Religion: Why do you care?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Seems pretty obvious to me. Oh yeah, I saw the following said on TV "The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance.

Well that's just it isn't it - there are a variety of ways that life could have begun on this planet, and a variety of experiments demonstrating how some of the neccesary steps may have occured. Some of these experiments may or may not accurately represent what really happened.

I have not seen anyone refuse to accept that current abiogenesis theories may be incorrect, therefore your accusation is meaningless.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Seems pretty obvious to me. Oh yeah, I saw the following said on TV "The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance.

Well that's just it isn't it - there are a variety of ways that life could have begun on this planet, and a variety of experiments demonstrating how some of the neccesary steps may have occured. Some of these experiments may or may not accurately represent what really happened.

Maybe.

Quote

I have not seen anyone refuse to accept that current abiogenesis theories may be incorrect, therefore your accusation is meaningless.

No one refuses to accept that the theories may be incorrect??? Are you saying that all abiogenesis theories are accepted as correct? Which one is right?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

No one refuses to accept that the theories may be incorrect??? Are you saying that all abiogenesis theories are accepted as correct? Which one is right?

Oh for Christ's sake man, is english your second language?!

Try this on for size - Show me someone who insists that any current theory of abiogenesis is indisputibly correct.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Yes... and I'm a big fan of James J. Kilpatrick.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Yes...

In that case, in the interests of developing your language skills, I will point out to you that saying "I have not seen anyone refuse to accept that current abiogenesis theories may be incorrect" means exactly that. It does not mean "all abiogenesis theories are accepted as correct." In fact, it means almost exactly the opposite.

Your original accusation is therefore as meaningless as ever.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Which original accusation?
With all this back and forth I don't know which "original accusation" you're talking about.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes...

In that case, in the interests of developing your language skills, I will point out to you that saying "I have not seen anyone refuse to accept that current abiogenesis theories may be incorrect" means exactly that. It does not mean "all abiogenesis theories are accepted as correct." In fact, it means almost exactly the opposite.

Your original accusation is therefore as meaningless as ever.

You are just encouraging the trolling.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Which original accusation?
With all this back and forth I don't know which "original accusation" you're talking about.

Ref post #218.

Do you pay any attention at all to the things you type?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Right about his making the claims, but I think his point cuts both ways - proving God is on par with proving life on other planets or how the Universe began or how life on this planet began. All require a high degree of faith.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

How many people do you know who live their life according to the Drake equation? How many people try to force big bang morality onto others? Cosmology doesn't tell you your going to hell because you didn't suck up to the right theory.

No, but I was called a dumb ass for not spouting the party line about the Big Bang. What's the difference?

Quote

It only takes faith to believe in something if you don't have any evidence.

You mean such as the possibility of life on other planets or in other solar systems? Thanks for making my point.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Stick to the subject please i

What was the question?

BTW, without all of the BS, this would be a dead thread.

[philh 0]

"No, but I was called a dumb ass for not spouting the party line about the Big Bang. What's the difference? "
Most scientists dont accept the big bang because it is the party line, they accept it becuase it has evidence. Thats the difference between their beliefs and those of religion.

"You mean such as the possibility of life on other planets or in other solar systems? Thanks for making my point. "

To suggest that life on other planets is possible is not an article of faith. Its based on observations that life thrives in very harsh conditions. Biologists have observed that the only ingrediient that is chemcially necessary for life is water. So to say that where there is liquid water there is likely to be life is not an artciel of faith. Of course to say life on other planets is possible or even likely is different from saying its definitley true. I have heard people saying its very very likely , I have not heard anyone say its defintiely true. So i think you are making somethign of a straw man.
The burden of evidence,as has been said many time b4, is on those making the claim.
If I say there is life on other planets, then I am making the claim and I need to provide evidence. Such a statement whilst not being really solid is not a complete article of faith becuase of the observations of the ease of life and the large number of solar systems. However the picture you paint is not accurate. Most astro biologists dont say there is life on other planets they say there is likely to be life on other planets, you realy need to understand that distinction.
As for god there is no evidence whatsoever, any belief in her is pure faith.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

It only takes faith to believe in something if you don't have any evidence.

You mean such as the possibility of life on other planets or in other solar systems? Thanks for making my point.

There's an ABUNDANCE of evidence for the possibility of life on other planets or solar systems. The probability that life exist elsewhere is actually pretty high.

There is no evidence at all that God (as described in the Bible) exists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

The probability that life exist elsewhere is actually pretty high.

How high? Like 1 in 2? Or maybe 1 in a quintillion?

What are the odds?

[rhys 0]

probably similar odds to you filling out your profile?

When I look at the sky at night i can see thousands of stars.

I'd reckon there is a good chance there is life elsewhere!

Ih shit i forgot, we are at the centre of the universe and everything was made for us to take advantage of.

sorry, I'm wrong.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Which original accusation?
With all this back and forth I don't know which "original accusation" you're talking about.

Ref post #218.

Do you pay any attention at all to the things you type?

How ironic that in my previous post I wrote:

Quote

Of course, most people actually reference an old post (by reposting or mentioning it) if they are bringing it back up.... instead of expecting readers to intuitively know it's being addressed in the current post.

You just say "your original accusation", which could be applied to numerous points I've made in this thread.

I'm guessing you missed my point about James Kilpatrick, too.

[Royd 0]

Quote

To suggest that life on other planets is possible is not an article of faith. Its based on observations that life thrives in very harsh conditions. Biologists have observed that the only ingrediient that is chemcially necessary for life is water. So to say that where there is liquid water there is likely to be life is not an artciel of faith.

So I can take a gallon of sterile water, put it into a sealed container inside of a vacumn and life is eventually going to spring forth? Life must exist for life to continue. After that, all conditions that this life form needs to exist must remain constant or it will not thrive. What's that survival rule about air,water, food?

Let's perform a little experiment using the Big Bang. We will get a large container with the ability to shatter. We will fill it full of explosives, blow it up and then try to find two pieces that perfectly match each other. My underdeveloped scientific brain says, don't bet your paycheck on it.

Now, let's add a little more complexity to this experiment.
We will require beforehand, that one chard must match certain dimensions perfectly.

Now, back to Earth. How did this one miniscule chard, which came from the same container as the rest of the chards, wind up with all of the good stuff?

I'll bet that the moon is feeling like a redheaded stepchild?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The probability that life exist elsewhere is actually pretty high.

How high? Like 1 in 2? Or maybe 1 in a quintillion?

What are the odds?

From Scientific American
Probability 1, meaning a certainty that the thing will happen, is what mathematician and probability theorist Aczel assigns to the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The idea is very old; Aczel quotes Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) as saying there are many worlds, all with "living creatures and plants and other things we see in this world." Recent discoveries of planets orbiting stars other than the sun increase the odds. Astronomer Frank D. Drake, long involved with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, has formulated an equation: N = N* fp ne fl fi fc L, where N stands for the number of civilizations in our galaxy capable of communicating with other civilizations. N* is the number of stars in the galaxy (billions in the Milky Way), fp the percentage of stars with planets (debatable but high), ne the number of planets with environments favorable to life (roughly 10 percent), fl the fraction of planets with life (guesswork but perhaps with a probability of 0.1 or 0.2), fi the proportion of those planets on which intelligent life has evolved (again guesswork, with probabilities ranging from 0.1 to 0.5), fc the fraction of planets able to communicate with other civilizations by radio or some other means (inestimable until Earth receives such a communication), and L for the longevity of the civilization. Drake believes that N may be as high as 10,332; the late Carl Sagan put it at about a million. Aczel's quest is for intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, not just in our galaxy. Here he is dealing with almost incomprehensibly big numbers. "Our galaxy has about 300 billion stars (although some estimates are lower), and let's assume there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe." Hence, even though the probability of life around any one star is extremely small, the compound probability with such vast numbers of stars to consider rises to 1.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

You just say "your original accusation", which could be applied to numerous points I've made in this thread.

Oh yes, I forgot. You are in fact incapable of remembering anything that happened more then 10 minutes ago. This entire segment of discussion stemmed from the statement you wrote in the post I just pointed you to. That is all we have been talking about since. I mean seriously, what the fuck else could you have possibly thought I was talking about?

Quote

I'm guessing you missed my point about James Kilpatrick, too.

Well since I have absolutely no idea who he is, uhhh, yeah I did miss your point. Assuming he's some kind of minor American celeb, why did you ever expect me to get it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Thanks Kallend. I've read that before.

I wonder how the author came up with:

- ne the number of planets with environments favorable to life (roughly 10 percent),
- fl the fraction of planets with life (guesswork but perhaps with a probability of 0.1 or 0.2),
- fi the proportion of those planets on which intelligent life has evolved (again guesswork, with probabilities ranging from 0.1 to 0.5),
- fc the fraction of planets able to communicate with other civilizations by radio or some other means (inestimable until Earth receives such a communication), and
- L for the longevity of the civilization.

The conclusion of "Drake believes that N may be as high as 10,332" seems to be built on some very subjective numbers... particularly for NE and FL.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Let's perform a little experiment using the Big Bang. We will get a large container with the ability to shatter. We will fill it full of explosives, blow it up and then try to find two pieces that perfectly match each other. My underdeveloped scientific brain says, don't bet your paycheck on it.

What in Gods name are you talking about? I'm sure you think you have a point but for the life of me I have no idea what it is.

Quote

Now, back to Earth. How did this one miniscule chard, which came from the same container as the rest of the chards, wind up with all of the good stuff?

What do you mean "all the good stuff"? Do you think earth is the only body in the solar system containing abundant amounts of water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc? Do you know where these elements came from?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

The conclusion of "Drake believes that N may be as high as 10,332" seems to be built on some very subjective numbers... particularly for NE and FL.

No one has ever said otherwise. However, even using far smaller probabilities in those sections still comes up with rather surprising results.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Quote

What do you mean "all the good stuff"? Do you think earth is the only body in the solar system containing abundant amounts of water, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc?

Do you? Oh, it's possible that other planets have these same elements, but based on the parameters established here, all other conditions must be perfect.

Proper position from its given star, proper mixture of all necessary elements.

Basically, said planet must be another earth.

As for explaining my big bang experiment, I'm sorry that you didn't get it.

It's about the odds of all conditions being perfect on any given chard flying through space after the Big Bang. Generally, explosions create nothing but a mess.
Earth seems to have everything pretty well ordered.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Basically, said planet must be another earth.

Ok, taking that as true (discounting other possible forms of life), why do you think it so unlikely that another earth isn't out there? Hell, we have two planets right here in our own solar system that only just barely missed out on having our conditions - and there are uncountable trillions of other solar systems out there.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

You just say "your original accusation", which could be applied to numerous points I've made in this thread.

Oh yes, I forgot. You are in fact incapable of remembering anything that happened more then 10 minutes ago.

Testy, test. Tsk, tsk.

Quote

This entire segment of discussion stemmed from the statement you wrote in the post I just pointed you to. That is all we have been talking about since.

If only you'd posted a direct reference to that post all this could have been avoided.

Quote

I mean seriously, what the fuck else could you have possibly thought I was talking about?

Quote

Quote

This post seems to go to the heart of the matter regarding why so many bear such a negative attitude towards religion. IMO it's quite myopic, concluding that there are numerous reasons to dislike religion, but only a few minor ones that show it in a positive light. These kinds of posts read like someone is looking for reasons to loathe religion/Christianity, while doing little to see the positives.

Everyone is entitled to the opinion and for those who steadfastly cling to their POV, there's little that can be said to change their outlook, but for the skeptics who honestly want an accurate read on religion (and Christianity in particular) do a little research. Find out how much time and money is donated through Christian causes every year. Find out how many billions go to the needy and not for new sanctuaries or to pay church staff. Do a little historical research to see what scientific breakthroughs were made with the assistance of the Church. You might be surprised.

Quote

What other planets are capable of sustaining life?

Quote

Right about his making the claims, but I think his point cuts both ways - proving God is on par with proving life on other planets or how the Universe began or how life on this planet began. All require a high degree of faith.

Quote

No. I'm just trying to point out that some of the things you believe in require a whole lot of filling in of the blanks. In other words - faith.

Quote

Unfortunately, some people are so caught up in their world/universal view being right, they're unwilling to admit there is a difference (sometimes a major one) between the most plausible theory and what actually happened.

Does your point about no one refuting any theories on abiogenesis really refute any of those post?

Quote

Quote

I'm guessing you missed my point about James Kilpatrick, too.

Well since I have absolutely no idea who he is, uhhh, yeah I did miss your point. Assuming he's some kind of minor American celeb, why did you ever expect me to get it?

This speaks for itself.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

What in Gods name are you talking about? I'm sure you think you have a point but for the life of me I have no idea what it is.

Aah. The shoe is on the other foot, eh?