Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said "this region of space is better described as "alive" than "not alive". That is very specific. You offered nothing in return as a counter claim but "word salad".
I am wise beyond your brain, but that wasn't the point. I was honest and you just blunty put your religious belief ahead of observations.
I keep asking you what your mean by "alive", you can't answer.
Yes...based on the attributes we do know it possesses (as opposed to assigned or speculated attributes) I feel it warrants the title "God".
Also...your term "alive" certainly does fit. Heck...we even know that it is has been "growing bigger" for billions of years. That sure sounds like something that's "alive" to me.
I like your perceptions AA. Others may claim they dont understand...but that's just so they don't have to answer your questions they feel uncomfortable about.
cool, I understand.
yes, opran just did that last part. He doesn't understand That all I do is look at the information we have. Then, to the best of my ability, I think of a notion that links the pieces that we see together. Exactly the same as evolution and plate tectonics as unifying theories do.
evolving, big plates moving, and "alive" ... evolution, plate tectonics, and life.
all similar type of descriptors. I am just more of a verb guy.
I wonder if the word "verb" is to vague for him?
lmao
What balloon has been "growing bigger" for 13+ Billion years...like I noted about the Universe as a whole?
Your conflation...weak, real weak.
Though...the balloon, as part of what comprises "ALL", is "GOD".
Once you get hip to that, you'll come to a greater understanding.
What balloon has been "growing bigger" for 13+ Billion years...like I noted about the Universe as a whole?
Your conflation...weak, real weak.
Though...the balloon, as part of what comprises "ALL", is "DAFFY DUCK".
Once you get hip to that, you'll come to a greater understanding.
We all have our perceptions relative to the issue. Each is unique, no two are exactly alike.
That you feel the Universe overall (ALL/EVERYTHING) as something that "makes sense" to title "DAFFY DUCK" is certainly informative as to the sensibility of your perception...and your ability to think critically and logically.
Each can make their own assessment of it.
Here's something I'd love to get a straight answer to: at some point we had to have two fully formed humanoids that were capable of reproduction, since the average lifespan 100,000 years ago was maybe 20-25 years. Given that these humanoids (earliest man) only had one or two shots at reproducing and given all the diseases and natural predators running rampant ready to wipe them out, at what point did two humanoids appear capable of reproducing to be able to carry on the species? The only other possibility is that at some point humanoids of both sexes with the ability to reproduce started sprouting up like mushrooms all over the African savannas. That is pretty much impossible.
The problem: we have to have numerous fully formed males and females of homo errectus species on the planet who in just a 20 years span are capable of reproducing a fully-formed duplicate of themselves. Anything else and the species would have immediately died out. This, for me, is the strongest indication some intelligence was involved in this process. I cannot reason a species as complex as homo errectus evolving over a million years all the while reproducing duplicates of itself that were evolving like the previous generation all in tandem with each other. The odds supporting this theory again seem to into "so infinitesimal" as to be impossible.
We all have our perceptions relative to the issue. Each is unique, no two are exactly alike.
That you feel the Universe overall (ALL/EVERYTHING) as something that "makes sense" to title "DAFFY DUCK" is certainly informative as to the sensibility of your perception...and your ability to think critically and logically.
Each can make their own assessment of it.
Here's something I'd love to get a straight answer to: at some point we had to have two fully formed humanoids that were capable of reproduction, since the average lifespan 100,000 years ago was maybe 20-25 years. Given that these humanoids (earliest man) only had one or two shots at reproducing and given all the diseases and natural predators running rampant ready to wipe them out, at what point did two humanoids appear capable of reproducing to be able to carry on the species? The only other possibility is that at some point humanoids of both sexes with the ability to reproduce started sprouting up like mushrooms all over the African savannas. That is pretty much impossible.
The problem: we have to have numerous fully formed males and females of homo errectus species on the planet who in just a 20 years span are capable of reproducing a fully-formed duplicate of themselves. Anything else and the species would have immediately died out. This, for me, is the strongest indication some intelligence was involved in this process. I cannot reason a species as complex as homo errectus evolving over a million years all the while reproducing duplicates of itself that were evolving like the previous generation all in tandem with each other. The odds supporting this theory again seem to into "so infinitesimal" as to be impossible.
here little girl. this is what I mean. I know you are just biology, but try your best to keep up.
Nope I am not just biology. I suggest you get your facts straight before posting ignorant statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You claim understanding in physics and chemistry that I just don't see.
Why am I not surprised? That's your issue not mine.
You claim to be in "engineering" but you did not even understand what a normal distribution around the mean was. You struggled with the concept of the Bell Curve. You talk about quantum mechanics as if it's magical and with a laymen interpretation of it.
You don't post with coherent sentences or thought processes...I think you should be focusing on your limitations vs. trying to worry about my solid scientific credentials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
what are they and why is should theist listen to your opinion.
It's none of your business and it's not my purpose in posting here.
My purpose is to help the scientifically illiterate understand that we know a lot more about how the Universe works then they think we know. To show them that there are answers to explain things they don't understand, to show them it's easy to look up the information vs. invoking a god.
Last edited by Matadora; 08-18-2016 at 12:28 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
