27 May 19
@sonhouse saidHe was staying with the "what can we test and know" and even said he wasn't interested in making a claim by filling in the blanks. I cannot recall his exact verbiage but limiting his lecture to what could be tested and getting repeatable results was the trust of the talk. Which I think leaves out what you are talking about, what might be shown some day to be true, maybe in the future, or not. That was why I knew wildgrass was making up what he said, because of how he discussed his subject matter, and how wildgrass attempted to portray it.
And you ignore the fact prebiotic organic material was present in the clouds that penetrated the solar system early on, short circuiting the argument trillions of years would be needed to achieve life from reactions begun on Earth.
I think life will be shown to be present at many levels from virus and bacteria to full blown scientific civilizations more advanced than Earth ...[text shortened]... re but decidedly did NOT mention that in their talks so as not to spoil their bottom line, GODDIDIT.
27 May 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidSonhouse knows more about this propaganda video than you, pointing out repeatedly that there are lots of additional testable ideas that are plausible but not considered here. Unfortuntately design isn't testable. It's fundamentally unscientific.
He was staying with the "what can we test and know" and even said he wasn't interested in making a claim by filling in the blanks. I cannot recall his exact verbiage but limiting his lecture to what could be tested and getting repeatable results was the trust of the talk. Which I think leaves out what you are talking about, what might be shown some day to be true, maybe in t ...[text shortened]... he said, because of how he discussed his subject matter, and how wildgrass attempted to portray it.
Obviously if his lecture only discussed "what can we test and know" then testing design is a prerequisite to raising the possibility. Did he propose to test design? If not, why did he suggest it?
27 May 19
@wildgrass saidzzzz
Sonhouse knows more about this propaganda video than you, pointing out repeatedly that there are lots of additional testable ideas that are plausible but not considered here. Unfortuntately design isn't testable. It's fundamentally unscientific.
Obviously if his lecture only discussed "what can we test and know" then testing design is a prerequisite to raising the possibility. Did he propose to test design? If not, why did he suggest it?
Do you give movie reviews for movies you never seen?
Do you give book reviews for books you never read?
You can talk about our discussion you can see that.
You don't have a frigging clue about the video!
You can only justify your views on the video based on your preconceived ideas!
That makes me wonder how solid is your science too!?
Is your science based on assumptions from your preconceived ideas too?
27 May 19
@kellyjay saidGood work answering my questions....
zzzz
Do you give movie reviews for movies you never seen?
Do you give book reviews for books you never read?
You can talk about our discussion you can see that.
You don't have a frigging clue about the video!
You can only justify your views on the video based on your preconceived ideas!
That makes me wonder how solid is your science too!?
Is your science based on assumptions from your preconceived ideas too?
27 May 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidIt is obvious you are 100% in line with GODIDIT because men are WAY too stupid to figure it out. THEREFORE, GODIDIT. And you still ignore my posit of interstellar clouds seeding whole solar systems with organic material, short circuiting their view there is not enough time for Earth to do the chemical experiments leading to life.
zzzz
Do you give movie reviews for movies you never seen?
Do you give book reviews for books you never read?
You can talk about our discussion you can see that.
You don't have a frigging clue about the video!
You can only justify your views on the video based on your preconceived ideas!
That makes me wonder how solid is your science too!?
Is your science based on assumptions from your preconceived ideas too?
28 May 19
@sonhouse saidI didn't ignore you on interstellar clouds, I reminded you of his pointing out that with science if we were to learn anything it needs to be done through testing and validation, not (just so) stories, or (fill in the blank) stories, or (wait and see) stories, and so on. He stuck to the topic at hand and everything he said about it can be validated when they said these were the tests, and those were the results. If it cannot be tested repeatedly and with validated results, you got nothing any more substantial than an Atheist version of "GODIDIT", you just leave out God and suggest in time it will be shown.
It is obvious you are 100% in line with GODIDIT because men are WAY too stupid to figure it out. THEREFORE, GODIDIT. And you still ignore my posit of interstellar clouds seeding whole solar systems with organic material, short circuiting their view there is not enough time for Earth to do the chemical experiments leading to life.
28 May 19
@wildgrass saidWere they about the video you didn't watch?
Good work answering my questions....
28 May 19
1 edit
@wildgrass saidDesign is not testable, you cannot tell a birds nest from a clump of twigs, you cannot read text from a bunch of letters thrown together and know what is without design and what is, you couldn't detect natural static over the radio over music, speech, morse code? You have never seen the movie contact where they listen for non-natural sounds listening for intelligence? If you were to drive down a road and see rocks scattered all around you'd assume nature no ID here, but if you ran across some in the formation of words you could read, you'd think that too was nature and not ID? I think your blind, not because you cannot see, but because you refuse to. You should avoid that lecture it would pop your world view! I think you should stop asking questions too that challenge your world view you are attempting to protect at all costs.
Sonhouse knows more about this propaganda video than you, pointing out repeatedly that there are lots of additional testable ideas that are plausible but not considered here. Unfortuntately design isn't testable. It's fundamentally unscientific.
Obviously if his lecture only discussed "what can we test and know" then testing design is a prerequisite to raising the possibility. Did he propose to test design? If not, why did he suggest it?
If you want to know what He did and claimed, watch the video. For crying out loud how much time has gone by since you started talking about it without ever watching it, what a complete waist of time by you, go get a life.
28 May 19
@kellyjay saidAt least I know how to answer questions.
Design is not testable, you cannot tell a birds nest from a clump of twigs, you cannot read text from a bunch of letters thrown together and know what is without design and what is, you couldn't detect natural static over the radio over music, speech, morse code? You have never seen the movie contact where they listen for non-natural sounds listening for intelligence? If you ...[text shortened]... rted talking about it without ever watching it, what a complete waist of time by you, go get a life.
29 May 19
@wildgrass saidYou even know how to make value judgments on things you've never seen.
At least I know how to answer questions.
29 May 19
2 edits
@kellyjay saidYou do realize this is getting nowhere. You still firmly believe GODIDIT and we are waiting for science to show otherwise. Which BTW is NOT 'faith' since we are talking about testable results. BTW the testable results about interstellar clouds containing organic material is sure. That we were hit by one of those clouds has also been proven.
Who cares!?
So it is clear the trillion years needed for life to work its way on Earth is in fact short circuited by that result.
Why didn't those scientists bring up that subject? I think it because it would throw their GODIDIT conclusion by the wayside as just another theological theory with no basis in fact but just a way of bypassing any science.
Another thing, the universe is unimaginably large, and it has already been proven by the baby science of astronomy to have thousands of planets already discovered and more to find and statistically meaning there have to be literally hundreds of TRILLIONS of planets and some of them will no doubt be in the goldilocks zone where liquid water can exist and some of THEM could have life on them so why would this god you tout put life just hear and on no other planet?
It is much more likely if a god made this universe it would have given the universe the means for life to develop on its own without a need for that god to tend to every atom in the universe 24/7, much more likely it would set stuff up and then go on to bigger and better things and let life develop where it will.
Your religion makes it seem like your god is a prisoner of the universe it allegedly created if it has to constantly attend to the life cycle and placement of every atom in the universe forever. Think about that for a moment. If I was such a god, I would not want to be such a prisoner of my own creation but like any intelligent being, rather make it like a terrarium where that universe goes on by itself with no further input needed by such a god where the comings and goings of humanity would not be worth its time and effort since it has an entire universe to watch grow as it will and trillions of planets with life just as advanced as Earthy type life.
29 May 19
@sonhouse saidThe reason you keep bringing up GODIDIT is to question motivation, to avoid taking the topic on seriously. Just another version of, the only reason you believe that is because your a X, pick a topic, pick an X. Undercutting the science by suggesting bad motives for the one who speaking. You waiting for science to show otherwise is faith, the results on the topic he brought are testable, but you denounced them why, because he didn't "wait to see what you believe science is going to show" not what it is showing you now.
You do realize this is getting nowhere. You still firmly believe GODIDIT and we are waiting for science to show otherwise. Which BTW is NOT 'faith' since we are talking about testable results. BTW the testable results about interstellar clouds containing organic material is sure. That we were hit by one of those clouds has also been proven.
So it is clear the trillion ...[text shortened]... se to watch grow as it will and trillions of planets with life just as advanced as Earthy type life.
29 May 19
@KellyJay
Like I said, we are going round and round and achieving nothing. There is nothing you can say that will change all of our opinions they were after a religious agenda and they pointedly did not bring up recent data, instead sticking with the statistical story Earth did not have enough time which I have shown you gets short circuited by interstellar clouds already seeded with complex prebiotic organics.
Why don't you just tell me outright, they did not have any kind of religious agenda.
Answer me THAT.