happy with no sex. It would be another being. If being in heaven changes my basic human condition, then the concept of eternal life for anyone is false. The being they were died. The being in heaven would be an entirely different entity.

You are foreshadowing on current understanding and not looking at it as unexplained as it is.

It has been explained by Christians as something to live your life for. If there is no concept of the heaven you will go to after death, the only reason to worship is to hedge your bets out of fear of hell.

One, how do you know that some of those things won't be present there? Are you only challenged by being made to overcome a trick?

If they are considered evil on earth, they would be considered evil in heaven. Gambling--poker--craps--sex--
and not with the same partner for all eternity.

How do you know you will still have the same desires once you find out what it does entail there, if in fact it is something that is real to be taken part of.

If I don't have the same desires--it wouldn't be me. Much like a person who has had a lobotomy is not the same person as before the operation. No thanks.

#70 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag

#75 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-16 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Bob, as a child did you require to have sex in order to enjoy yourself?
Have you always wanted sex or needed sex? or obsessed about sex?

If you answered no, then your desire for sex developed. Some of your other desires lessoned as you grew older, you see you were maturing, in the process of maturing in something past this physical existence it may very well be that you mature past the need for sex and things of that nature and move on to something greater and more mature.

I think there is a scripture that states something about "when I was a child I thougtht like a child and acted like a child, however there comes a time to put childish things behind me."

If we are in a process it is highlty likely that our desires will grow with us and change, without making us a different person.

You tell me what the Sciptures ( independently tell me 1. Koran 2. Judaism and 3. Christianity) say about heaven, what is certain, what is uncertain.

You are painting the picture that we know exactly what it is going to be, when it is very apparent that we do not.

I myself am eager for that because I wish to continue on in the journey of development if there is a next step. If you desire to remain immature that is your call. I choose not to.

I am talking about any manipulation. Growing plants in areas that they are not to grow in can cause changes in the plant and its derivitaves, taking animals from one place to another can affect organisms in different ways. In todays age, genetic altering of things changes the way they interact with the human body, which effects mother, father and therefore child.

There are a great deal of things that take place today that render difficulty on the world we live in and the entities thereof.

We have a great hand in the problems that arise.

I can accept that as proof there is no god. A just and loving god wouldn't allow an infant to die because someone unknowingly planted a plant in the wrong place. A god that would allow that is not a just and loving god--or is not an all powerful god.

Carbon Monoxide poisoning, when we didn't live in enclosed spaces like homes that were sealed so tight it would not be as big a problem, same with the house gases that we have to watch out for all the time.

Those are not living organisms created by god. Those are simple man made problems.

different things that we have derived have increased risks to cancer and cellular malfunction.

Cancer isn't the only culprit here. There are all kinds of deadly organisms that have been discussed. You seem to ignore them.

I read and article about the process of aging just today that talks about cells being programmed to age and break down under certain circumstances in order to prevent cancer from forming or spreading.

The reason everything dies is because god wants everything to die. This wouldn't have to be. When god was creating the universe, he could have used most of the expanse we see as empty space and made it life supporting and everything in it could live forever. There could be a vast plains with streams and mountains from here to the andromeda galaxy and beyond for billions of light years.

All of our age defying nonsense would inhibit that process and possibly create more cancer by trying to prop up damages cells.

What age defying nonsense you are referring to? Be specific.

I think the article stated something about the cells stopping their division and dying if they reach a certain damage point. Age defying products would inhibit that.

I would say your source had a religious author---not a scientific author.

#76 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW Zed, I'm getting hate mail from lint.

The little fibrous ones are incensed at being compared to you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebus still hasn't shown up.

Coming Soon!

Zed vs dA bOoB ...

A battle of wits between unarmed opponents, yet still more entertaining than watching paint dry.

Bob, as a child did you require to have sex in order to enjoy yourself?

I am not the same entity as I was when I was a child.

Have you always wanted sex or needed sex? or obsessed about sex?

I don't obsees about sex---but to go through an eternity without it doesn't seem like much of a heaven. There is a closeness to sex that has nothing to do with physical pleasure.

If you answered no, then your desire for sex developed. Some of your other desires lessoned as you grew older, you see you were maturing, in the process of maturing in something past this physical existence it may very well be that you mature past the need for sex and things of that nature and move on to something greater and more mature.

Again---that wouldn't be me, anymore than the child I was is the me I am now. Another example---I was never a fetus.

I think there is a scripture that states something about "when I was a child I thougtht like a child and acted like a child, however there comes a time to put childish things behind me."

I agree with that. That doesn't change the point that if my views and desires would change in heaven that it wouldn't be me. It would be as different from me as I am from a child.

If we are in a process it is highlty likely that our desires will grow with us and change, without making us a different person.

Impossible. That is like saying you can change gold into lead, but it is still gold. Not true.

You tell me what the Sciptures ( independently tell me 1. Koran 2. Judaism and 3. Christianity) say about heaven, what is certain, what is uncertain.

I tell you what Christians have described as heaven. What the bible says is heaven is something entirely different.

The bible describes heaven as a place in this dimension---the same as the earth.

Genesis

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

You are painting the picture that we know exactly what it is going to be, when it is very apparent that we do not.

Then how do you know you want to go there?

I myself am eager for that because I wish to continue on in the journey of development if there is a next step. If you desire to remain immature that is your call. I choose not to.

First you say you don't know what is there, then you give a description of what will happen. Do you see that? To answer your question---I would choose to grow as a human, and to enjoy my human desires. I would reject your concept of becoming a superior being that would no longer really be me. It seem like something from an old Nazi propaganda film about a Super Race.

#83 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Calling my ideas squirrely, isn't a refutation.

unless they are........which would be the case here.

So, it isn't "squirrely". It's 100% accurate which qualifies as a refutation.

A battle of wits between unarmed opponents, yet still more entertaining than watching paint dry.

#85 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-02-16 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

You should stop wasting time posting stolen lines and go back to your hobby of watching paint dry.

#87 | Posted by eberly at 2010-02-16 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Swing and a miss

"Yet more entertaining than watching paint dry...."

Is that what you were doig earlier?

#90 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-16 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag Sixteen minutes late

So Bob, you tell me that you do not want to be anything greater than you are at this point in time? Everytime you learn something new you are a new person, are you not learning anything new?

Do you always guard yourself from being something more?

Might that explain some of your behavior of not being able to follow the progress of the logic behind things.

I am sorry to hear that if there was more you would not seek it, as it would force you to change from your primitive and outdated, eventually ultimately incorrect ways.

Do you always guard yourself from being something more?

You aren't paying attention---let me spam a bit. Pay attention this time

I would choose to grow as a human, and to enjoy my human desires.

#86 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-16 10:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Might that explain some of your behavior of not being able to follow the progress of the logic behind things.

It seems to me that I have placed all the logic, and you have placed no logic. How about being specific on what logic to which you are referring?

I am sorry to hear that if there was more you would not seek it, as it would force you to change from your primitive and outdated, eventually ultimately incorrect ways.

I said it wouldn't be me. If you can't grasp that concept, it isn't my fault. It would be more correct for Christians to say that---When you die you become another form of life. Rather than--Jesus offers you eternal life. Again, that is a huge difference--sorry it eludes you.

#92 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-16 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Again, that is a huge difference...."

Don't see it. If your personality and memory survive and you remain able to love that's immortality.

Jesus said there were many mansions in Heaven. I've always thought He simply meant a lot of room. Perhaps he meant a lot of variety also.

We're talking about God here, after all. He doesn't necessarily have your limitations of logic or imagination.

Sorry, I can't imagine enjoying heaven while knowing certain people I've met over the years(good people, mind you) are melting in eternal suffering because they didn't know the secret handshake.

Hell is a huge problem toward believing in heaven.

Don't see it.

#94 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-17 07:32 AM | Reply | Flag

I'm not at all surprised.

There is no hell.
Hell is invention of pagan mysticysm, it even affected the Jews in Jesus time, he addressed SHEOL because the Babylonian believe of eternal burning was in their minds also.

Bible states Hell means death, sleep, lazarus, slomon old and new testament.

You pastors are not willing to bring it up even though they know this, they would be relocated to a church in Alaska.
Eccl 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing,

Eccl 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished;

even satan will die, not live forever

Ezek 28:18 therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

cease to exist.

John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
John 11:12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
John 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
John 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

lots and lots your church will not discuss with you.
cause they want to built a new gymnasium.

I remember something about the Vatican in the late 90's saying that most people's concepts of Hell come not from the Bible, but from Dante.

There is no hell.
#97 | Posted by richardrhine at 2010-02-17 02:34 PM

You want to bet?
-Ted Kennedy

Rhichard, done forget that Eccl. also states that "who knows as to whether the animal dies and it returns to to the ground and when man dies his spirit rises above?

That would mean that ECCl may mean that there is no Heaven as well. I don't think you can use Eccl. for your point.

Ezekiel is speaking of a specific judgment on a specific group of people in that scenario.

Also in the john chapters you are taking them out of context. We may not know what Hell is, however it is definitely something that exists in some capacity. Even you believe that, as you stated that Hell is Death

Based on that when you say "There is no Hell" in the beginning of your post, you really mean to say that there is no death? I don't think that is what you want to say.

IF there is a Hell, then we have all already died and this is it.

concerning
They've been identifying meteorites like this for three generations. Old news.

Not old news they added something
notice they added the lie
a FEAST of organic molecules...
jus to settle in your brain, that it would be stupid not to think that these meteorites were our mother...

I mean, if they would have waited a week, why, another life form would have jumped out of there.

you know, Its LIFE Jim, but not as we know it!
planting little lies in your brains so OF COURSE life came from nothing

when it is totally impossible to make a L isomer protein from a mixture with ANY TECHNOLGY it cannot be done.

You cannot follow ONE molecul at 600 miles per hour, see if it is left or right and then choose it for the next addition

It is TOTALLY impossible with ANY technology

much less random chance.

But hey, maybe I misread it, maybe they... they... they found a BIG MAC in there!

YEah thats it, it proves the other galaxies had McDonalds. So we will be save flying to the stars... wow.
Trust your life on a motor tharuns for 40 years without one breakdown...

Maybe Toyota built it.

Hell may simply be separation from God.

Hell may simply be separation from God.

#103 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Or a reunion if you hate G-d. The good see a return to G-d as Heaven and the bad as Hell, but both return to G-d I would say.

I am saying ENOUGH ALREADY with this NASA GARBAGE. MAn in space was just an excuse to built nuclear missiles for war. now we have them all other adventures are like put on back burner
Man will never make it to the stars nor even to mars.
the radiation would KILL them

They know it and will never say it.

Well, I would say a separation, because once you get there, and realize that you were wrong about God and why things happened the way they did, realizing that you totally disregarded the best things happening in your life as some mean spirited retribution, fully knowing the knowledge, power and unity with God, but not being able to attain it, that would be Hell.

All stumbling blocks are removed from you having a relationship with God, yes you cannot because you chose not even though you know see that you should have.

So you don't think that God could get someone through the radiation on the way to mars Ritchie?

G-d put the radiation there to protect his valuable creations from us.

Hell actually is a separation from God in eternal death

there is no burning hell. no way. that is a SATANIC DOCTRINE

a kid 18 years old lies drinks steals and stabs someone then dies

ok he burns forever?
YOUR INSANE! What an EVIL GOD that would be

SEE? EVEN I SAID IT!
and the doctrine of HELL was SATANS BEST TOOL to keep the pagans away who wants to even TALK to a God like that much less spit on him...

any God that would burn children and women and men forever is INSANE DEMONIC and EVIL

the BIBLE says so.

God will pass judgement and the world and sinners will burn up and be gone Lava breakup world war all evil ones die and suffer a day or two maybe three fit punishment then die.

NEVER SHALT THOU BE ANYMORE
and I make a NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH the OLD EARTH that was on FIRE says Peter is BURNED UP and he makes a new one

no eternal burning hell

the evil are separated from God in eternal sleep. never will they be any more

Get this demonic hell doctrine back to Babylon
come out of Babylon my People.
God is love not demoniac.
as insane

I could believe that. We would definitely screw it up somehow.

That, or the radiation is a residual effect of the creation event.

Alright Ritchie, 1. where do you get it that they will be in hell for 1,2 maybe 3 days adn that would be a fit punishment? Def. not from the Scriptures.

Secondly, Hell does not have to be death in terms of separation from God, it could simply be conscious separation from God for eternity..

Also, what about the Lake of fire, and Hell being thrown into the Lake of fire?. It is obviously not part of this physical world, nor is heaven.

I hope the mad zatter does not show up and foil this normal discussion.

My Rabbi gave me an interesting view on Heaven and Hell when I was young. He told me that Heaven and Hell are determined not by G-d, but by those who remember you and that it changes for each person based on memory. To some, you will burn in Hell while to others you may be at the right hand of G-d.

Churches who teach an ever burning hell have Satan for their God.

They don't even know who God really is
You need to get a KING JAMES BIBLE and stay out of your church for three months so the demons cant access you and pray and ask God to show you who he really is, and read and mark that Bible asking God to show you who he is.
and he will
and I guarantee you will never go back to any church who ever taught ever burning hell, why would we associate with demons?
Jesus loves you and died for you he wants you to repent and become like him, love sef-less and kind
not evil.

He will give yo peace.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Hell makes people AFRAID ADMIT IT
you cannot fall in love with someone who makes you afraid!

Jer 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

he DRAWS with love, and hell is not a doctrine of love.

Isa 40:11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.

You tell your children this lie they will leave the church because I would too, try to hide from the torturer

The KING JAMES BIBLE is simply King James' version of the Bible, not G-d's. Worshipping it is worshipping the word of King James. Quoting it is quoting King James.

Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
Isa 66:18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.
Isa 66:19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
Isa 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.
Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

says it all.

He will consume in a moment he doesnt torture.

Alright Ritchie, you keep judging God based on your standards and you may be surprised when he judges you based on His.

You continue to take your KJV verses out of context and use them to support your personal position, rather that the scriptural position.

Hos is a Hell as you are so against unfair if you are warned ahead of time?

I would want someone to do everything possible in order to keep my from making the wrong choice. Who knows if hell has fire or not, if it is burning or not, but I think people surely are awake and conscious when in Hell realizing that they are separated from God.

Teeth will gnash, people will have to make a payment of some sort. Not being conscious is not a payment

Ritchie, that is speaking of the physical aspect, not the second aspect. They will be consumed in what? How do you know how long?

Also, do you admit that there was death before Adam sinned? KJV says there was. Also states that the flood was local and universal, not global.

It also states that creation was a long period of time and not 6 24 hour days.

Goat gets philosophical, "Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence"

and continuing ...

"Like the believers in extraterrestrial life who bear the burden of proof of its existence, the believers in god bear the burden of proof of his existence."

Someone asks, "Do you believe in God, or an intelligent architect?"

Goat doesn't hesitate to express his belief, "No"

Where's your proof?

#114 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE
"You need to get a KING JAMES BIBLE"

Richard, I've noticed you have a special affinity for the KJV.
I'm curious as to why? Is it just what you grew up with, or is it something else?

I happen to prefer it as well, but that's just because I've done a ton of Shakespeare, so the feel is familiar, and I like the heightened language. But I don't see it as scripturally superior.

In terms of most theologians, they consider the KJV somewhat inferior in its lacking derivative texts.

Usually the NASB or the ESV are preferable for accuracy and closer word for word translation. There is another one that is closer as well, but I fail to remember it at this time.

#2 | POSTED BY GOATMAN
"Personally I'd be surprised if Earth was the only place in the Solar System that harbored [life]."

To say nothing of an INCREDIBLE waste of space.

Our Bible does not speak of life on other planets. Our Bible describes events that took place "7000 years or so ago." What does logic therefore tell us?

We were made first, not only, but first. Either that, or G-d looked at what He made on Earth and decided to give up the entire process.

This is an interesting thread, and since abiotic petroleum and evidence of previous life outside the Earth is mentioned.

If the Earth and moon had previously been part of another planet, which was destroyed leaving the astroid belt, Mars, the Earth and *meteorites* as a residue, then abiotic oil and organic molecules on meteorites would certainly be predicted by that theory.

Goat doesn't hesitate to express his belief, "No"

Where's your proof?

I have no idea how one proves that he really believes what he states he believes.

Goat pulls his leg back, "I have no idea how one proves that he really believes what he states he believes."

You're funny!

Well, Goat, "Belief is the conundrum, isn't it?"

#8 | POSTED BY SABBATAI
"There is NO life anywhere else in the universe! It isn't there. No one has ever seen it. No one has ever made contact with it. Period!"

Sab, it's a big big place, and we've barely touched it. Having neither seen nor contacted anything else is irrelevant.

"Someone finds a space rock and concludes life exists elsewhere??"

No, someone finds a space rock and finds organic molecules. Finding the rock, and the organic molecules, has nothing to do with whether or not life exists elsewhere.

"Don't you love the way the Atheist's argument can be used against the very SETI atheists (like Sagan) who enjoy poo pooing the existence of God?"

And what does SETI have to do with atheism? Nothing.

Sagan was NOT an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

Tadow, that is interesting. These old time civilizations had a concept of what was going on far superior to ours, however their ability to communicate it was not far superior and therefore it becomes confused.

Kanrei,

I always found Jesus' quote that "I have other sheep" enticing as to whether it was this planet or other lifeforms other places.. Probably this planet though.

#31 | POSTED BY RIGHTPOLICY
"However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

No, absence of evidence is absence of evidence.

#31 | POSTED BY RIGHTPOLICY
"However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

This is a clever dialectic, and a fact (as far as it goes). Who could whine about that?

when it is totally impossible to make a L isomer protein from a mixture with ANY TECHNOLGY it cannot be done.
You cannot follow ONE molecul at 600 miles per hour, see if it is left or right and then choose it for the next addition
It is TOTALLY impossible with ANY technology

Still clinging to that, eh Richard?

This is *not* a belief! It is a hypothesis which seemingly answers a lot of the questions about some of the oddities of our solar system; using Occam's razor. Interesting hypothesis as such, whatever side you might place yourself in belief ...

Fixed that for you.

#31 | POSTED BY RIGHTPOLICY
"However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
#130 | POSTED BY TADOWE
"This is a clever dialectic, and a fact (as far as it goes)."

Thing is, it's not a fact.
It's right up there with "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after it, therefore because it, and "correlation equals causation".
They're clever sayings, and they sound good, and sound "right".
On the surface, they serve to make us feel as though we understand things, but they're not necessarily true.
In fact, I'd say they rarely are.

Thetom evidently, "Thing is, it's not a fact.
It's right up there with, post hoc ergo propter hoc...."

I wonder what part of "... as far as it goes ..." whizzed by your attention?

"They're clever sayings, and they sound good, and sound 'right'."

Is "God" present, Tom? Or, is "God" absent from this present?

The clever dialectic is just that, and as you repeated me in saying.

"On the surface, they serve to make us feel as though we understand things, but they're not necessarily true. In fact, I'd say they rarely are."

You're not going to be too successful trying to patronize me, Tom ...

JPW patronizes, "Fixed that for you."

I enjoy those who quibble over terms. They rank slightly above spelling flamers on my respect measure.

It is fun up there on your high-horsey, what?

#134 | POSTED BY TADOWE

Tad, you misunderstood the point of my post.
Nothing "whizzed by" my attention.
I understood what you meant by "as far as it goes" and "clever dialectic".
My commentary was on Rightpolicy's statement, as was yours.
I was simply adding thoughts to it. That's what we do here.
And I'm hardly trying to "patronize" you, or anyone else for that matter.

You're coming across like you're looking for a fight where there isn't one.
Let's leave that to the usual suspects.

I enjoy those who quibble over terms. They rank slightly above spelling flamers on my respect measure.

Where I stand on your "respect measure" is hardly a concern of mine.

It is fun up there on your high-horsey, what?

Sloppy language is nothing to be proud of, cupcake.

Despite what's commonly believed, ignorance is not a virtue.

Misuse of words leads people to say stupid things like "evolution is only a THEORY."

You're coming across like you're looking for a fight where there isn't one.
Let's leave that to the usual suspects.

Picking a fight? Sort of.

Trying to make it about himself? Always.

Tad has this tendency to make really stupid comments then get pissed when he's called out on it and proceeds to bitch about the thread becoming about him.

It's pretty entertaining to watch sometimes though.

Tom corrects me, "Tad, you misunderstood the point of my post."

Gomenasai, Tom Sama.

"My commentary was on Rightpolicy's statement, as was yours."

Then use his quotes to lecture on, not mine.

"You're coming across like you're looking for a fight where there isn't one. Let's leave that to the usual suspects."

I'm game, but I don't mind a "fight" when one is presented to me ... maybe you should watch who you appear to be lecturing to ...?

Tad,
STFU old man or I'll kick you out of your electric scooter and bitch slap a Wurther's Original out of your mouth.

(thanks Rob)

Someone needs to relax before they get into the fight that they already lost.

Tad,
STFU old man or I'll kick you out of your electric scooter and bitch slap a Wurther's Original out of your mouth.

Trolling gold.

FF.

JPW repeats one of the leftist mantras for this site, " ... Trying to make it about himself? Always."

See, Tom? I can be taken to task for replying to those who are actually the ones "picking the fight".

JPW erects a strawman argument in quibbling about the terms "theory" and "hypothesis", but then calls any response as being an effort to make myself the subject! Notice that "I'm" the subject as alpha and omega?

And, this idiot quibbles about, "Sloppy language is nothing to be proud of, cupcake."

I actually don't know what ideology JPW professes, but he is an elitist wannabe of the first ilk ...

"Misuse of words leads people to say stupid things like "evolution is only a THEORY.""

Of course it isn't! Duh! It is an *HYPOTHESIS"!

How unconscious do you think you can get in your angst about me, JPW?

JPW tries, "Tad has this tendency to make really stupid comments then get pissed when he's called out on it and proceeds to bitch about the thread becoming about him."

You quibbled over terms, dufus, and in no way contradicted any point(s) made!

101 tries dictation, "Tad, STFU old man or I'll kick you out of your electric scooter and bitch slap a Wurther's Original out of your mouth."

What a stupid comment! I'm a Ricola fan!

Yuck! Wuther's!

Exps gets vague, "Someone needs to relax before they get into the fight that they already lost."

More highhorse elitism pretending to be "good advice" ...

#139 | POSTED BY TADOWE

"Then use his quotes to lecture on"

I did:
#31 | POSTED BY RIGHTPOLICY
"However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
#130 | POSTED BY TADOWE
"This is a clever dialectic, and a fact (as far as it goes)."

"I don't mind a fight when one is presented to me"

And my point is, none was presented to you.
And there was no "lecture", regardless of how much you may enjoy the word.
You bit down on that awfully hard, is what I'm saying.

JPW repeats one of the leftist mantras for this site, " ... Trying to make it about himself? Always."

Who else always makes it a about themselves, Tad? I've only seen that said in reference to you.

JPW erects a strawman argument in quibbling about the terms "theory" and "hypothesis",

It's not "quibbling" to expect proper terminology, especially when the terminology is commonly misunderstood or misused, thus leading to confusion and misunderstanding.

And it's not a strawman because I'm not arguing with the premise of your post. I was just correcting your terminology.

but then calls any response as being an effort to make myself the subject!

The two are actually completely unrelated. You do understand that although the two posts were sequential, they don't have to be about the same thing, right? You do understand that when someone quotes something then types below it, he/she is addressing what's in the quotes, right?

It doesn't appear as if you do.

And, this idiot quibbles about, "Sloppy language is nothing to be proud of, cupcake."
I actually don't know what ideology JPW professes, but he is an elitist wannabe of the first ilk ...

LOL I'm elitist because I don't talk like a jamoke?

I guess to some ignorance really IS a virtue.

"Misuse of words leads people to say stupid things like "evolution is only a THEORY.""
Of course it isn't! Duh! It is an (sic) *HYPOTHESIS"!

LOL oh man. I know you're trying to mock me, but evolution actually is a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It is well WELL past being A hypothesis.

How unconscious do you think you can get in your angst about me, JPW?

Angst? If laughing until I cried over the mental image of 101 bitch slapping the Wurther's out of your mouth is angst, then yes I have angst.

You quibbled over terms, dufus, and in no way contradicted any point(s) made!

1-again, separate set of posts about a different topic.

2-I wasn't trying to contradict anything.

Exps gets vague, "Someone needs to relax before they get into the fight that they already lost."
More highhorse elitism pretending to be "good advice" ...

More bitter, inferiority complex in denial...

Thetom goes on, "You bit down on that awfully hard, is what I'm saying."

Wow! Tom!

I didn't realize how much this meant to you, or I would *never* have mentioned another poster's dialectical argument! Can you forgive me?

I recognize, now, that you are one of the elite and always correct in your personal evaluation of others. Even though I had already qualified my assertion of "fact", I now see that you were justified in denying that there might be some "God" even if not "present", as a fact ...

... mea culpa ... mea maxima culpa ...

If I beg, do you think there might be a chance to join your elite collective of syllogism and term usage experts?

Come on back and tell me that I'm wrong and that there is no chance for me to attain to such dizzy-making heights of intellectualism, and since I'm such a reflexive idiot ...

K?

Be Well

JPW joins Thetom, "Who else always makes it a about themselves, Tad? I've only seen that said in reference to you."

When I mention that those who stalk me never try to debate the points made when I've stated my opinion, I'm accused of making the thread about "myself", instead.

I've said that that would be the case when *ANYONE* attempts to disagree with your collective of dumbed-down yellow-dogs ... they will all of them become the subject for the hatemongering leftists to revile and dehumanize.

What always amazes me? The idiots pretending to be "independent" who can't stop stalking me as the subject of their commentary!

Since they are putatively "conservatives", it may very well demonstrate their real position vis a vis ideology ...

Well, of course some of the rightwing take on-point contradiction to be a personal attack, too, but they generally stop when notified of that, rather than continue to save their "face" by repeating their tripe over-and-over ad infinitum ... just like the obsessed leftists do ...

#148 | POSTED BY TADOWE
"I recognize, now, that you are one of the elite and always correct in your personal evaluation of others."

Glad you finally came around. Welcome to the Light.

"I now see that you were justified in denying that there might be some "God" even if not "present", as a fact ..."

Oh, you're soooo close. But scroll up and re-read, and you'll find I made no such denial.

"If I beg, do you think there might be a chance to join your elite collective of syllogism and term usage experts?"

When the time is right, Tad, when the time is right.
You're doing pretty well so far, though.
You've already shown promise with referencing Sitchin, Sumerians, and Occam's Razor, and what with words like "syllogism", "dialectic", and (from another thread) "offal", it's tough to say no.

Add to that, the apologies in both Japanese and Latin are sure to be an asset.

Plus, you prefer Ricola to Wurther's, as any worthwhile person would.

You're still a wee bit too reactionary, however, and get into too much of a tizzy, and tend to play the victim card reflexively.
To quote "Hamlet", "It shows a will most incorrect to heaven".

One MAJOR problem, though:
You used "gomenasai", when you should have used the more formal and supplicant "moushiwake arimasen", as you were clearly addressing one of your betters.

Baby steps, grasshopper.
You'll get there.

FF fer Tom... frickin funny!

Thetom says, "Glad you finally came around. Welcome to the Light."

That's better.

"Oh, you're soooo close. But scroll up and re-read, and you'll find I made no such denial."

Back to excuses?

"... blah blah blah blah about tadowe ..."

If someone says, "You can't see the forest for the trees?" What do you think of, Tom? Are you another tree, Tom?

"One MAJOR problem, though: You used "gomenasai", when you should have used the more formal and supplicant "moushiwake arimasen", as you were clearly addressing one of your betters."

Better, again.

"Baby steps, grasshopper. You'll get there."

I got here in '41, son.

Thetom says, "Glad you finally came around. Welcome to the Light."

That's better.

"Oh, you're soooo close. But scroll up and re-read, and you'll find I made no such denial."

Back to excuses?

"... blah blah blah blah about tadowe ..."

If someone says, "You can't see the forest for the trees?" What do you think of, Tom? Are you another tree, Tom?

"One MAJOR problem, though: You used "gomenasai", when you should have used the more formal and supplicant "moushiwake arimasen", as you were clearly addressing one of your betters."

Better, again.

"Baby steps, grasshopper. You'll get there."

I got here in '41, son.

#152 | POSTED BY TADOWE
#153 | POSTED BY TADOWE

Ah, the post so nice he did it twice.

Unfortunately, it didn't rise to the level of retort I was hoping for.
Not a lot of thought, or effort, or intellect, frankly, went into it, and we're used to much better from you.
Just sloppy, I'm afraid.

"I got here in '41, son."

It's okay that your pace is much slower than others.
We don't judge you for it.

Thetom lies, "We don't judge you for it."

It has always been the quest of mankind to discover how the universe works using the scientific method, while religion thinks that by using that God given gift of discovery, that mankind is somehow anathema to some hypocritical deity who provides the gift, but denies its use.

That effort to deny our ability to learn, experiment and reach understanding would, if universally practiced, deny them the right to teach their learning, experiment and understanding, too. That's a good definition of hypocrisy, on its face.

Well, your first sentence was off, but I'll ignore it, since the rest was very good.

Excellent post.

europa!

Hell yeah.

the Catholic Church has a large interest in astronomy, supports astronomy worldwide, and has a large observatory in Arizona, and which they hope to find evidence which supports biblical past and prophesy

Yeah, how's that working out for them?

Zombie wonders, "Yeah, how's that working out for them?"

The snide little drones like you are always whining for information you are just too lazy to find on your own ... isn't that typical of you collectivist ilk? You're the mob which the Democrats pander to by reducing discovery to satisfy your ideological greed to take from others to give to your "friends", if not yourselves.

The Sumerian "myth" is said to come from before the Flood and was even "myth" to them in some respects, since they had only the same tablets they copied, and which we have in abundance, today ... with precious few interested enough to translate the wealth of stories, if only that, from a time claimed to be before the Flood ...

#155 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-02-17 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

You quoted some of Sitchins interpretations, but it is obvious you haven't actually read his books. These stories were never "Myths" to the Sumerians, and they copied them from no one. The Sumerians invented writing. There was no one before them to copy from. You may have confused the Sumerians with the Babylonians who copied from the Sumerians. The Babylonians didn't consider them to be "Myths" either--anymore than Christians consider Jesus to be a "Myth". The Sumerians claimed that the gods were there with them, in their midst, walking among them. The Sumerians claim the gods told them directly. Their religion was not based on "older gods of long ago", like every other religion on the planet, including Christianity, their religion was based on the hear and now. They said their gods created us, and that we were created in their image and in their likeness. The Bible, the Koran, and the Torah are all based on those ancient texts of the Sumerian bible---the Enuma Elish. Enuma Elish tells of the creation of all the planets, including Earth as you pointed out, but it also tells the order of the planets creation, tells of the creation of the asteroid belt, how Uranus became tilted on its axis and how Pluto came into its strange elliptic orbit. The Sumerians gave us the plane of the ecliptic, and used a number system based on 60, they gave us 360 degrees in a circle, the first schools, the wheel, carts, water control, the plow, the first monumental buildings, the zodiac, and more. The Sumerians even knew the number of years in a Gret Year, and used a number 500 times as large. The Sumerians said they said they got all their knowledge from the gods that walked among them---called the Annunaki. The people who wrote these things were the priests and scholars of their day---the leaders of their society. Their words are backed by facts. I believe them.

Why you are so down on dems is a ystery. It was dems that opened space up for us, and dems who put us on the moon. It was reps who killed the space program.

It is one the jobs of government to spread the wealth around, and take care of its citizens. You see a gross injustice in helping poor Americans yet seem to be fine with using the money for unnecessary wars. I would bet you are all for forcing women to give birth to unwanted fetuses, but rail against giving them money to feed their children once born. If it were up to me, I would get out of our wars this week, shrink the military, and use the money to take care of American citizens and get us to the moon and then Mars by 2020. I would give us a National Goal, which we seem to be lacking for the last 40 years.

Looks like Tadpole is off his meds again. What else is new?

"The Sumerians invented writing..."

Older scripts have bene identified in the Balkans.

Where's your proof? (regarding not believing in God)

Where is the proof that Leprechauns do not exist?

I've read his books, Bob, but was speaking about before the Flood in relation to the formation of the Earth and Moon. I don't place any "belief" in gods walking and talking with Sumerians, and however interesting and specious it appears to be. I'll leave that to others.

Having said that, I'm not self-blinded to any such possibility; vis a vis either celestial events, or earthly ones. Perhaps with enough discovery, the facts of the matter can definitively be made known.

"Why you are so down on dems is a ystery. It was dems that opened space up for us, and dems who put us on the moon. It was reps who killed the space program."

You say that, but it was near universal cooperation, and not Democrats, which advanced the USA in space and the near infinite (and still coming) technology which has enriched those greedy to end such advances in improving the human condition. Miniturization alone has revolutionized all aspects of electronics, communications, media and all other technological aspects of life.

Now, Democrats want to "reduce" those advances ... at best. Not everyone ... just the redistribution socialists willingly spending other's money because they "know" it is "right" ...

"It is one the jobs of government to spread the wealth around, and take care of its citizens. ..."

Yeah, cut NASA and raise welfare ... that's what I mentioned about your porcine party of intellectual poltroons ...

I don't place any "belief" in gods walking and talking with Sumerians

What's so different about the Hebrews?

The Old Testament is rife with stories of 'heavenly beings' (Sons of God), 'wheels within wheels', humans taken up into 'the heavens' on 'chariots of fire','beings' that walked in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. If they weren't talking about extraterrestrial beings what were they talking about?

Zombie begs an answer, "What's so different about the Hebrews?"

I don't see any, but with your negative inference, I'm sure you have some comments along those lines.

So, why not gin up your intellectual bravery and reason your opinion?

The primes did it.

AU asks, "The Old Testament is rife with stories of 'heavenly beings' (Sons of God), 'wheels within wheels', humans taken up into 'the heavens' on 'chariots of fire','beings' that walked in Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. If they weren't talking about extraterrestrial beings what were they talking about?"

Some speculate that neolithic goatherders saw electrical events in the atmosphere which they interpreted as being crowned-effigies, ladders to 'heaven', wheels within wheel spiral effects, etc., and all of which can be demonstrated/duplicated as electrical effects in plasma.

From Australia rock paintings, to the totem poles of the peoples of the North, similar displays are recorded in tradition.

Perhaps it was during a "2012" end of some calender indicating we were aligned with the center of our galaxy, and which may have had an affect on the Sun we know nothing about. Whatever the cause, such celestial events and effects would be passed on as heralding God, and any subsequent, Egyptian university educated prophet, who may have taken advantage of that during "his" cataclysm ... (but, pre-Hibiru from Ur of the Chaldees, you understand)

But, really, who knows? It is all specious, however fascinating, until the facts are discovered using scientific methods.

TAD

Specifically The Garden of Eden's "Heavenly Beings" or "Sons of God" who mated with them, Ezekiel being taken up in a 'chariot of fire'. Enoch and Elijah too.

Tadowe

How about a link to Obama cutting funding for NASA?

Older scripts have bene identified in the Balkans.

#162 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-17 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Link? The Sumerians are geberally credited with the first writing, the first moden type of civilization, and the other firsts mentioned by Sitchin.

Link 'this', Bob.

#174 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-02-18 01:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

I knew your coherency was only temporary.

What "coherency" are you talking about, Bob? How is your judgement of it pertinent to the discussion?

Since you infer an insult, I guess you only partially agree with Thetom in saying, "It's okay that your pace is much slower than others."

... but disagree with his highhorse assertion, "We don't judge you for it."

I guess you aren't up to his level, Bob. Join the crew inferior to this real mensch, Antenna Ninja ...

What "coherency" are you talking about, Bob?

#176 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-02-18 02:13 AM | Reply | Flag

Case in point.

>i>
We are stardust, btw.

Joni was right about that.

Joni? That was written by a guy who's first name is James last name Taylor.... Fire and Rain there Spuds

There is *NO* life anywhere else in the universe!

Oh Yea? Well what about the Alien Spaceship they found on the moon? HA?

Douglas Adams proved there is no life anywhere in the Universe:

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

The question is, how can a deranged imagination have a deranged imagination with no physical source producing and interpreting said imaginations?

The derangement allows anything, even the impossible to be possible, because the deranged doesn't realize it is impossible.

The derangement allows anything, even the impossible to be possible, because the deranged doesn't realize it is impossible.

Damn...sorry for the double.

I understand that, but if there is no life, there is no life to be deranged and therefore no imagination to be manipulated by ones own derangement.

Something must exist in this scenario at least.

You are having a conversation with me. I don't exist. Do you think your mind is really clear enough to decifer this? The central point I think Douglas Adams' story is that we are incapable of understanding what is going on because it is still in progress and we are part of that process. Until it is finished, there is really nothing to understand.

Think about 42. What was did the question end up being?

What is 6x9? 6 x 9 is not 42 according to our understanding of math, 6 x 7 is. We got that wrong. Our understanding of math is flawed and we use math to understand science, to therefore our understanding of science is based on a faulty premise.

I got a lot out of HHGTTG if you can't tell =D

Spud: We are stardust, btw.

Joni was right about that.

Themancalledhorse: Joni? That was written by a guy who's first name is James last name Taylor.... Fire and Rain there Spuds

Well there Spuds... The only problem there would be that I saw james Taylor sing the song live and he stated that he wrote the song... For Joni Mitchel who I think at one time was his wife... Please correct me if i am wrong... I

I am glad then that Spud and his ridiculous infant speak is a figment of my imagination, it would be a shame for someone to really interact that way, however some philosophers would say that since I imagine this taking place, it must be possible somewhere at some time by someone. I guess my hope that it was simply imagination was false. The imagination must have come from somewhere.

What is producing my false, deranged imagination of you being a real person? Unless I have interacted with a real person before I would have no reason to imagine a real person.

I must have interacted with a derivative of a real person at some point in the past to imagine a real person or an aspect there of.

Also, I think Math is interesting. There are different systems of math in which what we know is not known or completely wrong. It all depends on the base of the math.

We do not know half of what we think we do not know.

Um Exp....HHGGTG is a comedy book. It is there to make you think, not give answers; just entertain. The posts I make from it have my tongue firmly in my cheek. Don't over think it or, as the book says, DON'T PANIC!

I understand that, and the point should be dually taken as there is no point in jest if there is no reciprocation.

However I really do find the different methods and bases of mathematics interesting.

I've got it! Now that global warming and swine flu have slipped over to mythology, we can create a new meteorite "crisis." Then we can tax, regulate and advance world government to counter the "threat to mankind" meteors pose. Who knows what organic compounds could impact Earth and start eating our children alive?
We need action, not rhetoric!