turtlespeed 226 #151 September 29, 2010 Quote Quote I guess you have no resaon to fear the Bibliography Nazi, as long as you wrote thet yourself. And what makes you think he didn't? See the issue? SEEEEEE! I told you Bill! It was pretty obvious, if you recognise his posting habits and style. Her's one - instead of berating him, (oh wait you didn't do that to your buddy Bill, did you?), you could simply ask him if that was his or if he copied and pasted it. Besides, There was not NEARLY as many sarcastic put-downs and veiled PA's as he would usually post in something that long.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #152 September 29, 2010 QuoteHer's one - instead of berating him, (oh wait you didn't do that to your buddy Bill, did you?), you could simply ask him if that was his or if he copied and pasted it. Or . . . because I actually pay attention to a person's writing style and in particular can recognize what is and isn't characteristic of bill's . . . I don't have to. See that's what trips most people up when they rip off material that doesn't belong to them and post it as if it is; the overall style. You, my dear friend on a half shell, RARELY write more than a few words per sentence and more than a few lines per post. Generally speaking, you're looking to get in a quick jab and on to another post to do the same. It is freakishly unlikely for you to write an even marginally well thought out 500 word essay on a topic. On the other hand . . . billvon? Yeah, he'll do that and do it well. It's not out of his character. You, my little mock turtle soup, are all too easy to spot.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #153 September 29, 2010 Quote...common sense certainly does not prevail. Majority rules... "Common sense" is just anything you think, and have maybe found a few people to agree with you about, that you wish everyone else thought too. If that weren't the case, the rule of the majority would coincide with common sense prevailing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #154 September 29, 2010 QuoteYou seem to be assuming that it is most definate that only earth has life 'or' earth was the first to habour life 'or' life on earth was 100% fomed and created on earth. No, I'm not. I'm just using it to point out how absurd it is to equate the origin of the universe with the origin of life. In terms of this planet, you're saying the origin of life occured 10 billion years before there was any life. That's daft. QuoteOur atmosphere is constanly being bombarded with 'substance' from other realms of our universe. So what? QuoteWho are you to say the origin of life on earth did not exist for aeons elsewhere? I'm not. But if you are saying that there was life immediately after the big bang, you are barking up the wrong tree. QuoteOr are you so sure that Earth is the only object that harbours life? Once again... No. I fact I am absolutely positive that there are other inhabited planets in the universe. QuoteYou seem to be fixated on what you know while completely dismissing what you don't. And you're just spouting vague wishy-washy nonsense that uses life and existance as interchangeable terms.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #155 September 29, 2010 QuoteQuotehow obvious was my attempt at humor ? evidently i missed the mark,or hit a nerve !Humor does not appear to be your strong suit. It's certainly not "obvious."or it's your week suit ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #156 September 29, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo you beleive that human beings were created before all other flora and fauna by the hands of god? Don't be stupid. This is what christians beleive. some christians have no problem with adapting the theory of evolution into christian faith ! 'Adapting' evolution to fit your faith is just as bad as dismissing it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #157 September 30, 2010 Quote You, my little mock turtle soup, are all too easy to spot. Don't Taze Eat Me broI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #158 September 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou, my little mock turtle soup, are all too easy to spot.Don't Taze Eat Me brothat belongs on the great quotes thread ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #159 September 30, 2010 QuoteNo, I'm not. I'm just using it to point out how absurd it is to equate the origin of the universe with the origin of life. In terms of this planet, you're saying the origin of life occured 10 billion years before there was any life. That's daft. Your simple mistake is to assume/imply that life was created on earth, I am not talking about the origin of 'life on earth', I am talking about the origin of life, Period. QuoteSo what? So what? So There is a distinct possibility that the origin of life on earth came from elsewhere than earth. Just like the water in our oceans. QuoteI'm not. But if you are saying that there was life immediately after the big bang, you are barking up the wrong tree. The big bang 'may' have been an inversion of something else, it is possible that life existed before the big bang, that is if the big bang theory is actually correct. It is all just theory, exept you treat is as fact. and this takes me back to the assertion that athiests are as arrogant as the 'faithful' as they assume that what they believe is actually what happened. QuoteOnce again... No. I fact I am absolutely positive that there are other inhabited planets in the universe. O.k. now we are talking, so what is to say that the earth was not formed after life existed elsewhere, and somehow or another through and event such as a supernova, that life has be delivered to earth via a particle of ice etc etc. ? If you can beleive that life exists elsewhere, then why should that life have been created at the same time or after as life on earth? time scales are infinate. I understand our earth would have taken millions of tears to be ready to harbour life, but there may have been planets or moons etc, that have done so or did so for aeons earlier. do you get where I am coing from now? QuoteAnd you're just spouting vague wishy-washy nonsense that uses life and existance as interchangeable terms. No you are confusing Life on earth, to life in general. My argument is that there was probably life elsewhere before there was on earth. When we talk about the origin of 'life', we have to consider what we do not know. 'Life on earth' does not necessarily represent 'life in general'. I hope you can understand that."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #160 September 30, 2010 QuoteYour simple mistake is to assume/imply that life was created on earth, I am not talking about the origin of 'life on earth', I am talking about the origin of life, Period. It is by far the most likely scenario, for our life, anyway. And unless exobiogenesis happened on earth the origin of life somewhere else has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life here. QuoteSo what? So There is a distinct possibility that the origin of life on earth came from elsewhere than earth. Just like the water in our oceans. 'Substance' hitting earth from outer space does not equal viable life from outer space hitting earth. We've not yet found anything in meteorites that we can say is definitely life, so lets not jump the gun. (And what do you mean, just like water? Water came from somewhere else after the earth was formed?) QuoteThe big bang 'may' have been an inversion of something else, it is possible that life existed before the big bang, that is if the big bang theory is actually correct. Again, that has nothing to do with the origin of our life. QuoteO.k. now we are talking, so what is to say that the earth was not formed after life existed elsewhere, and somehow or another through and event such as a supernova, that life has be delivered to earth via a particle of ice etc etc. ? If you can beleive that life exists elsewhere, then why should that life have been created at the same time or after as life on earth? time scales are infinate. I understand our earth would have taken millions of tears to be ready to harbour life, but there may have been planets or moons etc, that have done so or did so for aeons earlier. So what? The origin of that hypothetical life is still a seperate event that happened a long, long time after the creation of the universe. The creation of the universe is not the creation of life. QuoteNo you are confusing Life on earth, to life in general. No, you are confusing life with everything.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #161 September 30, 2010 Quote It is by far the most likely scenario, for our life, anyway. So you beleive life 'definately exists' elsewhere. But you consider the origin of life to pertain only to that on earth?? Quote And unless exobiogenesis happened on earth the origin of life somewhere else has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life here. Life is life, how is life elsewhere not life. when we talk about the origin of life, we have to consider what we do not know. Something you seem to be having difficulty understanding, i surprises me that you are so certain that life exists elsewhere but you think the origin of life is only pertinant to life on earth. bizzare. Quote 'Substance' hitting earth from outer space does not equal viable life from outer space hitting earth. We've not yet found anything in meteorites that we can say is definitely life, so lets not jump the gun. So because nothing has been found in the last couple of hundred years on objects that have arrived from other realms of the universe, means that tere is not any possiblity that it has done so in the last hundred million or more? You continue to ignore that things you do not know, exist, or existed... Quote (And what do you mean, just like water? Water came from somewhere else after the earth was formed?) yeah, Space is full of ice and our atmosphere is constantly being bombarded with it. Quote Again, that has nothing to do with the origin of our life. when you say our life, it that as opposed to other life? Quote So what? The origin of that hypothetical life is still a seperate event that happened a long, long time after the creation of the universe. The creation of the universe is not the creation of life. you say that as you are so certain, there is no point in arguing with someone that assumes they know everything there is to know. Quote No, you are confusing life with everything. no, you are assuming life = life on earth."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #162 September 30, 2010 I don't think either of you are really disagreeing with each other, I think you're both talking past one another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #163 September 30, 2010 Quote I got 13/15. Grew up Christian, became an atheist as an adult.. meh, got 15/15 ... and could have answered most of those questions when I was 15. I got 15/15 and I've been an atheist since I was old enough to think for myself. proving my point these were 'softball' questions. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #164 September 30, 2010 QuoteSo you beleive life 'definately exists' elsewhere. But you consider the origin of life to pertain only to that on earth?? The origin of our life. Anything else is irrelevant and pure conjecture. Life several billion years ago on a planet in a different galaxy has nothing to do with the origin of life on this planet, that led directly to us. QuoteLife is life, how is life elsewhere not life. Life elsewhere is not life here. The origin of life elsewhere has nothing to do with the origin of life here. They are seperate events. Look; there is no Force. There is no eternal cosmic energy field called Life that drifts about imbuing proto-cells with the proporty of Being Alive. That doesn't happen, chemistry happens. Each time life arises on a different planet it's a completely seperate event, unconnected to whatever has gone before somewehere else. QuoteSo because nothing has been found in the last couple of hundred years on objects that have arrived from other realms of the universe, means that tere is not any possiblity that it has done so in the last hundred million or more? Did I say that? No. Not no possibility, just one that I'm not going to take seriously without supporting evidence. Quotewhen you say our life, it that as opposed to other life? Yes. Now you're getting it. Quoteyou say that as you are so certain, there is no point in arguing with someone that assumes they know everything there is to know. Yes, I am certain. Unless you're talking about something supernatural (which also certainly doesn't exist) there was no life created by the big bang.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #165 September 30, 2010 Quote Yes, I am certain. Unless you're talking about something supernatural (which also certainly doesn't exist) there was no life created by the big bang. So what you are saying is that you would still exist wether or not the big bang happened or not.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #166 September 30, 2010 QuoteQuote Yes, I am certain. Unless you're talking about something supernatural (which also certainly doesn't exist) there was no life created by the big bang. So what you are saying is that you would still exist wether or not the big bang happened or not. No, that's just you being illiterate.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #167 September 30, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Yes, I am certain. Unless you're talking about something supernatural (which also certainly doesn't exist) there was no life created by the big bang. So what you are saying is that you would still exist wether or not the big bang happened or not. No, that's just you being illiterate. No, that is you just being unable to articulate your thoughts. I believe yu should refresh your memory on the meaning of illiterate. You seem to have gotten it wrong . . . again.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #168 September 30, 2010 QuoteNo, that is you just being unable to articulate your thoughts. Read the thread. My thoughts are perfectly clear. You would have to be a moron to think I meant what you said I meant.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #169 September 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteNo, that is you just being unable to articulate your thoughts. Read the thread. My thoughts are perfectly clear. You would have to be a moron to think I meant what you said I meant. Touched a nerve evidently. Have you had your coffee yet this morning? Do you agree or disagree that the Big Bang precluded life?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #170 September 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, that is you just being unable to articulate your thoughts. Read the thread. My thoughts are perfectly clear. You would have to be a moron to think I meant what you said I meant. Touched a nerve evidently. No, I just have a low tolernace for idiotic shit-stirring misrepresentations of my words. Seriously, what the fuck is your point? What is it you're doing here apart from being a twat?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #171 September 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo, that is you just being unable to articulate your thoughts. Read the thread. My thoughts are perfectly clear. You would have to be a moron to think I meant what you said I meant. Touched a nerve evidently. No, I just have a low tolernace for idiotic shit-stirring misrepresentations of my words. Seriously, what the fuck is your point? What is it you're doing here apart from being a twat? My point is simple, without the big bang in your theory, life could not exist. So in essence - the Big Bang is what created life. It's called an alternate point of view, you should try that sometime. Now, if you could reel in your emotions a bit and lay off the twat calling, you might be able to stay here and debate, other than that - you will probably be given a vacation. Ask phree - he pretty much warned the whole forum this morning. Your choice.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #172 September 30, 2010 QuoteMy point is simple, without the big bang in your theory, life could not exist. So in essence - the Big Bang is what created life. I'll say it again, life did not originate 10 billion years before there was any life. If someone asks you where something you own comes from, you do not say "The Big Bang", even though the matter and energy that forms that item once came from it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #173 September 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteMy point is simple, without the big bang in your theory, life could not exist. So in essence - the Big Bang is what created life. I'll say it again, life did not originate 10 billion years before there was any life. If someone asks you where something you own comes from, you do not say "The Big Bang", even though the matter and energy that forms that item once came from it. All you will be doing is giving your opinion again. You have no proof. It is my argument that energy in and of it's self is life. Do you agree with the string theory?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #174 September 30, 2010 QuoteIt is my argument that energy in and of it's self is life. Well, you have fun with that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #175 September 30, 2010 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
