Spirituality
12 May 12
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 94816
14 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYou always butt in to others conversations?
You do realize we are talking about a period of time a billion years in the past? And furthermore, we live on an extremely dynamic planet, repaving whole continents, and they have collided together and come apart several times in that enormous time span.
So maybe you could be a bit less judgemental towards scientists trying to piece together what little ...[text shortened]... ieces to the puzzle and the intelligence to put together the data into a reasonable hypothesis.
You have misunderstood what I have said.
I truly am impressed by science and scientist .
It was put to me to 'trust' the experts. I merely pointed out 'kind of like you said', that these 'expert' scientist are not sure of anything.
There is nothing wrong with that as long as the person trying to point it out as absolute truth can see that it's not.
14 May 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitPresent at the Creation, were you ?
When the universe formed, there was some unevenness in the distribution of matter - it was more 'clumped' together in certain places. This is what led the formation of galaxies. Gravity acted more strongly within the clumps and worked to slow the forces of the expansion of the universe. That is why we can have galaxies and solar systems within the galaxi ...[text shortened]... verse where everything is moving away from everything else. Gravity gives us local exceptions.
Just a joke, please do not take it wrongly !
I felt like commenting only because of the certainty with which you have stated how the Universe was formed. You did not say that it has been postulated that when the universe was formed, there was unevenness in the distribution of matter. You simply averred it. The overconfidence of the new scientists !
14 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillHow about -
NO, it isn't 'chance versus intelligent design'! Modern science doesn't say that life must have started by “pure chance” or that evolution is “just chance”; both would be inevitable processes in the right natural conditions so no “chance” nor intelligent design.
If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it ...[text shortened]... e can you suggest to phrase how random selection accomplished this besides "pure chance" ?
The non-random selection of random variants?
14 May 12
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
You do realize we are talking about a period of time a billion years in the past? And furthermore, we live on an extremely dynamic planet, repaving whole continents, and they have collided together and come apart several times in that enormous time span.
So maybe you could be a bit less judgemental towards scientists trying to piece together what little ieces to the puzzle and the intelligence to put together the data into a reasonable hypothesis.
So maybe you could be a bit less judgemental towards scientists trying to piece together what little evidence they can find. It's not THAT rare but it still takes considerable skill and luck to find the right pieces to the puzzle and the intelligence to put together the data into a reasonable hypothesis.
You should be less judgmental and realize that the fine tuning of the universe for the existence of life being attributed to Intelligent Design is also a "reasonable hypothesis".
The Priviledged Planet
14 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillThe priviledged planet hypothesis is just that, hypothesis. It is inconceivable to me that out of the billions of stars in our galaxy alone and planets now found by the hundreds and smaller ones sussed out almost daily, that we are the only priviledged planet in the universe. There are as many galaxies as there are stars in our galaxy so they are being premature in thinking the Earth THAT special.So maybe you could be a bit less judgemental towards scientists trying to piece together what little evidence they can find. It's not THAT rare but it still takes considerable skill and luck to find the right pieces to the puzzle and the intelligence to put together the data into a reasonable hypothesis.
You should be less judgmental a ...[text shortened]... [b] The Priviledged Planet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFaSBEXum5g[/b]
It is certainly special in OUR solar system and so what if it would occur in only one in a million solar systems, there are billions of stars so thousands of potential Earth's in just our own galaxy and billions or trillions counting all the rest of the galaxies in the universe, and there are theories that there are maybe an infinite number of universes so looking at that picture, I don't see the Earth as THAT special. Rare, obviously. One of a kind in the whole universe or even in our galaxy, that is a BIG stretch.
14 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
The priviledged planet hypothesis is just that, hypothesis. It is inconceivable to me that out of the billions of stars in our galaxy alone and planets now found by the hundreds and smaller ones sussed out almost daily, that we are the only priviledged planet in the universe. There are as many galaxies as there are stars in our galaxy so they are being prem , obviously. One of a kind in the whole universe or even in our galaxy, that is a BIG stretch.
The priviledged planet hypothesis is just that, hypothesis.
If you check my post, I wrote that it was a "reasonable hypothesis". Am I right ?
14 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseLet me guess that you did not watch the entire video ? Its not mandatory. However, your comments indicate discussion you apparently didn't notice, which the video addresses.
The priviledged planet hypothesis is just that, hypothesis. It is inconceivable to me that out of the billions of stars in our galaxy alone and planets now found by the hundreds and smaller ones sussed out almost daily, that we are the only priviledged planet in the universe. There are as many galaxies as there are stars in our galaxy so they are being prem , obviously. One of a kind in the whole universe or even in our galaxy, that is a BIG stretch.
I think you would be benefitted by watching the video in its entire length. I have searched and asked myself "Why wouldn't ANYONE not want to hear these findings ?"
The Priviledged Planet
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 177118
14 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillWill there ever be a surefire answer to any of these hypothesis? People with "religious" theories and those with "scientific" theories will never be able to categorically substantiate their views. One of the world's great mysteries eh folks? Discissions will go on for millennia (assuming of course that the world doesn't end this year) as they have done. In the meantime it's "fun" to speculate.The priviledged planet hypothesis is just that, hypothesis.
If you check, I wrote that it was a "reasonable hypothesis". Am I right ?
14 May 12
In the video the conditions necessary for a total eclipse of the sun are too specialized to not consider intelligent deliberate design.
The sun is 400 times the size of the moon. Yet it is also 400 times as far away from observing platform of the earth as the moon. So there is a coincidental perfect fit of the image of the moon inside the sun to block of the sun's light to a spectacular show on earth.
Coincedence ? Maybe. (What unimaginable luck)
But maybe not.
I think it is by Intelligent Design.
I have read that nowhere else in the solar system would the astronomical bodies proportionally appear to cause this effect of a perfect total eclipse as we observe on earth.
Jump to about 26:01
14 May 12
Originally posted by Great Big Stees
Will there ever be a surefire answer to any of these hypothesis? People with "religious" theories and those with "scientific" theories will never be able to categorically substantiate their views. One of the world's great mysteries eh folks? Discissions will go on for millennia (assuming of course that the world doesn't end this year) as they have done. In the meantime it's "fun" to speculate.
Will there ever be a surefire answer to any of these hypothesis?
It is perfectly legitimate to move into other areas, other disciplines to supplement this knowledge.
Metaphysical belief, religion, philosophical speculation, spirituality may enter in. We may discern where lines are drawn and respect limitations of each area of the search for truth.
People with "religious" theories and those with "scientific" theories will never be able to categorically substantiate their views.
Maybe. But as soon as one side says "Your side is to ludicrous to even consider" the other side has the right to present reasons why that accusation may not be true.
I think Intelligent Design is a "reasonable hypothosis". I will never accept that it is not a "reasonable hypothesis" by those, for example, claiming some copyright on "rationality" around here.
And I have to go now. latter.
14 May 12
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoYes, older than Yoda, I am. 🙂
Present at the Creation, were you ?
Just a joke, please do not take it wrongly !
I felt like commenting only because of the certainty with which you have stated how the Universe was formed. You did not say that it has been postulated that when the universe was formed, there was unevenness in the distribution of matter. You simply averred it. The overconfidence of the new scientists !
14 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseGod has not prepared any of those planets for us, yet.
The priviledged planet hypothesis is just that, hypothesis. It is inconceivable to me that out of the billions of stars in our galaxy alone and planets now found by the hundreds and smaller ones sussed out almost daily, that we are the only priviledged planet in the universe. There are as many galaxies as there are stars in our galaxy so they are being prem ...[text shortened]... , obviously. One of a kind in the whole universe or even in our galaxy, that is a BIG stretch.
14 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsPrepared? You godda be kidding. There is one tiny problem there if it did:
God has not prepared any of those planets for us, yet.
They are probably at least 10,000 light years apart so going the speed of light takes 10,000 years to get to the nearest one if that estimate is correct. It could be a galaxy gets only one Earth like planet, in that case the nearest one is 175,000 light years away. So even if you had a craft that could go so close to c that it only takes a week to get there by your own clock, going there and back means you get back to Earth and it is the year 352012 or thereabouts. Not exactly an ideal solution and clearly such a planet would not be "Prepared" for humans.
What made you think such planets have to be for humans? If there was intelligent life on those planets they could look like dinosaurs or large birds or giant squids or large barrels with legs, they don't have to be ANYTHING like humans.
14 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYou underestimate the power of God the Creator of the universe. It is the Son of God who will save us. We can not save ourselves by flying off into space to find a planet, like a needle in a haystack.
Prepared? You godda be kidding. There is one tiny problem there if it did:
They are probably at least 10,000 light years apart so going the speed of light takes 10,000 years to get to the nearest one if that estimate is correct. It could be a galaxy gets only one Earth like planet, in that case the nearest one is 175,000 light years away. So even if you ...[text shortened]... birds or giant squids or large barrels with legs, they don't have to be ANYTHING like humans.
14 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNeither of your two questions makes any sense:
NO, it isn't 'chance versus intelligent design'! Modern science doesn't say that life must have started by “pure chance” or that evolution is “just chance”; both would be inevitable processes in the right natural conditions so no “chance” nor intelligent design.
If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it ...[text shortened]... e can you suggest to phrase how random selection accomplished this besides "pure chance" ?
If evolution has no goal, then how else could you discribe how it arrived at the biosphere as we see it today ?
evolution is a natural process. What the hell does the absence of a goal of a natural process got to do with being able to describe “how it arrived”? Explain.....
I could explain how a current snow avalanche “arrived” ( started ) by describing how a vibration from, say, an earthquake, caused it to start; so that current avalanche must have a goal?
What alternative can you suggest to phrase how random selection accomplished this besides "pure chance" ?
what “random selection”? “random selection” is not part of the evolution theory and no random selection is need for the process. Natural selection is not a pure random process but is an unintelligently bias selection for the better adapted to survive and pass on their genes.