Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[ChristineM]

If you think Hitler did what he did because he was religious, you are out of your mind. And Hitler was not responsible for WW2, anyway.

I am sure you didn't read the part of my post regarding how ww2 was started.

And if you read hitlers writings it is slap bang in your face that he believed many of his actions were guided by his religion

 

[PureX]

I am sure you didn't read the part of my post regarding how ww2 was started.

And if you read hitlers writings it is slap bang in your face that he believed many of his actions were guided by his religion

No, it was "slap bang" in YOUR face, because you see religion as the root of all evil. The rest of us understand that fascism is an obsession with power, and control, and is not about observance or obedience to any gods at all. Even the Christians in the US that are now embracing fascist behavior are not doing it for their God's sake. They're doing it because they want to be in control of everything and everyone around them. They're frightened and angry and feeling ignored and they believe that if they were "in charge" of everything as they deserve to be (in their minds) their lives would be good again. The world would be put back aright. Just like the German people felt in the 1930s after loosing WW1. It's far more a darwinist ideology than any religious one.

 

[ChristineM]

No, it was "slap bang" in YOUR face, because you see religion as the root of all evil. The rest of us understand that fascism is an obsession with power, and control, and is not about observance or obedience to any gods at all. Even the Christians in the US that are now embracing fascist behavior are not doing it for their God's sake. They're doing it because they want to be in control of everything and everyone around them. They're frightened and angry and feeling ignored and they believe that if they were "in charge" of everything as they deserve to be (in their minds) their lives would be good again. The world would be put back aright. Just like the German people felt in the 1930s after loosing WW1. It's far more a darwinist ideology than any religious one.

Nope i see some religious people as the root of all evil, they learn from the way they interpret religion. So don't give me that **** when you have no idea, i am far more complex in by reasoning than you are willing to understand.

Interestingly it usually seems to take a fanatical christian to embrace fascism.

Have you read any of his writings or speeches? Or are you just parroting hearsay?

Just a few...

"I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a warrior." Adolf Hitler
"May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose, and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany. Adolf Hitler
"The Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is endeavouring to develop them." Adolf Hitler
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith." Adolf Hitler
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" Adolf Hitler
"Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time." Adolf Hitler

I could go on but i think you should get the message.

He was not a nice guy, i have never said otherwise. his political ideology appears to have been guided and driven by his religious beliefs

 

[PureX]

Nope i see some religious people as the root of all evil, they learn from the way they interpret religion. So don't give me that **** when you have no idea, i am far more complex in by reasoning than you are willing to understand.

And yet you never seem to be able to explain this intricate insight you think you have into religiosity.

Interestingly it usually seems to take a fanatical christian to embrace fascism.

Yes, but the big giveaway is the fanaticism. Not the religion. That's a person who is in an extreme state of agitation; fear, anger, and in need of self control. That unfortunately thinks their solution lies in the world around them, instead of within themselves.

Have you read any of his writings or speeches? Or are you just parroting hearsay?

I think the moment he referred to religion as a justification for his fanatical fear, anger, and need for control, YOU saw exactly the demon you were looking for, and thought no more about it.

And WW 2 was not Hitler's fault, or Hitler's doing. Neither were any of the many other wars in the last 100 years in which WE killed and maimed millions of innocents to terrorize our 'enemies'. And none if it having anything to do with religion.

 

[ChristineM]

And yet you never seem to be able to explain this intricate insight you think you have into religiosity.

I have several times on these pages. Feel free to find them if you are so interested but please to not guess .

Yes, but the big giveaway is the fanaticism. Not the religion

Religious fanaticism.

I think the moment he referred to religion as a justification for his fanatical fear, anger, and need for control, YOU saw exactly the demon you were looking for, and thought no more about it.

Same old same old, i saw what he wrote, not how American sensibilities hoped he had written.

And WW 2 was not Hitler's fault, or Hitler's doing

Again for the hard of thinking, i have never said otherwise, in fact i was specific in my first post addressing you false handwaving

 

[AdamjEdgar]

How would you know? Have you been to these planets? Has anyone?
Also, your "prediction" is very debatable, to say the least.
Life's been here for a small 4 billion years. +3 billion of which was one celled.
Multi-celled life has been here close to a billion years. Land life only a good 350-400 million years.
It took at least 3.8 billion years, trillions of species, dozens of "resets" through mass extinctions to get to just 1 intelligent species in the sense that it develops tech and can reflect upon the universe and ask if there are others out there.

This doesn't tell me that every old rocky planet with life on it is going to hold intelligent beings.
Instead, this tells me that intelligent species are rather rare instead....



Doesn't follow at all.

The universe is claimed at being at least 14 billion years old.
Again, we are not the oldest planet by a long shot.
Probability and the enormous expanse tells us, if evolution theory is sound, intelligent life must have formed prior to us.

Again, that life would have gained our intelligence and technology at a similar time and left signals about this distance from the singularity.

We have found nothing. That means either...
1. There is no one else or
2. There is a God, we are created, and are the only fallen world.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have no god and don't need one to tell me how to do the right thing. It is my belief no one 'needs' a god, what they need is to learn some humanity.

Unless damaged, we all come equipped with an in-born conscience that can learn to do what is right.
How do we learn some humanity but by the Golden Rule and Jesus' New Commandment found at John 13:34-35
To have the same self-sacrificing love for other people as Jesus has.
In other words, to now love neighbor MORE than self, more than the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18
To me this is where we learn about humanity.
Since there is No way to enforce the Golden Rule then corrupted humanity ( conscience damaged by ignoring righteous leanings ) we now see the world's selfish distorted form of love as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Which is quite the opposite of of the definition of Christ-like love as defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.
Seems to me without godly righteous standards humanity will just continue going down hill.

 

[ChristineM]

Unless damaged, we all come equipped with an in-born conscience that can learn to do what is right.
How do we learn some humanity but by the Golden Rule and Jesus' New Commandment found at John 13:34-35
To have the same self-sacrificing love for other people as Jesus has.
In other words, to now love neighbor MORE than self, more than the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18
To me this is where we learn about humanity.
Since there is No way to enforce the Golden Rule then corrupted humanity ( conscience damaged by ignoring righteous leanings ) we now see the world's selfish distorted form of love as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Which is quite the opposite of Christ-like love as defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.
Seems to me without godly righteous standards humanity will just continue going down hill.

We learn it by being civilised, it's really not that hard to do.

How do people who do not know anything about JC and the rule that people like to call golden go about surviving in this world? They are still civilised, they behave in a civilised way to each other, they don't need any golden rule.

Or how about modifying the golden rule to "do to others what you would have them do to you, but do it first"

I think i said, you don't need a god to be civilised to one another. But if a god belief helps you then that's up to you.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

We learn it by being civilised, it's really not that hard to do.
How do people who do not know anything about JC and the rule that people like to call golden go about surviving in this world? They are still civilised, they behave in a civilised way to each other, they don't need any golden rule.
Or how about modifying the golden rule to "do to others what you would have them do to you, but do it first"
I think i said, you don't need a god to be civilised to one another. But if a god belief helps you then that's up to you.

Makes we wonder about the: corrupt businessmen, the corrupt politicians and the corrupted clergy.
They are all educated and why aren't they civilized in their practices __________
Bottom line: they are Not living by love of neighbor but of selfish love of self.

Corrupt political will surprisingly turn on the corrupted religious, and the business men (merchants) will morn the loss.
Not because of sorrow but because of their loss of revenue $$$$$$

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The universe is claimed at being at least 14 billion years old.
Again, we are not the oldest planet by a long shot.
Probability and the enormous expanse tells us, if evolution theory is sound, intelligent life must have formed prior to us.

Again, I don't see how you can conclude that at all.

3.8 billion years of evolution and trillions and trillions of species. And from those, only 1 species evolved with the level of intelligence you are speaking of. And that only in the last say 150.000 years. And during the first ~140.000, we were just nomads fighting over fire with a few clever hunting techniques and later on with stone settlements and some more extensive social structure.

Actual technological advancement, is only a couple centuries.
Technological state in which we were capable of actually sending (rather: "leaking" signals into space) is really only just the last 100 years!

So that's just one species for only 100 years over a history of 3.8 billion!
That doesn't tell me that such life is "common".

You know what is very common? one-celled bacterial life.
Even multi-celled life is likely a hard transition as it only happened once in our history (as far as we know at least). And it took a LOOOOONG time before it happened. For 75% of life's history, no multi-celled organisms did not exist.

If you would represent life's history on a 24 hour clock, humans would only appear in the last second.

Again, that life would have gained our intelligence and technology at a similar time and left signals about this distance from the singularity.

Why?
I think it is far more likely that most planets with life on them never go beyond the single-celled variation.
And for the rare ones that do, I think it is far more likely that most of those would never produce a human-style intelligent species .

So while I do consider it likely that there are others out there (the universe is ridiculously huge), I consider it extremely unlikely that we'll meet them or would otherwise be able to detect them.

Also... why do you assume that ET intelligent life would use the same technology as we do? They might use very different technology. We might not even be able to detect their signals with the equipment we have.

We have found nothing. That means either...
1. There is no one else or
2. There is a God, we are created, and are the only fallen world.

Obvious false dichotomy.
Even if only for the fact that the extent of our exploration of space is so miniscule that it's not even funny.

That's like taking several thousands soccer fields, investigating ONE blade of grass you pulled from ONE field, not finding any ants crawling on it and then concluding "there are no ants on these soccer fields"

Having said that, it's a nonsense false dichotomy. It doesn't follow at all.

 

[ChristineM]

Bottom line: they are Not living by love of neighbor but of selfish love of self.

Bottom line is they are living by greed and this can happen to Christian, Muslim atheiest whether they believe God or not

Corrupt political will surprisingly turn on the corrupted religious,

And many religious will unsurprisingly turn on non believers, not because of humanity but difference.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Again, I don't see how you can conclude that at all.

3.8 billion years of evolution and trillions and trillions of species. And from those, only 1 species evolved with the level of intelligence you are speaking of. And that only in the last say 150.000 years. And during the first ~140.000, we were just nomads fighting over fire with a few clever hunting techniques and later on with stone settlements and some more extensive social structure.

Actual technological advancement, is only a couple centuries.
Technological state in which we were capable of actually sending (rather: "leaking" signals into space) is really only just the last 100 years!

So that's just one species for only 100 years over a history of 3.8 billion!
That doesn't tell me that such life is "common".

You know what is very common? one-celled bacterial life.
Even multi-celled life is likely a hard transition as it only happened once in our history (as far as we know at least). And it took a LOOOOONG time before it happened. For 75% of life's history, no multi-celled organisms did not exist.

If you would represent life's history on a 24 hour clock, humans would only appear in the last second.



Why?
I think it is far more likely that most planets with life on them never go beyond the single-celled variation.
And for the rare ones that do, I think it is far more likely that most of those would never produce a human-style intelligent species .

So while I do consider it likely that there are others out there (the universe is ridiculously huge), I consider it extremely unlikely that we'll meet them or would otherwise be able to detect them.

Also... why do you assume that ET intelligent life would use the same technology as we do? They might use very different technology. We might not even be able to detect their signals with the equipment we have.



Obvious false dichotomy.
Even if only for the fact that the extent of our exploration of space is so miniscule that it's not even funny.

That's like taking several thousands soccer fields, investigating ONE blade of grass you pulled from ONE field, not finding any ants crawling on it and then concluding "there are no ants on these soccer fields"

Having said that, it's a nonsense false dichotomy. It doesn't follow at all.

Not a single statement or reason you have made here is consistent with evolution theory.
The very idea of evolution is based on the foundation prinple that, given enough time, things evolve.
How you can possibly make the claim that you believe it unlikely any other planet, given there are trillions of them far older than the earth, has not evolved beyond a single cell is absurd...it is inconsistent with the entire evolutionary theory.
What we find in fact is that you lack of an explanation as to why we have not found any other intelligent life (or evidence it it at least) further supports the creation view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a single statement or reason you have made here is consistent with evolution theory.
The very idea of evolution is based on the foundation prinple that, given enough time, things evolve.
How you can possibly make the claim that you believe it unlikely any other planet, given there are trillions of them far older than the earth, has not evolved beyond a single cell is absurd...it is inconsistent with the entire evolutionary theory.
What we find in fact is that you lack of an explanation as to why we have not found any other intelligent life (or evidence it it at least) further supports the creation view.

He may be wrong about the odds of a eukaryote event happening. It appears that there are multiple ways that it could have happened. Now this is way above my paygrade so do not take my speculations too seriously.

The reason that it appears we had only one eukaryote event on the Earth may be the same reason that we had only one apparent abiotic event on the Earth. Both are events of very low probability though there appear to be multiple pathways for both. What happens if there are multiple pathways to a low chance event is that the first species to break the barrier may have an unbeatable head start on other species that do the same. The first life would have been ridiculously simple compared to modern life. Even the most "simple" modern cell has 3.8 billions of years of evolution behind it. A lot of that involved defenses against other competing forms of life. The original cell was probably equipped to pass its RNA on and that was it. It would have had a multi million year head start on other life and if any formed it was probably instantly in the category of "food". The same may have occurred with any successors to the original eukaryote. If they ever occurred. By the time you would have that one in a trillionth squared chance again it would be too late.

But I think that he was discussing intelligence. That would be even rarer since one would first have to pass the abiogenesis hurdle and then the eukaryote hurdle.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Like I ask, maybe they evolved? Yes, presumably any other life found in the universe would have evolved.

Maybe they look like, um...something...lol. Yes, they will definitely look like 'something'. The question scientists are asking is, is it likely to be like life on Earth, that is carbon based, since there are conceivably other options.

Exploration is one thing. Wondering if there is "life" out there maybe like ours is beyond the beyond. Not sure what you mean by 'beyond the beyond', but making hypothesis based on verifiable knowledge is how science works. It's the method we use to explore the universe. People have been wondering if there is other life in the universe since before we verified that the universe contains billions upon billions of planets.

making hypothesis based on verifiable knowledge

Then why are you putting the “horse before the cart,” as they say?
Prove how life begins, then you can debate on life evolving on other planets!

Your hypothesis is based on assumptions, not any verifiable knowledge.
Sounds like @Subduction Zone with his “almost a given.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why are you putting the “horse before the cart,” as they say?
Prove how life begins, then you can debate on life evolving on other planets!

Your hypothesis is based on assumptions, not any verifiable knowledge.
Sounds like @Subduction Zone with his “almost a given.”

Since the laws of physics and chemistry are going to be uniform across that universe, and there now appear to be multiple pathways to life so we may never know the one actual pathway that does make life all but a given on other worlds. In fact with the evidence that we have the burden of proof would be upon the deniers to explain why life would arise here and not elsewhere.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Just watching a show on cable about astronomy and exploration of space and the possibility scientists say of life out there. (It's so stupid...) So they say they see no signs of life out there, and then wonder if there is life like ours. Imagine that. Life like ours somewhere out there maybe. So it just hasn't "evolved" yet, I suppose. Or maybe these evolved beings look like? a horror being?

I just found your post, and….WOW!
You’ve got a thread going w/ 7 pgs, with posters debating on the evolution of life on other planets, assuming that life can begin naturally!! Without any evidence whatsoever to support such a conclusion!

LOL!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Since the laws of physics and chemistry are going to be uniform across that universe, and there now appear to be multiple pathways to life so we may never know the one actual pathway that does make life all but a given on other worlds. In fact with the evidence that we have the burden of proof would be upon the deniers to explain why life would arise here and not elsewhere.

Laugh out loud! “…there now appear to be multiple pathways to life…” , “..the evidence we have…”
What multiple pathways? What evidence?

More unsubstantiated words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Laugh out loud! “…there now appear to be multiple pathways to life…” , “..the evidence we have…”
What multiple pathways? What evidence?

More unsubstantiated words.

too late and too far off subject. I will probably give you links tomorrow though I should put a price on them. Will you admit to total ignorance and admit that you have no business debating abiogenesis if I do supply the links?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

too late and too far off subject. I will probably give you links tomorrow though I should put a price on them. Will you admit to total ignorance and admit that you have no business debating abiogenesis if I do supply the links?

Please…lol.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not a single statement or reason you have made here is consistent with evolution theory.

Let's see if you support that accusation.

The very idea of evolution is based on the foundation prinple that, given enough time, things evolve.

Yes. But nothing is said about the "direction" evolution will take, or what traits will or will not develop. That depends entirely on the environment and what helps an organism to survive in those environments.

There are traits we can expect and traits, given certain circumstances.
For example, the trait of sight, some sort of "eyes" would likely evolve if there is light in the environment that life inhabits. That trait evolved on earth a lot of times independently.

So there are certain traits we can anticipate. But again, it largely depends on the environment.

And as said, the trait of "intelligent" evolved JUST ONCE (as far as we know at least) on this planet. And it remains to be seen, the future will tell, how long that trait will be present.

Species that evolve such traits sooner or later develop capabilities with which they can destroy their environment, and thus themselves also . So the trait of intelligence certainly is not without risk.
Next to that, a bazillion things can go wrong which might lead to extinction. From desease to meteorites and all natural disasters in between.

We can only take the earth as model of what kind of traits we could expect on other planets.
From the pool of traits, intelligence seems to be one of the most unlikely ones.

How you can possibly make the claim that you believe it unlikely any other planet, given there are trillions of them far older than the earth, has not evolved beyond a single cell is absurd...it is inconsistent with the entire evolutionary theory.

I take life on earth as a model to determine the likelihood of traits evolving.
Considering that the first 75% of the time that life existed on this planet multi-cellular organisms didn't exist, right out the gates it makes it more likely that if we find a planet with life on it, it will be single celled life.

But 25% is still high, so it's not that unlikely.
You however are going much much further. You take it as a certainty that intelligence would evolve.
You seem to think that evolution would roughly take the same path on all planets as it did on earth.
This is not the case at all. The direction of evolution is determined by the environment. If the alien environment is not conducive for multi-celled life, it won't be happening. Or it might happen and not survive.

What we find in fact is that you lack of an explanation as to why we have not found any other intelligent life (or evidence it it at least) further supports the creation view.

It's you who's claiming that not finding out life intelligent life somehow supports the creation view.
That is your claim. It's you that needs to explain that.

I don't see how it follows, so I don't accept it. Upto you to support your claim.