Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[K9Buck]

There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

so, if Earth above was this planet and this planet alone as written no other life could exist anywhere else in the universe that did not first come from this planet, therefore if aliens were to visit they must first have left here before returning. -

will you burn your 4th century bible if any life is discovered anywhere else in the Universe when the evidence is presented to you.

Where did I cite the bible as evidence of a creator?

 

[K9Buck]

There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

so, if Earth above was this planet and this planet alone as written no other life could exist anywhere else in the universe that did not first come from this planet, therefore if aliens were to visit they must first have left here before returning. -

will you burn your 4th century bible if any life is discovered anywhere else in the Universe when the evidence is presented to you.

I will add that you could use a writing composition course. Your write like a 12 year-old.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
then why try to refute the atheists without providing your own evidence ...

 

[K9Buck]

.
then why try to refute the atheists without providing your own evidence ...

How do you know I haven't provided evidence in this 107 page thread? Have you read every page?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...

I appreciate the humor and there are con artists in the religious world, just like there are con artists in every other walk of life. I didn't watch all of it. I presume George is an atheist???

If you wan to talk about "bullshit", the biggest bullshit ever spread was that the universe created itself and that life came about as a result of some freak accident of chemicals interacting. I mean, you have to be a DUMB mother fucker to buy that scam.

The difference being, of course, every piece of evidence we have available points to a deterministic universe in which abiogenesis occurred, while you have not a shred of evidence for magical religious stuff, nor could you ever. That's kind of an important difference.

There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.

Actually, all of the evidence supports those theories. That is precisely how they became the accepted theories. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound?

 

[K9Buck]

I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...

I appreciate the humor and there are con artists in the religious world, just like there are con artists in every other walk of life. I didn't watch all of it. I presume George is an atheist???

If you wan to talk about "bullshit", the biggest bullshit ever spread was that the universe created itself and that life came about as a result of some freak accident of chemicals interacting. I mean, you have to be a DUMB mother fucker to buy that scam.

The difference being, of course, every piece of evidence we have available points to a deterministic universe in which abiogenesis occurred, while you have not a shred of evidence for magical religious stuff, nor could you ever. That's kind of an important difference.

There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.

Actually, all of the evidence supports those theories. That is precisely how they became the accepted theories. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound?

Accepted theories that the universe created itself and life morphed from a rock into living cells? LMAO! Have another hit!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...

I appreciate the humor and there are con artists in the religious world, just like there are con artists in every other walk of life. I didn't watch all of it. I presume George is an atheist???

If you wan to talk about "bullshit", the biggest bullshit ever spread was that the universe created itself and that life came about as a result of some freak accident of chemicals interacting. I mean, you have to be a DUMB mother fucker to buy that scam.

The difference being, of course, every piece of evidence we have available points to a deterministic universe in which abiogenesis occurred, while you have not a shred of evidence for magical religious stuff, nor could you ever. That's kind of an important difference.

There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.

Actually, all of the evidence supports those theories. That is precisely how they became the accepted theories. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound?

Accepted theories that the universe created itself and life morphed from a rock into living cells? LMAO! Have another hit!

The hypothesis that the universe created itself is not a scientific theory. And no scientific theory states that rocks became life.

No go on, do that thing you do after being shown you have said something stupid and false...which is, cackle, dance and prance, ignore the fact that what you said was stupid and false, and then regurgitate another dumb creationist talking point.

 

[K9Buck]

I appreciate the humor and there are con artists in the religious world, just like there are con artists in every other walk of life. I didn't watch all of it. I presume George is an atheist???

If you wan to talk about "bullshit", the biggest bullshit ever spread was that the universe created itself and that life came about as a result of some freak accident of chemicals interacting. I mean, you have to be a DUMB mother fucker to buy that scam.

The difference being, of course, every piece of evidence we have available points to a deterministic universe in which abiogenesis occurred, while you have not a shred of evidence for magical religious stuff, nor could you ever. That's kind of an important difference.

There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.

Actually, all of the evidence supports those theories. That is precisely how they became the accepted theories. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound?

Accepted theories that the universe created itself and life morphed from a rock into living cells? LMAO! Have another hit!

The hypothesis that the universe created itself is not a scientific theory. And no scientific theory states that rocks became life.

No go on, do that thing you do after being shown you have said something stupid and false...which is, cackle, dance and prance, ignore the fact that what you said was stupid and false, and then regurgitate another dumb creationist talking point.

You're the folks saying that living matter came from things like rocks. You guys will believe anything. By the way, I've got a GREAT deal on a bridge for you!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The difference being, of course, every piece of evidence we have available points to a deterministic universe in which abiogenesis occurred, while you have not a shred of evidence for magical religious stuff, nor could you ever. That's kind of an important difference.

There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.

Actually, all of the evidence supports those theories. That is precisely how they became the accepted theories. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound?

Accepted theories that the universe created itself and life morphed from a rock into living cells? LMAO! Have another hit!

The hypothesis that the universe created itself is not a scientific theory. And no scientific theory states that rocks became life.

No go on, do that thing you do after being shown you have said something stupid and false...which is, cackle, dance and prance, ignore the fact that what you said was stupid and false, and then regurgitate another dumb creationist talking point.

You're the folks saying that living matter came from things like rocks. You guys will believe anything. By the way, I've got a GREAT deal on a bridge for you!

Nobody says living matter came from rocks. That's a lie.

So, neither of the scientific theories you mentioned are scientific theories. A rational person would be embarrassed at his own ignorance and dishonesty. But not you, because that's what magical thinking does to the human mind.

 

[Peach]

We may or may not be alone but even if we are not, it doesn't mean there is no God. God is a creator, so why would he feel restricted to just one tiny planet in our galaxy? He could have all kinds of other worlds with different kinds of life/creatures/people.

But it might cause a crisis in Christianity, especially Catholicism.

Catholicism is a very humanocentric religion. We believe that God sent his only Son to be Man, and it is through the Son of God's death, as a man, that we are saved.

We consume the Body and Blood of Christ during the Mass, and the reason that works is because we share humanity with Christ.

The introduction of an alien life form that was intelligent but not human might throw the entire equation out of whack for Catholics.

I don't see that happening, it does not impact my faitrh.

 

[Peach]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

I've always wondered what would happen if we made contact with a distant civilization and they had virtually the same beliefs in God? Would that silence Atheists? Probably not.

Their faith demands complete adherence, they would yip louder and more often, sadly.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
then why try to refute the atheists without providing your own evidence ...

How do you know I haven't provided evidence in this 107 page thread? Have you read every page?

.
that's not what I asked and I do not pay that much attention to creationist that only refutes evidence without offering any of their own so I presume you haven't or not noticeably to bring to anyone's attention.

now's your big chance, the cliffhanger that will seal the deal.

just find your type boring.

 

[K9Buck]

.
then why try to refute the atheists without providing your own evidence ...

How do you know I haven't provided evidence in this 107 page thread? Have you read every page?

.
that's not what I asked and I do not pay that much attention to creationist that only refutes evidence without offering any of their own so I presume you haven't or not noticeably to bring to anyone's attention.

now's your big chance, the cliffhanger that will seal the deal.

just find your type boring.

You should check out the past few pages of this thread. I have offered evidence in this thread, I just don't remember how far back it goes.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself

 

[Boss]

Why do you think we have juries?

to evaluate the "evidence" to conclude a non subjective verdict.

ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE!

what is subjective is not evidence. elements are not subjective they are evidence of the universe.

Well... no.

Verdicts are subjective to the jury's evaluation of the evidence. Their evaluation is always subjective. Elements are non-subjective evidence of the universe --to YOU! That doesn't mean they are to EVERYONE. People CAN subjectively disagree with you... doesn't mean they are correct... but they can disagree.

I hear what you're saying, there is some evidence which can't be refuted. I'm here to tell you that EVERYTHING can be refuted. I've heard people argue that reality itself can be refuted and that we live in a simulation. ALL evidence is subjective!

• No it isn't, you're wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong. And if you don't believe me, hold your breath for 30 minutes . Jump off your roof and let me know if you fall down or up. Place your tongue on a red hot stove coil. Go outside and try to lift your car by the back bumper. Just stop with your ridiculous fantasies.

Maybe we have to go through this slowly a few more times because you're a thick-headed moron?

"Evidence" is a curious thing. In the 1850s, scientists believed life could spontaneously generate. This was the prevailing scientific theory of the day and it was supported by the "evidence." What WAS that evidence? Mold and fungi! Of course, as it turns out, mold and fungus aren't evidence of spontaneous generation but scientists didn't know that at the time. So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I have no idea why you want to leap from a debate about "evidence" to proclaiming physical principles and laws as if I am unaware of them. They really have nothing to do with each other. There is no evidence needed to support a physical certainty as it is self evident. Yes, things fall when dropped... that's not "evidence" of gravity, that IS gravity working.

Your abiogenesis theories are not physical certainties. They are not principles or laws of physics. They are simply THEORIES which must be supportable by evidence. If you can't support your theories with valid, testable and falsifiable evidence, they are invalid theories. "Invalid" ...there's a word you're probably very familiar with!

 

[BreezeWood]

Why do you think we have juries?

to evaluate the "evidence" to conclude a non subjective verdict.

ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE!

what is subjective is not evidence. elements are not subjective they are evidence of the universe.

Well... no.

Verdicts are subjective to the jury's evaluation of the evidence. Their evaluation is always subjective. Elements are non-subjective evidence of the universe --to YOU! That doesn't mean they are to EVERYONE. People CAN subjectively disagree with you... doesn't mean they are correct... but they can disagree.

I hear what you're saying, there is some evidence which can't be refuted. I'm here to tell you that EVERYTHING can be refuted. I've heard people argue that reality itself can be refuted and that we live in a simulation. ALL evidence is subjective!

• No it isn't, you're wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong. And if you don't believe me, hold your breath for 30 minutes . Jump off your roof and let me know if you fall down or up. Place your tongue on a red hot stove coil. Go outside and try to lift your car by the back bumper. Just stop with your ridiculous fantasies.

Maybe we have to go through this slowly a few more times because you're a thick-headed moron?

"Evidence" is a curious thing. In the 1850s, scientists believed life could spontaneously generate. This was the prevailing scientific theory of the day and it was supported by the "evidence." What WAS that evidence? Mold and fungi! Of course, as it turns out, mold and fungus aren't evidence of spontaneous generation but scientists didn't know that at the time. So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I have no idea why you want to leap from a debate about "evidence" to proclaiming physical principles and laws as if I am unaware of them. They really have nothing to do with each other. There is no evidence needed to support a physical certainty as it is self evident. Yes, things fall when dropped... that's not "evidence" of gravity, that IS gravity working.

Your abiogenesis theories are not physical certainties. They are not principles or laws of physics. They are simply THEORIES which must be supportable by evidence. If you can't support your theories with valid, testable and falsifiable evidence, they are invalid theories. "Invalid" ...there's a word you're probably very familiar with!

.

So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason.

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?

 

[Boss]

Why do you think we have juries?

to evaluate the "evidence" to conclude a non subjective verdict.

ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTIVE!

what is subjective is not evidence. elements are not subjective they are evidence of the universe.

Well... no.

Verdicts are subjective to the jury's evaluation of the evidence. Their evaluation is always subjective. Elements are non-subjective evidence of the universe --to YOU! That doesn't mean they are to EVERYONE. People CAN subjectively disagree with you... doesn't mean they are correct... but they can disagree.

I hear what you're saying, there is some evidence which can't be refuted. I'm here to tell you that EVERYTHING can be refuted. I've heard people argue that reality itself can be refuted and that we live in a simulation. ALL evidence is subjective!

• No it isn't, you're wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong. And if you don't believe me, hold your breath for 30 minutes . Jump off your roof and let me know if you fall down or up. Place your tongue on a red hot stove coil. Go outside and try to lift your car by the back bumper. Just stop with your ridiculous fantasies.

Maybe we have to go through this slowly a few more times because you're a thick-headed moron?

"Evidence" is a curious thing. In the 1850s, scientists believed life could spontaneously generate. This was the prevailing scientific theory of the day and it was supported by the "evidence." What WAS that evidence? Mold and fungi! Of course, as it turns out, mold and fungus aren't evidence of spontaneous generation but scientists didn't know that at the time. So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I have no idea why you want to leap from a debate about "evidence" to proclaiming physical principles and laws as if I am unaware of them. They really have nothing to do with each other. There is no evidence needed to support a physical certainty as it is self evident. Yes, things fall when dropped... that's not "evidence" of gravity, that IS gravity working.

Your abiogenesis theories are not physical certainties. They are not principles or laws of physics. They are simply THEORIES which must be supportable by evidence. If you can't support your theories with valid, testable and falsifiable evidence, they are invalid theories. "Invalid" ...there's a word you're probably very familiar with!

.

So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason.

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...

I appreciate the humor and there are con artists in the religious world, just like there are con artists in every other walk of life. I didn't watch all of it. I presume George is an atheist???

If you wan to talk about "bullshit", the biggest bullshit ever spread was that the universe created itself and that life came about as a result of some freak accident of chemicals interacting. I mean, you have to be a DUMB mother fucker to buy that scam.

The difference being, of course, every piece of evidence we have available points to a deterministic universe in which abiogenesis occurred, while you have not a shred of evidence for magical religious stuff, nor could you ever. That's kind of an important difference.

There is ZERO evidence to support ANY of the fairy tales that you spout.

Actually, all of the evidence supports those theories. That is precisely how they became the accepted theories. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound?

Accepted theories that the universe created itself and life morphed from a rock into living cells? LMAO! Have another hit!

Why do you give rocks no respect?

You should be kind to your daddy. It's one of the Ten Commandments.

 

[MarkDuffy]

 

[BreezeWood]

to evaluate the "evidence" to conclude a non subjective verdict.


what is subjective is not evidence. elements are not subjective they are evidence of the universe.

Well... no.

Verdicts are subjective to the jury's evaluation of the evidence. Their evaluation is always subjective. Elements are non-subjective evidence of the universe --to YOU! That doesn't mean they are to EVERYONE. People CAN subjectively disagree with you... doesn't mean they are correct... but they can disagree.

I hear what you're saying, there is some evidence which can't be refuted. I'm here to tell you that EVERYTHING can be refuted. I've heard people argue that reality itself can be refuted and that we live in a simulation. ALL evidence is subjective!

• No it isn't, you're wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong. And if you don't believe me, hold your breath for 30 minutes . Jump off your roof and let me know if you fall down or up. Place your tongue on a red hot stove coil. Go outside and try to lift your car by the back bumper. Just stop with your ridiculous fantasies.

Maybe we have to go through this slowly a few more times because you're a thick-headed moron?

"Evidence" is a curious thing. In the 1850s, scientists believed life could spontaneously generate. This was the prevailing scientific theory of the day and it was supported by the "evidence." What WAS that evidence? Mold and fungi! Of course, as it turns out, mold and fungus aren't evidence of spontaneous generation but scientists didn't know that at the time. So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I have no idea why you want to leap from a debate about "evidence" to proclaiming physical principles and laws as if I am unaware of them. They really have nothing to do with each other. There is no evidence needed to support a physical certainty as it is self evident. Yes, things fall when dropped... that's not "evidence" of gravity, that IS gravity working.

Your abiogenesis theories are not physical certainties. They are not principles or laws of physics. They are simply THEORIES which must be supportable by evidence. If you can't support your theories with valid, testable and falsifiable evidence, they are invalid theories. "Invalid" ...there's a word you're probably very familiar with!

.

So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason.

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

 

[Boss]

Well... no.

Verdicts are subjective to the jury's evaluation of the evidence. Their evaluation is always subjective. Elements are non-subjective evidence of the universe --to YOU! That doesn't mean they are to EVERYONE. People CAN subjectively disagree with you... doesn't mean they are correct... but they can disagree.

I hear what you're saying, there is some evidence which can't be refuted. I'm here to tell you that EVERYTHING can be refuted. I've heard people argue that reality itself can be refuted and that we live in a simulation. ALL evidence is subjective!

• No it isn't, you're wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong. And if you don't believe me, hold your breath for 30 minutes . Jump off your roof and let me know if you fall down or up. Place your tongue on a red hot stove coil. Go outside and try to lift your car by the back bumper. Just stop with your ridiculous fantasies.

Maybe we have to go through this slowly a few more times because you're a thick-headed moron?

"Evidence" is a curious thing. In the 1850s, scientists believed life could spontaneously generate. This was the prevailing scientific theory of the day and it was supported by the "evidence." What WAS that evidence? Mold and fungi! Of course, as it turns out, mold and fungus aren't evidence of spontaneous generation but scientists didn't know that at the time. So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I have no idea why you want to leap from a debate about "evidence" to proclaiming physical principles and laws as if I am unaware of them. They really have nothing to do with each other. There is no evidence needed to support a physical certainty as it is self evident. Yes, things fall when dropped... that's not "evidence" of gravity, that IS gravity working.

Your abiogenesis theories are not physical certainties. They are not principles or laws of physics. They are simply THEORIES which must be supportable by evidence. If you can't support your theories with valid, testable and falsifiable evidence, they are invalid theories. "Invalid" ...there's a word you're probably very familiar with!

.

So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason.

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.