Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[MaxGrit]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

The insane atheists are those who knowingly deny basic laws of logic.

 

[the_human_being]

Funny,

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.​

yet some people think for the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility?

I've asked you over and again to do the math yourself. You're totally dishonest and without credibility.

 

[the_human_being]

The Bible is not ambiguous about evolution. It says God ripped a rib out of Adam and Presto! Eve. God created the world in what was it, 6 days?

God ripped a rib out of Adam and Presto! Eve.
Did several Bible searches and didn't find this passage, which version are you using?
New Atheist Puke Version?

Again... NO THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT.

A yom can be anything? How convenient.

It's not about 'convenience' as much as translation from Hebrew to English. The original used "yom" to define these "days" you're talking about. In Hebrew, they used the term "yom" to describe 147 different periods of time. It depends on the context of how it is used. Again, the evidence of this is the creation of the sun paradox. You can't have 3 earthly days pass without a sun. Each of those "days" might have been billions of years. God is beyond time.

Now.... here's the thing... IF God wanted to create the world in 6 days, or even .00000006 seconds.... God could do that, and at the same time, give you a physical sensation of it having only been 4.5 billion years. There is no limitation on how God can make things appear in the physical universe.

If the Bible doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense. God's perspective? To convey to people what God did?

Fantastic! The reason the Bible makes little sense isn't because of faith or religion -- it makes no sense because the people who wrote it lived during an era when the science of the day knew very little to what we know

And yet, we still don't really know anything.

The Bible doesn't make sense to you, and I get that. It doesn't make sense to me in many areas, but to a lot of people, it does make sense and it is their religious faith. Perhaps it makes better sense to them because they go to Bible Study classes and dig down deep to explore what is being said? Whereas, you dismiss it because you really don't want it to make sense.

I hung around seminarians in a past life time. They were orthodox Greek and others. Please do not give me Protestant Bible study nonsense

You must have only been auditing the courses because you apparently learned nothing.

 

[the_human_being]

yet some people think for the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility?

When I think about "Life as We Know It..." here is what I am thinking:

Planet in Goldilocks range of prevailing star similar in size and perspective to our own.
Planet with an abundant source of liquid water and....
An atmosphere and climate which enable the water to remain stable.

Planet having the correct-sized body collide with the planet and come into geosynchronous orbit at a position which perfectly regulates a 24 hr. day and causing a wobble on the planet's axis which create "seasons" on the planet to work in conjunction with "tides" created by the moon.

A planet rich in many vital elements to life, like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, iron, etc.
A planet with a molten nickel core which creates a polar magnetic field and...
enables a shield against cosmic radiation and ultraviolet rays.

To have "Life as We Know It" anywhere, regardless of whether you believe in creation or miracle of science, for the life to exist as we know it, these are the things it takes. Now, maybe some life can exist as we don't know it? Or maybe some life as we know it might exist elsewhere. We're probably never going to know.

Maybe you are approaching it in a backwards fashion? We exist only because these things existed. They did not exist for us. We are a result of their existence. Like dropping something and it mixes with something else and we get - creation.

No, I am simply saying "life as we know it" is made possible by a unique set of circumstances that we're not likely to find repeated in the universe. You see, it's because the life we know exists through a system of seasons, climate change, temperature fluctuations, tides, ocean convection, and all kinds of things associated with the gravity of the moon, our rotational wobble, regulated days, robust atmosphere, magnetic field, etc. Lots of things happening to make "life as we know it" possible.

Now, could a planet have life if it didn't have seasons, climate, atmosphere, water, tides, convection, etc.? Sure, that's possible, but it won't be "life as we know it" if that's the case.

That was my point -- "not likely," is an improbable scenario vastly different than saying it is an impossibility .

"Lots of things happening to make "life as we know it" possible." - That doesn't demand a creator or a plan. It doesn't demand anything.

It really must be beyond your comprehension alright. Look up the word "impossibility" and find out what it means. If you are unable to do this, have someone do it for you.

 

[the_human_being]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

The insane atheists are those who knowingly deny basic laws of logic.

Most of them can only read on the internet what some other individual has done. They haven't done anything themselves. The problem is that theirs is junk science. It is myth. Even their dating method is so faulty its pathetic. We have a metal cylinder found in a lump of coal that has been dated to 65 million years ago. Actually, civilization went through a time of backwards decline. Scientists tell us that metal work was not possible yet the Bible informs us that Tubal Cain was a metal worker. The geology layer is skewed, the fossil record is skewed. God is laughing at the wise.

Out-of-Place Metal Objects ancient artifacts

 

[Hollie]

Rawlings, you have a really nasty habit of spewing crap that I never said. Then you strut around like Rick Flair calling me names because you refuted arguments I never made.

You're insane.

The fundamental axioms of (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (comprehensively, the principle of identity) logically hold true. The principle of identity is necessarily justified true belief/knowledge. It holds absolutely and immutably true; it must, therefore, hold true ultimately. There is no argument whatsoever that you can successfully assert to the contrary. Any argument to the contrary will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively prove the opposite is true, i.e., that the principle of identity is true. The essence of the principle of identity is prescriptive; hence, it's essence is organizational and entails the processes of identification and differentiation as applied to the empirical realm of being beyond our minds. Period!

The principle of identity is the only justified true belief/knowledge that is constant. It's fixed, immutable. It's absolute.

Further knowledge about the empirical world beyond human consciousness is not constant, but tentatively held to be justified true belief/knowledge in terms of scientific theory. The latter is subjective to revision and/or falsification in the light of new information.

Beyond that, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ information, understanding or truth about the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. The organic logic of human cognition ≠ causation in classical physics, and ≠ causation in quantum physics. In other words, the organic logic of human cognition ≠ the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature, and the essence of the physical laws of nature is descriptive.

The only one here who incessantly confounds this distinction here is you, and you clearly think to attribute this stupidity to me when you claim that I hold logic to be "a place-card for whatever we CURRENTLY believe is truth."

Hello!

I hold no such thing! The organic logic of human cognition is not the ever-changing understanding/knowledge about the properties, processes or the physical laws of nature.

Dude!

The organic logic of human cognition is fixed, absolute, constant. That's why logic and, therefore, the philosophy of science necessarily proceed and have primacy over science. If logic were in flux, we wouldn't have any fixed constant against which to apprehend (identify/differentiate) the points at which our knowledge breaks down or is incomplete regarding the empirical realm of being. Ultimately, what your really confounding is our sensory perception of causation above the near-atomic/subatomic level with our intellectual apprehension of causation. The common sense of propositional and mathematical logic are superior and reliable, whilst the "common sense" of our sensory perception is not. Quantum physics affirms the organic logic of human cognition. It does not defy it.

Once again, precisely what laws of logic are defied/violated by quantum physics and how? Conversely, precisely what aspects of quantum physics are defied/violated by the laws of logic and how?

Answer that question, and watch what happens.

Clearly, you have been confounding the prescriptive logic of human cognition with the descriptive properties, processes and physical laws of nature in general, and with causation in classical physics above the near-atomic or subatomic level of empirical being especially.

First, stop doing that and you'll stop confusing yourself and stop asking meaningless questions.

Second, stop doing that and you'll stop, ironically, attributing your stupidity to me.

Check?

Atheists are insane.

I'd simply say they're mostly uneducated. Most of the ones posting on these forums are simply college students who never attended church or read the Bible. They get their information from internet web sites and from college professors who have never actually done anything or been actually employed in any scientific field. These college atheists are in the same boat. They've never really done anything or been employed in a scientific field either. They get everything out of a book, from their college professors, or from an internet website. Most of them are lucky to tie their own shoes.

The insane atheists are those who knowingly deny basic laws of logic.

Most of them can only read on the internet what some other individual has done. They haven't done anything themselves. The problem is that theirs is junk science. It is myth. Even their dating method is so faulty its pathetic. We have a metal cylinder found in a lump of coal that has been dated to 65 million years ago. Actually, civilization went through a time of backwards decline. Scientists tell us that metal work was not possible yet the Bible informs us that Tubal Cain was a metal worker. The geology layer is skewed, the fossil record is skewed. God is laughing at the wise.

Out-of-Place Metal Objects ancient artifacts

That's because all of science is a global conspiracy to discredit your YEC'ist beliefs.

 

[BreezeWood]

Creation involves ever-present human spirituality.

.
as pointed out that is the flaw for the theory of creationism, there are no examples of inert creations similar in complexity to living beings, sculptures as would be if creationism were the origin of life - as representations of complex structures on planets where life is not possible.

.

please explain.....why would created life require a parallel created non-life......do you assume the Intelligent Designer had to work by trial and error?......

boss: Creation involves ever-present human spirituality.

Post: why would created life require a parallel created non-life

.

ever-present human spirituality is the origin for all beings.

if life is "created" the creationist would have other created inert sculptures of complexity for verification to support their theory - what they have is only a self sustaining organism capable of reproduction by its own mechanism.


no examples of complex creations void of life exist.

.

Most of the time, I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Your posts are the most cryptic and perplexing on USMB. This is why people tend to ignore you, they don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The little rant you're on now, seems to only make rational sense if someone were arguing that God is a person who created life. Since no one believes God is a person, your argument is pointless.

.

.
... then why respond ?

then again, any complex inert structure not created by mankind on Earth is plentiful enough for your type to display in accordance to the creationist model of the singular intelligent designer .... and mathematically sound as a marble statue of T-Rex chiseled during the Cretaceous Period.

 

[Boss]

No, what's nuts is holding up something as "scientific theory" which actually attempts to challenge long-standing science principle. I have no problems with challenging Pasteur, but so far, nothing has refuted Biogenesis. It will be a monumental day in science if it ever happens.

What can't be refuted is the human attribute of spirituality. It has been present in mankind for all of our existence and held by over 90% of our species in every civilization. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man through centuries of war, persecution, starvation or enslavement.

This doesn't sound like fantasies and imagination, or superstitious beliefs. If so, people who worshiped God would be like people who fear black cats or walking under ladders. That's not what we see at all. In fact, when we objectively look at human history we see how human spirituality shaped what we define as humanity. All the things about humans that make us unique is through our intrinsic spiritual awareness. Spirituality is the human's most defining attribute as a species.

I believe spirituality has been with us since we evolved from our cousins. There is archeological evidence that shows humans finally burying our family/friends/clan. This was not always so. We were evolving. Then we later see burials with things/objects. We see humans who had crippling injuries and broken bones who could not have traveled alone -- so we get identification with the other, compassion. These last humans mentioned had to be taken care of and carried along. This was not always so either. Society is developing and so is culture.

What we see as far as spirituality is found in burials or old communities where culture/civilization developed.

We know early on in the Levant, there existed an agricultural culture/civilization that settled near rivers/water. Their tools were for living and farming. At some time we see invaders coming in from the Semite areas and the Indo-Europeans from what was Anatolia(?). These invaders are herders (hunter gatherers?) and have tools for herding, killing and slaying animals -- sheep, goats...

Do you doubt or disagree with any of this?

Don't know about all that, there is a lot of speculation there. What is known is, every archeological discovery of remains from human civilizations show signs of spiritual ritual. This is what was apparently always so and never deviated. Humans have been spiritual creatures for as long as they have been humans.

Not every archeological find has confirmed a spiritual component. What has have been finds of humans in a societal area/civilization. Before, we all appear to have been creatures in search of what ???

Yes. Every archeological find of human civilization shows signs of human spiritual ritual. It doesn't matter where it's at or how old, this has been discovered in every human civilization. There are always some Atheist deniers trying to argue this, but again, there is only one reason for ceremonial rituals.

Other than your " because I say so" demand that "Yes. Every archeological find of human civilization shows signs of human spiritual ritual", is no reason to accept it as true.

The undefined "spiritual" meme defines and describes nothing. Oddly, there are always some spirit realm'ists who insist on trying to force their partisan gawds on others.

Again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the purpose of a ceremonial ritual. It can't be anything other than spiritual. There has never been an archaeological find of a human civilization where no signs of ceremonial rituals existed. This is just a simple fact of archaeological history, no forcing of partisan gods. Indeed, there have been a wide range of human spiritual ceremonial rituals.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

this is so nuts it's almost unbelievable

No, what's nuts is holding up something as "scientific theory" which actually attempts to challenge long-standing science principle. I have no problems with challenging Pasteur, but so far, nothing has refuted Biogenesis. It will be a monumental day in science if it ever happens.

What can't be refuted is the human attribute of spirituality. It has been present in mankind for all of our existence and held by over 90% of our species in every civilization. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man through centuries of war, persecution, starvation or enslavement.

This doesn't sound like fantasies and imagination, or superstitious beliefs. If so, people who worshiped God would be like people who fear black cats or walking under ladders. That's not what we see at all. In fact, when we objectively look at human history we see how human spirituality shaped what we define as humanity. All the things about humans that make us unique is through our intrinsic spiritual awareness. Spirituality is the human's most defining attribute as a species.

I believe spirituality has been with us since we evolved from our cousins. There is archeological evidence that shows humans finally burying our family/friends/clan. This was not always so. We were evolving. Then we later see burials with things/objects. We see humans who had crippling injuries and broken bones who could not have traveled alone -- so we get identification with the other, compassion. These last humans mentioned had to be taken care of and carried along. This was not always so either. Society is developing and so is culture.

What we see as far as spirituality is found in burials or old communities where culture/civilization developed.

We know early on in the Levant, there existed an agricultural culture/civilization that settled near rivers/water. Their tools were for living and farming. At some time we see invaders coming in from the Semite areas and the Indo-Europeans from what was Anatolia(?). These invaders are herders (hunter gatherers?) and have tools for herding, killing and slaying animals -- sheep, goats...

Do you doubt or disagree with any of this?

Don't know about all that, there is a lot of speculation there. What is known is, every archeological discovery of remains from human civilizations show signs of spiritual ritual. This is what was apparently always so and never deviated. Humans have been spiritual creatures for as long as they have been humans.

You're inserting your magical spirit realms where they don't belong.

Burial of the dead had many survival / obvious practicalities, especially for early hunter-gatherer populations. Dead bodies were a source of odor and a draw for predators.

Nothing magical and no requirement for spirit realms.

Burial of the dead may have had many practical reasons, burying the dead in ceremonial rituals only has one reason.

And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about

Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

this is so nuts it's almost unbelievable

No, what's nuts is holding up something as "scientific theory" which actually attempts to challenge long-standing science principle. I have no problems with challenging Pasteur, but so far, nothing has refuted Biogenesis. It will be a monumental day in science if it ever happens.

What can't be refuted is the human attribute of spirituality. It has been present in mankind for all of our existence and held by over 90% of our species in every civilization. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man through centuries of war, persecution, starvation or enslavement.

This doesn't sound like fantasies and imagination, or superstitious beliefs. If so, people who worshiped God would be like people who fear black cats or walking under ladders. That's not what we see at all. In fact, when we objectively look at human history we see how human spirituality shaped what we define as humanity. All the things about humans that make us unique is through our intrinsic spiritual awareness. Spirituality is the human's most defining attribute as a species.

I believe spirituality has been with us since we evolved from our cousins. There is archeological evidence that shows humans finally burying our family/friends/clan. This was not always so. We were evolving. Then we later see burials with things/objects. We see humans who had crippling injuries and broken bones who could not have traveled alone -- so we get identification with the other, compassion. These last humans mentioned had to be taken care of and carried along. This was not always so either. Society is developing and so is culture.

What we see as far as spirituality is found in burials or old communities where culture/civilization developed.

We know early on in the Levant, there existed an agricultural culture/civilization that settled near rivers/water. Their tools were for living and farming. At some time we see invaders coming in from the Semite areas and the Indo-Europeans from what was Anatolia(?). These invaders are herders (hunter gatherers?) and have tools for herding, killing and slaying animals -- sheep, goats...

Do you doubt or disagree with any of this?

Don't know about all that, there is a lot of speculation there. What is known is, every archeological discovery of remains from human civilizations show signs of spiritual ritual. This is what was apparently always so and never deviated. Humans have been spiritual creatures for as long as they have been humans.

Not every archeological find has confirmed a spiritual component. What has have been finds of humans in a societal area/civilization. Before, we all appear to have been creatures in search of what ???

Yes. Every archeological find of human civilization shows signs of human spiritual ritual. It doesn't matter where it's at or how old, this has been discovered in every human civilization. There are always some Atheist deniers trying to argue this, but again, there is only one reason for ceremonial rituals.

this is true because as I said earlier, civilization comes later. before civilization/culture comes along there are finds that show no sign of religious or spiritual ceremony or rites

Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

yet some people think for the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility?

When I think about "Life as We Know It..." here is what I am thinking:

Planet in Goldilocks range of prevailing star similar in size and perspective to our own.
Planet with an abundant source of liquid water and....
An atmosphere and climate which enable the water to remain stable.

Planet having the correct-sized body collide with the planet and come into geosynchronous orbit at a position which perfectly regulates a 24 hr. day and causing a wobble on the planet's axis which create "seasons" on the planet to work in conjunction with "tides" created by the moon.

A planet rich in many vital elements to life, like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, iron, etc.
A planet with a molten nickel core which creates a polar magnetic field and...
enables a shield against cosmic radiation and ultraviolet rays.

To have "Life as We Know It" anywhere, regardless of whether you believe in creation or miracle of science, for the life to exist as we know it, these are the things it takes. Now, maybe some life can exist as we don't know it? Or maybe some life as we know it might exist elsewhere. We're probably never going to know.

Maybe you are approaching it in a backwards fashion? We exist only because these things existed. They did not exist for us. We are a result of their existence. Like dropping something and it mixes with something else and we get - creation.

No, I am simply saying "life as we know it" is made possible by a unique set of circumstances that we're not likely to find repeated in the universe. You see, it's because the life we know exists through a system of seasons, climate change, temperature fluctuations, tides, ocean convection, and all kinds of things associated with the gravity of the moon, our rotational wobble, regulated days, robust atmosphere, magnetic field, etc. Lots of things happening to make "life as we know it" possible.

Now, could a planet have life if it didn't have seasons, climate, atmosphere, water, tides, convection, etc.? Sure, that's possible, but it won't be "life as we know it" if that's the case.

That was my point -- "not likely," is an improbable scenario vastly different than saying it is an impossibility .

"Lots of things happening to make "life as we know it" possible." - That doesn't demand a creator or a plan. It doesn't demand anything.

I didn't claim it did. We're talking about two different things. "Life as we know it" will require a very specific and unique set of circumstances the odds are well against. "Other life out there" is a different criteria, much more likely. I try to never say anything is impossible.

Odds? You said it was a mathematical impossibility. I added other life to show probability and possibility scenarios.

. Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, what's nuts is holding up something as "scientific theory" which actually attempts to challenge long-standing science principle. I have no problems with challenging Pasteur, but so far, nothing has refuted Biogenesis. It will be a monumental day in science if it ever happens.

What can't be refuted is the human attribute of spirituality. It has been present in mankind for all of our existence and held by over 90% of our species in every civilization. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man through centuries of war, persecution, starvation or enslavement.

This doesn't sound like fantasies and imagination, or superstitious beliefs. If so, people who worshiped God would be like people who fear black cats or walking under ladders. That's not what we see at all. In fact, when we objectively look at human history we see how human spirituality shaped what we define as humanity. All the things about humans that make us unique is through our intrinsic spiritual awareness. Spirituality is the human's most defining attribute as a species.

I believe spirituality has been with us since we evolved from our cousins. There is archeological evidence that shows humans finally burying our family/friends/clan. This was not always so. We were evolving. Then we later see burials with things/objects. We see humans who had crippling injuries and broken bones who could not have traveled alone -- so we get identification with the other, compassion. These last humans mentioned had to be taken care of and carried along. This was not always so either. Society is developing and so is culture.

What we see as far as spirituality is found in burials or old communities where culture/civilization developed.

We know early on in the Levant, there existed an agricultural culture/civilization that settled near rivers/water. Their tools were for living and farming. At some time we see invaders coming in from the Semite areas and the Indo-Europeans from what was Anatolia(?). These invaders are herders (hunter gatherers?) and have tools for herding, killing and slaying animals -- sheep, goats...

Do you doubt or disagree with any of this?

Don't know about all that, there is a lot of speculation there. What is known is, every archeological discovery of remains from human civilizations show signs of spiritual ritual. This is what was apparently always so and never deviated. Humans have been spiritual creatures for as long as they have been humans.

You're inserting your magical spirit realms where they don't belong.

Burial of the dead had many survival / obvious practicalities, especially for early hunter-gatherer populations. Dead bodies were a source of odor and a draw for predators.

Nothing magical and no requirement for spirit realms.

Burial of the dead may have had many practical reasons, burying the dead in ceremonial rituals only has one reason.

There is no indication of "ceremonial rituals" that attended the burial of the vast majority of humanity. So still, there is no connection to your alleged spirit realms.

most archeological digs are at sites where culture and civilization existed. where that existed burials with aspects of religious/spirituality existed

this doesn't mean what the member boss says it does -- that religious/spirituality always existed with humans. it didn't. it comes in with culture/civilization

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Funny,

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.​

yet some people think for the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility?

I've asked you over and again to do the math yourself. You're totally dishonest and without credibility.

Oh, I mixed you up with boss.

go away

 

[the_human_being]

Funny,

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.​

yet some people think for the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility?

I've asked you over and again to do the math yourself. You're totally dishonest and without credibility.

Oh, I mixed you up with boss.

go away

Why do you wish for me to go away? You have avoided and dodged answering my challenge for you to do the math for yourself and to give me the name of your god who created everything since you claimed it's not the same as my God. Are you ashamed of your god? Can you not do the math? Why are you so dishonest?

 

[Boss]

And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about

Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again

I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.

 

[PostmodernProph]

if life is "created" the creationist would have other created inert sculptures of complexity for verification to support their theory - what they have is only a self sustaining organism capable of reproduction by its own mechanism.


no examples of complex creations void of life exist.

.

you gave no explanation, merely repeated your claim......creating self sustaining organisms does not require the creation of parallel inert sculptures....why would you think it would?....

 

[Boss]

this is true because as I said earlier, civilization comes later. before civilization/culture comes along there are finds that show no sign of religious or spiritual ceremony or rites

No, civilization coincides with human spirituality. As long as humans have been civilized creatures, we've had human spirituality. They go hand in hand together.

Now we juxtapose this with the creation story in the Bible and the argument many Biblical scholars have made, that the Adam and Eve creation are not the literal creation of humans, but the transformational creation of civilized humans in God's image. After all, their son Cain was cast out to the Land of Nod where he had a wife and children... where did these people in Nod come from all of a sudden?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about

Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again

I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.

you're partly saying the same thing I've said. I've stated the same thing as in your post, but added info.

It's ok. I thought you knew more. My mistake

 

[Boss]

Odds? You said it was a mathematical impossibility. I added other life to show probability and possibility scenarios.

I wouldn't say it's a mathematical impossibility, but close. That's for "life as we know" specifically, you realize.... That means the tens of thousands of life forms we have which are solely dependent on the ocean tides, climate conditions, seasons, etc. To have all the conditional parameters for "life as we know" takes a series of things that had to first happen. Sure, there are probably billions of potential candidate planets out there, but when we begin applying the general criteria needed to develop the specific kind of "life as we know" the number begins to dwindle.

Now maybe this is a semantics hang up? Let's replace "life as we know" with just plain "life of some kind" and then we have a much broader range and hope of finding such a thing. However, even IF we modify our quest to simply finding some kind of other life... the closest place that would be a possibility is 600 light years from here. Aside from the possibility of microbial life.

To confound and confuse this issue even more is the distinct possibility that us humans don't know everything and there is some other form of living organism out there based on other chemical and biological systems we may not be aware of. The universe is a big place, there are 100 billion stars in our own galaxy. Nothing is ever impossible.

 

[Hollie]

And humans did NOT always bury their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects. That was one point I was asking you about

Boss I apologize. I got you mixed up with some dopey character in this thread. won't happen again

I'm not sure if humans always buried their dead with ceremonial rituals or objects, that's not what I said. Every human civilization we've unearthed shows indications of ceremonial rituals... human spirituality. There is not an exception, you will not find an example to the contrary.

Ceremonial rituals are not directly analogous to your claimed spirit realms. Once again, you're adding your biases toward gawds and supernaturalism to ceremonial rituals.