Author Topic: life sustaining planets  (Read 455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3297
  • Darwins +30/-11
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2016, 11:34:45 AM »
is this where a tantrum is solidified with more crazy talk?
Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Sorry Allah, I pee with both hands.

If you are going to be a dick do it in a timely manner, ok?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13465
  • Darwins +489/-49
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2016, 11:35:46 AM »
One Above All...
I found this gem a while back....
might be something you can appreciate
<snip>

I heard about that as well, but no new developments, as far as I know.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, Son of Fire, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Offline fringe

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Darwins +4/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Spirit
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #31 on: January 24, 2016, 11:39:20 AM »
The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

same guy. same page. different section.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3297
  • Darwins +30/-11
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #32 on: January 24, 2016, 11:41:22 AM »
yeah
now you know where life comes from
haha
Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Sorry Allah, I pee with both hands.

If you are going to be a dick do it in a timely manner, ok?

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3367
  • Darwins +196/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • RELIGION IS A DISGRACE TO HUMANITY
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #33 on: January 24, 2016, 11:50:47 AM »
Atheism has been around as long as theism has.  I do declare I must think wow to that.  This was during a time when it was very common to say gods were interacting with people, yet there's some people over there that say nope.  We don't believe.

See here  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

You can talk about science stuff all day but I think that right there says a lot.  If gods were coming and going like people claimed in their myths why would there be any atheists? 

Yes we are mentioned in the bible Psalms 14.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 11:54:35 AM by junebug72 »
when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3297
  • Darwins +30/-11
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #34 on: January 24, 2016, 11:56:37 AM »
.
I guess given nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen life can exist
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 12:00:29 PM by none »
Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Sorry Allah, I pee with both hands.

If you are going to be a dick do it in a timely manner, ok?

Offline fringe

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Darwins +4/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Spirit
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2016, 12:42:44 PM »
more jeremy england:England’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3297
  • Darwins +30/-11
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2016, 12:48:48 PM »
yeah, like life is inevitable being the phenomenon
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 12:53:06 PM by none »
Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Sorry Allah, I pee with both hands.

If you are going to be a dick do it in a timely manner, ok?

Online eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5837
  • Darwins +350/-79
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2016, 09:42:28 PM »
Fringe is your only proof of god that scientists that study matter and not theology have failed to prove god doesn't exist even tho they have no such research program or hypothesis.

Seems like there could be a problem with your methodology.

Its like because I am fishing intently for jungle perch in a mountain stream I have never found life on mars therefore life on mars exists because in all my jungle perch fishing I found no evidence that life on mars doesn't exist....therefore life on mars exists......
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2551
  • Darwins +141/-3
  • Polyatheist
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2016, 04:26:23 AM »
if evolution is the basis for our existance and the existance of our planet, which is currently the only known life sustaining planet in our solar system, was it pure luck that our planet solely evolved to its standard today and not the other planets

Within this solar system? Well because the other planets are either too close or too far from the sun. Boiling or frozen. Not real great for propagating life.

BTW, what is your definition of 'life'?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13465
  • Darwins +489/-49
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2016, 04:33:47 AM »
BTW, what is your definition of 'life'?

Expect extreme examples (a rock versus a tree), not an actual definition, and most likely "It's obvious".
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, Son of Fire, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2551
  • Darwins +141/-3
  • Polyatheist
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2016, 04:40:36 AM »
BTW, what is your definition of 'life'?

Expect extreme examples (a rock versus a tree), not an actual definition, and most likely "It's obvious".

Well he won't tell us what his definition of his god is, so maybe defining 'life' will yield results?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 14617
  • Darwins +1029/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2016, 12:15:14 PM »
another attempt to take the creator out of the creation. failed!!! cause and effect need a cause to have an effect.

Hi fringe

Your post, which I have quoted above, sucks.  In fact, most of your posts suck.  But this one is exemplary as a post that sucks.  Your sucky posts are causing other members who, ordinarily, post much better, to also make posts that suck.  If this keeps up, the whole forum will suck. 

I will not have a forum that sucks.

So, you had better spend a little lot more time crafting thoughtful, clear, and engaging posts and no more of the crap you have been churning out. 

Is that clear?



The rest of you,

You will stop responding to sucky posts with sucky posts of your own.  You know who you are. You can do better than this.  So, do better.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6821
  • Darwins +878/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2016, 12:53:45 PM »
another attempt to take the creator out of the creation. failed!!! cause and effect need a cause to have an effect.
This is begging the question, fringe.  There is no reason to presume that the 'ultimate' cause must have been a creator, since the obvious next question is, "so what created the creator"?  The standard response since Augustine is to assert that time only came into being with the universe, to create a loophole to allow for a complex creator without having to explain what caused the creator.

The problem is, that's nothing more than a dogmatic assertion known as an ipse dixit.  Worse, it's an assertion made in ignorance.  Augustine did not have access to the knowledge we take for granted today, so why on earth should his argument be taken as authoritative over what we've discovered nowadays?  That's as bad as what people did with the assertions made by Aristotle regarding things like elements.

This whole line of argument is nothing more than an authority trap.  Worse, it's an authority trap made from the words of a 5th century CE thinker, which is nothing but the same sort of armchair reasoning perpetrated by the ancient Greeks.  Trying to fit modern discoveries into it is patently absurd.  It would have been worse than trying to fit general relativity into Newtonian physics, because at least with that, there would have been the possibility of correcting the error over time due to experiments and more precise observations, because they would have been compatible.

But how are the words of ancient philosophers compatible with modern scientific discoveries?  Aristotle could not have known what elements were, yet he tried to answer the question anyway, and failed miserably because of that knowledge he could not have possessed.  Same goes for Augustine; he could not have known about the Big Bang, or any other modern knowledge, and so him trying to answer the question failed just as miserably.  Trying to adjust their answers using modern knowledge is as flawed as trying to adjust Ptolemy's model of the heavens with observations of celestial movement, making it more and more complicated, and ending up with something that's too difficult to use.
Please let me know if you have problems with something I say, so that we can discuss it amicably.

Online jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3522
  • Darwins +795/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2016, 01:06:36 PM »
I got this on the internet regarding the problems with the big bang theory.

           Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

I.m not going to pretend that I understood half of what was written there. but the above I understand. The longer the theory of the big bang exist, the less credible it becomes. and one day it will be gone and another theory will take its place. And through all this man will continue to believe in a god, and that will only end when scientists can proof without a doubt that the universe was created by nothing and no one

If I were you, I would not put a whole lot of stake in that link.  Firstly, this comes from The Meta Research Bulletin, which was a publication for non-mainstream views regarding physics and aliens.  Which is fine in and of itself.  Non-mainstream stuff is always good to have around.

But note this is a publication from a dude (Tom Van Flandern) that purported that the Face on Mars was, like, a constructed 'thingie'.  I'm not saying he was a quack per se, but I would not have been surprised if he had a duck bill.

It also seems to misunderstand basic science:
Quote
Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.
Ummm...he kinda has this really wrong.  Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from a basic theory presuming the model is completely accurate.  If it is not, one surely amends the model in light of new observations.  If there are sufficient observations to warrant throwing out the model wholesale, well hell, we'll throw the model out wholesale.  But you don't do that before.  We did not completely dismiss Newtownian mechanics when Einstein came along, and rightly so.  We amended that sh*t based on new observations.  We had a model of a universal aether at one point; eventually, we had enough observations to figure out that sh*t was sufficiently wrong as to dismiss it.

Basically, as far as I can tell, this article is saying that scientists are dismissing credible alternatives, and that seems to be coming from a guy who thinks that aliens constructed a human face on Mars for...reasons...is credible.  And he doesn't seem to understand the difference between an observation and a model.

You may want to try raising your bar of skepticism a hair above 'none'.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15610
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #44 on: January 25, 2016, 02:47:12 PM »
another attempt to take the creator out of the creation. failed!!! cause and effect need a cause to have an effect.


so, dear what was the cause of your effect e.g. God? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1720
  • Darwins +731/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2016, 02:51:17 PM »
another attempt to take the creator out of the creation. failed!!! cause and effect need a cause to have an effect.

What "creator?"  Why only one?  In order to take "the creator" out of "creation" (notice how this language presupposes that known Universe is a created artifact with no reason given to do so), She has to be "in" it in the first place.  The existence of (presumably) intelligent creator beings of any sort has not been demonstrated.  At best, Creationists can point to unanswered questions in scientific models of Cosmic origins; basically, like pointing to a black box with unknown contents.  Not knowing what's in the box is no reason to assert that it "must" contain a diamond nanocircuit key to an alien's flying saucer, or a Victorian time-traveller's Etheric Polyvortex Accelerator Coil, or a gold coin, or a cat whose state of being alive or dead will be decided upon opening the box.

Unanswered questions are just that: unanswered questions.  It's necessary to form a hypothesis--and have good reason for focusing on that hypothesis instead of some other--then test it for validity (not just you, the proponent, but skeptical others as well) before it can legitimately earn the status of "model" or "theory" and receive provisional acceptance as valid.

Queston: How would you be able to tell if the Big Bang was deliberately initiated by one or more intelligent agents, or if it was itself a natural process?  If you actually care about being right, don't just jump to some Bible quote or Creationist website, but take the time to look, really look for contrary evidence to your current position.  We humans have a built-in heuristic called "confirmation bias," that causes us to tend to notice what fits into our current views (whatever those might be) and not notice or ignore what doesn't fit.  In order to make our best attempt at overcoming this, we have to actively look for things that don't fit the pattern.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Online eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5837
  • Darwins +350/-79
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2016, 04:06:10 PM »
Fringe, would be great if you responded to these counterclaims to your unsupported assertions and psuedo-science sources.

You don't just get to state woo woo and run.
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline fringe

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Darwins +4/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Spirit
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #47 on: January 26, 2016, 09:08:52 AM »
fringe, have you decided to start abiding by the rules and provide evidence for your claims, or are you a liar (you claimed to read and agree to follow the rules, but your posting history demonstrates otherwise) as well as a Dunning-Kruger sufferer?
Ane the dunning-kruger also has a side effect. I think I.ll stick to the side effect. my research was done the same way I research the bible. dont ask the christian!

Online jdawg70

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3522
  • Darwins +795/-9
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2016, 09:13:19 AM »
fringe, have you decided to start abiding by the rules and provide evidence for your claims, or are you a liar (you claimed to read and agree to follow the rules, but your posting history demonstrates otherwise) as well as a Dunning-Kruger sufferer?
Ane the dunning-kruger also has a side effect. I think I.ll stick to the side effect. my research was done the same way I research the bible. dont ask the christian!

What side effect are you talking about?

Elaborate.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15610
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2016, 09:54:49 AM »
Ane the dunning-kruger also has a side effect. I think I.ll stick to the side effect. my research was done the same way I research the bible. dont ask the christian!

As it stands, there is no evidence that you have done any research on anything.  You have invented opinions and have decided that you are right with no evidence to support your claims at all.  As has been noted by others, you spew and then run away, a typical tactic of someone who has no interest in discussion only in trying to claim he knows secrets that no one else does.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3297
  • Darwins +30/-11
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #50 on: February 06, 2016, 11:24:40 AM »
you know whats funny: I can stop thinking abov science. can you stop thinking about god
what god?
Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Sorry Allah, I pee with both hands.

If you are going to be a dick do it in a timely manner, ok?

Online The Gawd

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1281
  • Darwins +118/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #51 on: February 06, 2016, 11:27:01 AM »
One thing that I rarely ever see in this topic is any actually address the timing.

Earth is what, 4.5 billion years old and some estimate life beginning about 3.8 billion years ago? (no I don't feel like providing the lanks now) We have had how many Extinction Level Events (ELE's)? It could be that there was even highly evolved life on a planet like Mars or Venus at some point within that billion years which is simply no longer there and time x conditions have destroyed any evidence of such. Imagine if life were to end here today and some alien comes along in 2 billion years, I don't think the Statue of Liberty would still be up, there would be no skeletons sitting on the surface.

I mean you have to do some real searching to find dinosaur remains and that's simply millions of years, and we know they were here.

Could be that we just missed it.

Offline Basset Hound

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Long Eared Doggie
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #52 on: February 06, 2016, 09:12:46 PM »
If we had evolved on a methane ammonia atmosphere planet, then we would consider that normal and wonder if live could exist on oxygen/nitrogen planets.  Once again creotards, the Universe is NOT fine tuned for life.  Life is fine tuned to the universe, in particular, the planet it originated on.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10042
  • Darwins +1639/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #53 on: February 06, 2016, 11:50:00 PM »
When I lose enough weight I will wear me some creotards, a pair of hot pants and a fringed vest. Like Teresa Graves on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In.  :angel:
If people really believed in god's will they would not buy insurance.

Prayer is a sign that god has ADHD.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 14617
  • Darwins +1029/-36
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: life sustaining planets
« Reply #54 on: Today at 10:30:33 AM »
Like Teresa Graves on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In.

that's what I'm talkin' about.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.