For the religious folks here

[pcuser]

I think it's interesting from an archaeological view. I know there are others here who would have an obvious interest from the religious view. So I thought I would post it...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/05/archaeologists-say-theyve-located-possible-site-trial-jesus/

[seal]

Ok I don't care what's in the article I couldn't get past you posting a FOX news link. I thought you couldn't get out of the Salon. There is hope for you yet.

[Stinkbait]

You learned two things today. Type D orcas and may be , just may be some historical stuff in the bible is true as documented in other history books.

[pcuser]

Ok I don't care what's in the article I couldn't get past you posting a FOX news link. I thought you couldn't get out of the Salon. There is hope for you yet.

There's always hope. And I've told people here that I was misinterpreted. I am actually finding answers as to why I'm 'misunderstood' and am working on changing the way I present ideas. The down side is I've had this all my life and only been aware of it recently. It will be hard. So, please have some understanding... And, I don't care where information comes from. Fox can have accurate info as can most sites. I look for accurate info...

[pcuser]

You learned two things today. Type D orcas and may be , just may be some historical stuff in the bible is true as documented in other history books.

Actually, I learned many things today. However, I posted this here as I know there are those who believe and might be interested. I find it interesting that they have found the archaeological site of the historical figure Herod. This article is 'reporting' more than the facts warrant. There is no evidence at this site that Jesus existed. Actually, I believe there may well have been a man named Jesus that the Gospels talk about. I simply see no evidence he was supernatural or that he was there.

[DEVOREFLYER]

Perhaps just perhaps you may like this read just perhaps:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas
Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

[DrePSP]

I just saw this, and had to share as it made me think of you PC.
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

[seal]

Perhaps just perhaps you may like this read just perhaps:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas
Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

Thanks for the post!

[etucker1959]

Perhaps just perhaps you may like this read just perhaps:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas
Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.
The UFO's they got hidden at area 51, blow this whole theory apart in about 2 nanoseconds. lol

[DarkShadow]

Perhaps just perhaps you may like this read just perhaps:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By

Interesting article.

It essentially says "the fact we haven't found life anywhere else in the universe is proof that God exists."

[pcuser]

Perhaps just perhaps you may like this read just perhaps:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas
Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

There are so many inaccuracies and very questionable data, I wouldn't even bother spending the time to debunk it. It would take a lot of time because of all the problems with his 'argument'... On top of all that, we may have found evidence of life right here in our solar system. We simply have a very high bar to say it's certain. So, we continue to advance our reach enough to know for sure...

[City Dad]

There's always hope. And I've told people here that I was misinterpreted. I am actually finding answers as to why I'm 'misunderstood' and am working on changing the way I present ideas. The down side is I've had this all my life and only been aware of it recently. It will be hard. So, please have some understanding... And, I don't care where information comes from. Fox can have accurate info as can most sites. I look for accurate info...

dude, WTH??? were you, like, visited by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future or what?

[etucker1959]

Interesting article.

It essentially says "the fact we haven't found life anywhere else in the universe is proof that God exists."
Let me expand on that!!!! If UFO's were proven to be alive and well, what does that do to Religion??????? If for example, we had irrevocable proof that little green men do exist and don't look anything like us. What does that do to phrases in the Bible that say's, "Man was created in God's image." If little green men do exist, doesn't that mean that Religion goes right down the drain???? If that's the case, doesn't that make all the governments of the world,"to have a huge incentive to keep that fact from the general public?" For if there was no Religion wouldn't that make the people harder to control?????? Sounds like a great motive to me, "for all the governments of the world to keep denying that UFO'S EXIST!!!!!" (Just a little food for thought)

[pcuser]

dude, WTH??? were you, like, visited by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future or what?

I'm only 64. I'm still learning interesting stuff. When we stop learning, we begin dying...

[DarkShadow]

If little green men do exist, doesn't that mean that Religion goes right down the drain????

Surely, if that ever does happen, I'm sure the little green men will somehow be written into the Bible, as creatures God created.

King James, Remix 2.0.

[pcuser]

I just saw this, and had to share as it made me think of you PC.
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

That's a well written piece and it captures the issue perfectly...

[City Dad]

I'm only 64. I'm still learning interesting stuff. When we stop learning, we begin dying...

I mean are you going all "nice" on us?

[City Dad]

Let me expand on that!!!! If UFO's were proven to be alive and well, what does that do to Religion??????? If for example, we had irrevocable proof that little green men do exist and don't look anything like us. What does that do to phrases in the Bible that say's, "Man was created in God's image." If little green men do exist, doesn't that mean that Religion goes right down the drain???? If that's the case, doesn't that make all the governments of the world,"to have a huge incentive to keep that fact from the general public?" For if there was no Religion wouldn't that make the people harder to control?????? Sounds like a great motive to me, "for all the governments of the world to keep denying that UFO'S EXIST!!!!!" (Just a little food for thought)


I think "created in God's image" is meant in a spiritual sense so it doesn't necessarily rule out the existence little green men.

[DarkShadow]

if people look Science always Proves the bible true and God right. Some close their eyes to the truth
One thing is for sure blasphemy wont be tolerated at all

Preach Tom, preach!

[pcuser]

I mean are you going all "nice" on us?

I'm not certain. I've clearly been misunderstood in some things I've written. Certainly Tom and Seal think I've been disrespectful. Others as well. I've been learning more about Autism and have found others who have it who I can talk to. It turns out that we who have it are often misunderstood, sometimes to the point of hearing the opposite of what we're trying to say. No one who doesn't have this or something similar can understand at a deep level. And, I'm glad they can't since I would never wish this on another. In any case, I'm trying to approach what I say with that thought in mind. That's why I sound different. As I've said on this board, I don't disrespect someone for being religious. They clearly don't believe me. But, I'm trying anyway.

[pcuser]

if people look Science always Proves the bible true and God right. Some close their eyes to the truth
One thing is for sure blasphemy wont be tolerated at all

Tom, if we survived death in spirit, you would feel rather foolish when you found out you where living a life unnecessarily burdened by all the religious rules. I'm not suggesting you act crazy. You don't need to have religion to have a good life and treat others well.

[etucker1959]

I think "created in God's image" is meant in a spiritual sense so it doesn't necessarily rule out the existence little green men.
I always took that literally, so maybe I learned something today. So are you saying that the little green men (if they exist) were created by divine intervention?????

[Stinkbait]

Let me expand on that!!!! If UFO's were proven to be alive and well, what does that do to Religion??????? If for example, we had irrevocable proof that little green men do exist and don't look anything like us. What does that do to phrases in the Bible that say's, "Man was created in God's image." If little green men do exist, doesn't that mean that Religion goes right down the drain???? If that's the case, doesn't that make all the governments of the world,"to have a huge incentive to keep that fact from the general public?" For if there was no Religion wouldn't that make the people harder to control?????? Sounds like a great motive to me, "for all the governments of the world to keep denying that UFO'S EXIST!!!!!" (Just a little food for thought)

A characteristic of humans (men) is not little or green.

[DrePSP]

How does science prove bible and God are right?

[seal]

You guys crack me up! Nothing has proven God's existence in that article as nothing has proved what created this universe, this earth and life in general. Science can only break it down to a certain point then you have to have "faith" that whatever the building blocks that create life are just somehow POOF were created. So the question is still open, even from a scientific perspective.

The complexity of the creation of life and development or this planet is so great and so magnificent that I don't think there is much of a leap to believe in a greater being behind it. You that don't believe think in the end science will prevail and 100% prove God never existed, unfortunately for you all I doubt that threshold will ever be met in your lifetimes so you will have to continue to have "faith" in what you believe in.

[pcuser]

How does science prove bible and God are right?

It doesn't...

[pcuser]

You guys crack me up! Nothing has proven God's existence in that article as nothing has proved what created this universe, this earth and life in general. Science can only break it down to a certain point then you have to have "faith" that whatever the building blocks that create life are just somehow POOF were created. So the question is still open, even from a scientific perspective.

The complexity of the creation of life and development or this planet is so great and so magnificent that I don't think there is much of a leap to believe in a greater being behind it. You that don't believe think in the end science will prevail and 100% prove God never existed, unfortunately for you all I doubt that threshold will ever be met in your lifetimes so you will have to continue to have "faith" in what you believe in.

If you really understood science, you wouldn't suggest that faith is a part of science. Scientists present an hypotheses and try to prove or disprove it. They then repeat as they build up knowledge. I also see you don't keep up with science.... If you did, you would know we weren't that ignorant about how life began and how the universe or multiverses came to be.

[seal]

If you really understood science, you wouldn't suggest that faith is a part of science. Scientists present an hypotheses and try to prove or disprove it. They then repeat as they build up knowledge. I also see you don't keep up with science.... If you did, you would know we weren't that ignorant about how life began and how the universe or multiverses came to be.

Dude if you believe in something that has not been proven you have "faith" that it exists.

So explain it to me oh great know it all! You break it down, explain to me how the lipids proteins etc... create life and how the big bang or whatever theory dejour is. At some point you seem to believe everything just went POOF and all was created cause if you read the crib notes of the big bang theory that's the basic theory in of itself, nothing existed then POOF you have yourself a universe! That to me is just as plausible as this earth, this universe being God's creation.

Faith - strong belief or trust in someone or something.

Don't play the fk'n "if you really understood" game with me ahole!

[DarkShadow]

That to me is just as plausible as this earth, this universe being God's creation.

Don't forget Chuggs, God's roommate:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoqSas2uFKw

He never gets any credit.

[pcuser]

Dude if you believe in something that has not been proven you have "faith" that it exists.

So explain it to me oh great know it all! You break it down, explain to me how the lipids proteins etc... create life and how the big bang or whatever theory dejour is. At some point you seem to believe everything just went POOF and all was created cause if you read the crib notes of the big bang theory that's the basic theory in of itself, nothing existed then POOF you have yourself a universe! That to me is just as plausible as this earth, this universe being God's creation.

Faith - strong belief or trust in someone or something.

Don't play the fk'n "if you really understood" game with me ahole!

Whoa... we went from having hope for me to being an ahole in sixty seconds... You expect anyone to respond to the vast sweeping statements you made. I'm not your teacher... Though the part about going poof is easy. Do you even know enough to understand that particles appear out of nothing. Sometimes they disappear when they appear in pairs and destroy each other. However some stay in this universe. So, we know for a dead fact that stuff 'pops into' existence all the time. Enough time and patience would create a universe from that alone... Even understanding this requires knowledge you don't have...

[DrePSP]

I like the bing bang fart theory. but if you go to the extend versions. It really shows how twisted religion is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVmdCAT7Rc8

[DarkShadow]

I like the bing bang fart theory. but if you go to the extend versions. It really shows how twisted religion is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVmdCAT7Rc8

HAHAHAH.

I totally forgot the extended version.

"If you look at the bones of a .... JESUS....."

[pcuser]

I like the bing bang fart theory. but if you go to the extend versions. It really shows how twisted religion is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVmdCAT7Rc8

Outstanding. You made it simple enough for all of the religious folks to understand their own beliefs... To think I merely intended to share something I thought all could appreciate and it was turned into an attack campaign... Really...

[billy b]

Don't mean to hijack the thread ... and I may be off the point. But, wanted to add that there is a big problem in life with religion vs. relationship. Religion is all about man working his way to God ... earning His love and mercy. Relationship is about a love relationship that causes me to want to do what the one I love would want to be happy. The Bible says "We love because He first loved us." I like to think of it like a human marriage ... where there are no legal docs ... or honey do lists ... but for 45 years I've been trying my best (and failing sometimes badly) to love and honor my bride. The Old Testament of the Bible focuses on the law ... which is death. The New Testament focuses on the "New Covenant" If you have time take a peek at 2 Corinthians ... especially the first dozen or so verses in Chapter 3

Be blessed y'all !!!

[Skyler]

Don't mean to hijack the thread ... and I may be off the point. But, wanted to add that there is a big problem in life with religion vs. relationship. Religion is all about man working his way to God ... earning His love and mercy. Relationship is about a love relationship that causes me to want to do what the one I love would want to be happy. The Bible says "We love because He first loved us." I like to think of it like a human marriage ... where there are no legal docs ... or honey do lists ... but for 45 years I've been trying my best (and failing sometimes badly) to love and honor my bride. The Old Testament of the Bible focuses on the law ... which is death. The New Testament focuses on the "New Covenant" If you have time take a peek at 2 Corinthians ... especially the first dozen or so verses in Chapter 3

Be blessed y'all !!!

http://1000words1000days.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Gay4Jesus-6.jpg

[HawgZWylde]

#JeSuisCharlie

http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af138/kd-2012/Animals%20are%20fascinating/SAM_1653.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/kd-2012/media/Animals%20are%20fascinating/SAM_1653.jpg.html)

If you love your goat, you can keep your goat...

[billy b]

Too bad ... my sympathies

[pcuser]

Perhaps just perhaps you may like this read just perhaps:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas
Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

This is a pretty sober description of life elsewhere in the universe...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shostak/no-mans-land-in-the-cosmo_b_6445738.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[DarkShadow]

This is a pretty sober description of life elsewhere in the universe...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shostak/no-mans-land-in-the-cosmo_b_6445738.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Yeah, so?

God created those too.

Prove it. Why or why not. Sources.

[pcuser]

Perhaps just perhaps you may like this read just perhaps:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas
Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god

[Brent]

OK, OK, OK....I got a brain buster for ALL of you.

If God created us? Then what or whom created God?

Just let that sink in and think real hard about that for a minute. I bet you're head explodes...lol
Was he/she (God) an immaculate conception on a whole other level?????
Did I miss where that's addressed in the "Holy Bible".

Brent

[etucker1959]

OK, OK, OK....I got a brain buster for ALL of you.

If God created us? Then what or whom created God?

Just let that sink in and think real hard about that for a minute. I bet you're head explodes...lol
Was he/she (God) an immaculate conception on a whole other level?????
Did I miss where that's addressed in the "Holy Bible".

Brent
I ask that same question when I was 6 in Sunday school. Answer: He created himself!!!!!!!

[DarkShadow]

Then what or whom created God?

It's a human construct, both psychologically and sociologically.

[Brent]

It's a human construct, both psychologically and sociologically.

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...WE have a winner.

[hookdfisherman]

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...WE have a winner.




The BIG BANG created him! It happened in a split second!

[DarkShadow]

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...WE have a winner.

It's too bad nobody will engage in a legitimate conversation about this, though.

Not when Tom's talking in tongues now:


Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[hookdfisherman]

.





Perhaps just perhaps you may like this read just perhaps:

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas
Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.








So, Science starts with 2 parameters for life to exist and then re-examines itself and eventually comes up with about 200 that it really needs to come together perfectly for life to exist? (I should read it thoroughly but I'm skimming, my bad).

Science, at least, is realistic in it's evaluation and will even let everyone know; Hey, we checked ourselves and here's what we found. Please look at this data and use it wisely.


Religion, on the other hand, has some book written how long ago? and everyone believes it because why? Because some old men have been saying for generation after generation, this is the way it is, has been, and will forever be... it is the Word! Have Faith my children!


At what point is it fair for religion to admit that it has not been trying to prove God exists, that it doesn't want to know if in fact he does exist, and that it will never, ever be looking into that possibility?

Sure, religion hunts around for some old artifacts, mud huts, pottery (chalices), ancient burial sites, they even speculate; this could be the ancient site of so n so's old stompin' grounds. While we can't prove it, here's what we have, look at these old plates, they probably ate food off 'em! This COULD BE the home of Moses himself and here's his PLATE!... sounds GOOD, right? Keep the the faith my brotha!


Meanwhile Science finds evolution, dino bones, and is still looking for ET life. It is still looking at how the universe began. Science admits her errors and then moves on to bigger and better things. Look at the recent pictures of SPACE and all her contents.

Religion looks at the complex universe as explained by science and says ahhh, it must be our creator (without even checking to see if there's proof of said creator).

Along with the fact that all the while, Religion has TOM turkey to defend it?




Please, just move along, keep going, hey, you there, keep moving...














.

[hookdfisherman]

.




Recently, the Wall Street Journal published a piece with the surprising title “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” At least it was surprising to me, because I hadn’t heard the news. The piece argued that new scientific evidence bolsters the claim that the appearance of life in the universe requires a miracle, and it received almost four hundred thousand Facebook shares and likes.



The author of the piece, Eric Metaxas, is not himself a scientist. Rather, he’s a writer and a TV host, and the article was a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to resurrect the notion of intelligent design, which gives religious arguments the veneer of science—this time in a cosmological context. Life exists only on Earth and has not been found elsewhere. Moreover, the conditions that caused life to appear here are miraculous. So doesn’t that mean we must have come from a miracle at the hand of God? “Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?” Metaxas writes.

In response, I should begin by noting that the science of “astrobiology”—which, loosely stated, searches for signs of life elsewhere and explores the astrophysical and cosmological conditions that might allow for life to exist in our universe—is still in its infancy. Consensus on many issues has not yet been achieved, and the quality of work in the field varies significantly.

Still, what we have unequivocally learned over the past decade or so is, to paraphrase Hamlet, that there are many more things in Heaven and Earth than were dreamt of in our imagination. The opportunities for the development of life in various systems, and the possible forms of life we know of, have exploded. Metaxas believes that our increased understanding of our evolutionary history implies that the origin of life on Earth is increasingly inexplicable. But the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction.

Let’s start with the first point raised in the Journal piece, which is that the more we have learned about our own evolutionary history on Earth, the more we appreciate the many different factors that may have been important in allowing that evolution. For example, we know that had Jupiter, with its massive gravity, not existed, asteroids and comets would have bombarded Earth throughout its history, disrupting the stable evolutionary development of multicellular organisms. Moreover, we know that if our sun were not in the outer part of our galaxy, life as it exists would have been impossible, both because of the impact of harmful cosmic radiation and because of gravitational perturbations that might easily have disrupted stable planetary orbits. The moon formed during a collision involving the nascent Earth, giving the planet the tilt that allows for seasonal variations and tides. Earth exists in the habitable zone where liquid water is possible. Liquid water was possible only on early Earth because of the high concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

By considering each of these many factors and imagining the probability of each separately, one can imagine that the combination is statistically very unlikely, or impossible. “Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart,” Metaxas writes. “The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.”

Such a claim is fraught with statistical perils, however. The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. In order for me to be writing this piece at this precise instant on this airplane, having done all the things I’ve done today, consider all the factors that had to be “just right”: I had to find myself in San Francisco, among all the cities in the world; the sequence of stoplights that my taxi had to traverse had to be just right, in order to get me to the airport when I did; the airport security screener had to experience a similar set of coincidences in order to be there when I needed her; same goes for the pilot. It would be easy for me to derive a set of probabilities that, when multiplied together, would produce a number so small that it would be statistically impossible for me to be here now writing.

This approach, of course, involves many fallacies. It is clear that many routes could have led to the same result. Similarly, when we consider the evolution of life on Earth, we have to ask what factors could have been different and still allowed for intelligent life. Consider a wild example, involving the asteroid that hit Earth sixty-five million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs and a host of other species, and probably allowing an evolutionary niche for mammals to begin to flourish. This was a bad thing for life in general, but a good thing for us. Had that not happened, however, maybe giant intelligent reptiles would be arguing about the existence of God today.


An even more severe problem in Metaxas’s argument is the assumption of randomness, namely that physical processes do not naturally drive a system toward a certain state. This is the most common error among those who argue that, given the complexity of life on Earth, evolution is as implausible as a tornado ravaging a junkyard and producing a 747. The latter event is, indeed, essentially statistically impossible. However, we now understand that the process of natural selection implies that evolution is anything but random. Is it a miracle that the planet produced animals as complex as, and yet as different from, humans, dolphins, and cicadas, each so well “designed” for its own habitat? No. Natural selection drives systems in a specific direction, and the remarkable diversity of species on Earth today, each evolved for evolutionary success in a different environment, is one result.

Non-randomness is now understood to have a likely impact on the first appearance of life. For example, new insights into geophysical and chemical processes in extreme environments suggest that early Earth naturally favored the production of relatively large organic molecules. Moreover, we have continued to find in space the more sophisticated components associated with the evolution of life on Earth. The build-up of these complex precursors of life is, therefore, far from purely random. Furthermore, a recent interesting, if speculative, proposal suggests that, when driven by an external source of energy, matter will rearrange itself to dissipate this energy most efficiently. Living systems allow greater dissipation, which means that the laws of physics might suggest that life is, in some sense, inevitable.

Beyond this, two exciting scientific advances in recent decades have identified new ways in which life can evolve, and new locales where it can do so. First, we have discovered a surprisingly diverse group of new solar systems. And we now understand that, even in our solar system, there are a host of possible sites where life might have evolved that were long considered unlikely. Moons of Jupiter and Saturn may have vast oceans of liquid water, underneath ice covers, which are heated by gravitational tidal friction associated with their giant hosts. On Earth, scientists have had to revise old rules about where and how life can survive. The discovery of so-called extremophiles—life forms that can live in extreme acids, or under extreme heat or pressure—has vastly increased the set of conditions under which we can imagine life existing on this planet.

Another point raised in the Journal piece involves what appears to Metaxas as the impossible fine tuning of the constants of nature in order for us to exist. As Metaxas puts it:

Astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
It is true that a small change in the strength of the four known forces (but nowhere near as small as Metaxas argues) would imply that stable protons and neutrons, the basis of atomic nuclei, might not exist. (The universe, however, would—a rather large error in the Metaxas piece.) This is old news and, while it’s an interesting fact, it certainly does not require a deity.

Once again, it likely confuses cause and effect. The constants of the universe indeed allow the existence of life as we know it. However, it is much more likely that life is tuned to the universe rather than the other way around. We survive on Earth in part because Earth’s gravity keeps us from floating off. But the strength of gravity selects a planet like Earth, among the variety of planets, to be habitable for life forms like us. Reversing the sense of cause and effect in this statement, as Metaxas does in cosmology, is like saying that it’s a miracle that everyone’s legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.


In fact, one of the most severe apparent fine tunings often referred to by creationists like Metaxas is that of the so-called cosmological constant, the energy of empty space that has recently been discovered to be causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate over time. It remains one of the biggest mysteries in physics, as it appears to be over a hundred and twenty orders of magnitude smaller than our theories suggest it could be. And if it were as large as the theories suggest it should be, then galaxies, stars, and planets would never have formed.

Is this a clear example of design? Of course not. If it were zero, which would be “natural” from a theoretical perspective, the universe would in fact be more hospitable to life. If the cosmological constant were different, perhaps vastly different kinds of life might have arisen. Moreover, arguing that God exists because many cosmic mysteries remain is intellectually lazy in the extreme. The more we understand the universe, the more remarkable it appears to be. Exploring how this remarkable diversity can arise by potentially simple laws has been one of the most successful, and intellectually beautiful, efforts in human history.

The “null hypothesis” is most often the default hypothesis in science. We reject the null hypothesis (namely that what we think is significant is simply an accident, or noise) only when we have clear evidence to back it up. Or, as Carl Sagan often repeated, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. Surely the God hypothesis—that some invisible intelligence that must be eternal (i.e. not designed) and not subject to the laws of nature created and designed the entire universe for the benefit of one particular species on one particular planet at one particular time—is extraordinary in the extreme.

My colleagues and I are optimistic that evidence for life, either elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in the universe, may be discovered in the coming decades. Of course, we can’t be certain, but that doesn’t stop us from trying. Whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is even more uncertain, but nothing we have discovered suggests that the possibility of life requires something supernatural.

In the meantime, both believers and non-believers are done a huge disservice when people promulgate biased and disingenuous claims that distort what current science implies and can imply about the universe. In a society in which the understanding of science is already marginal—and where, at the same time, the continued health of modern society as it meets the challenges of the twenty-first century depends, in some sense, on our ability to utilize our scientific knowledge, both to create new technologies and to help guide rational public policies—this is the last thing we need.

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god




.

[Caliyak]

If God created us? Then what or whom created God?
Brent

No one can. I know that He does exist and that's all that matters.

[hookdfisherman]

.



45741




is this true about the ark? all the animals walked to it?























i thought they used enterprises' transporters; for the animals and also after they had to cut down all them giant redwoods...






.

[DockRat]

Did You Know ?
In N Out has Bible verses on there cups, bags, and baskets ?
Never noticed this before, too busy eating I guess.
Just learned this today. DR

Origins: Throughout the years the especially sharp-eyed have noticed the presence of cryptic name-and-number notations on burger wrappings and disposable cups used at In-N-Out Burger, a popular chain of hamburger eateries in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Utah. These tiny notations are placed in out-of-the-way spots (the undersides of cups and near the seams of the paper pouches burgers are placed in). No overt explanation is given for
image: http://www.snopes.com/business/graphics/burger.jpg

John 3:16 the presence of the odd phrases or their meaning — they just quietly sit there, awaiting decipherment by those moved to do so.

These mysterious markings are pointers to Biblical passages. Those easily disturbed by the presence of Bible verses need not fear for their souls, however: The text of the passages themselves are not spelled out on the cups and wrappings; only their notations appear there.

In-N-Out Burger was founded by Harry and Esther Snyder in Baldwin Park, California, in 1948. Although this chain of west coast hamburger restaurants has since grown to more than 200 outlets, control still rests in the hands of the Snyder family. According to the company's web site: "In-N-Out remains privately owned and the Snyder family has no plans to take the company public or franchise any units." The Snyders are a religious family, and their continuing to control their own company means they can put what they want on their product packaging. They've chosen to include pointers to particular Bible verses that we presume hold special meaning for them.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/inandout.asp#p4ehSoItYCuKustv.99


Jump to 1:40 in vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkKETVjjcdE

[Lady Quagga]

In that case DR, make mine a:

Double Double (grilled and raw with extra sauce)
Chocolate Shake
Freedom Fries (extra well-done)

And Hail Satan while I enjoy them all.

Any devil-worshipping Korean pop-artists out there? I have a jingle in mind for you to sing......

[DarkShadow]

Did You Know ?
In N Out has Bible verses on there cups, bags, and baskets ?

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2015/02/B8zWI6iCMAEPWMi.png

[hookdfisherman]

.





I knew that, Got Damn, dat'sa good burger!




I love Katy Perry





.

[City Dad]

here's the thing with in-n-out: the fries don't travel well at all... they barely make it from the counter to the booth in edible shape. the bible verses don't bother me as much as those mushy fries. And I'm no fan of putting an entire onion slice on a burger. That's too much onion. Grilled style is the only way to go if you're talking onions at in and out.

Speak Truth to Power

[etucker1959]

Did You Know ?
In N Out has Bible verses on there cups, bags, and baskets ?
Never noticed this before, too busy eating I guess.
Just learned this today. DR

Origins: Throughout the years the especially sharp-eyed have noticed the presence of cryptic name-and-number notations on burger wrappings and disposable cups used at In-N-Out Burger, a popular chain of hamburger eateries in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and Utah. These tiny notations are placed in out-of-the-way spots (the undersides of cups and near the seams of the paper pouches burgers are placed in). No overt explanation is given for
image: http://www.snopes.com/business/graphics/burger.jpg

John 3:16 the presence of the odd phrases or their meaning — they just quietly sit there, awaiting decipherment by those moved to do so.

These mysterious markings are pointers to Biblical passages. Those easily disturbed by the presence of Bible verses need not fear for their souls, however: The text of the passages themselves are not spelled out on the cups and wrappings; only their notations appear there.

In-N-Out Burger was founded by Harry and Esther Snyder in Baldwin Park, California, in 1948. Although this chain of west coast hamburger restaurants has since grown to more than 200 outlets, control still rests in the hands of the Snyder family. According to the company's web site: "In-N-Out remains privately owned and the Snyder family has no plans to take the company public or franchise any units." The Snyders are a religious family, and their continuing to control their own company means they can put what they want on their product packaging. They've chosen to include pointers to particular Bible verses that we presume hold special meaning for them.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/inandout.asp#p4ehSoItYCuKustv.99


Jump to 1:40 in vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkKETVjjcdE
DockRat, I want to thank you for this post. The In-Out used in the video is right near my house. I'll be leaving to go there in a hour, I want to see how many bible verses I can find myself!!!!

[Lady Quagga]

here's the thing with in-n-out: the fries don't travel well at all... they barely make it from the counter to the booth in edible shape. the bible verses don't bother me as much as those mushy fries. And I'm no fan of putting an entire onion slice on a burger. That's too much onion. Grilled style is the only way to go if you're talking onions at in and out.

Speak Truth to Power

CD, that's why you order the fries extra well-done. Trust me on this one.

The onion thing is a personal preference. I like grilled and raw, but to each his own. That's the beauty of the In-N-Out burger - there is no wrong way to dress it. (Unlike other burger chains, whose signature burgers always seem incomplete the moment you change a single component.)

[DarkShadow]

CD, that's why you order the fries extra well-done. Trust me on this one.

The onion thing is a personal preference. I like grilled and raw, but to each his own. That's the beauty of the In-N-Out burger - there is no wrong way to dress it. (Unlike other burger chains, whose signature burgers always seem incomplete the moment you change a single component.)

Anybody else not really like the "Special Sauce" they use?

I order mine w/o sauce, substitute ketchup and mustard instead (like a real burger should be.)

I order raw onions, but only use 2 or 3 rings.

[hookdfisherman]

.





Speak Truth to Power




What does this mean?




yes, grilled onions. never tried a few rings of raw, but i like the crunchy of raw onions in some foods, gotta try it now!

i love the fries in the restaurant, but gettin em home is trying, no matter how fast you drive.

i like animal style toooooo much.

















She has great knees!





.

[John Harper]

CD, that's why you order the fries extra well-done. Trust me on this one.

I do the same thing, amaze your friends with your culinary expertise.

John

[City Dad]

.





What does this mean?


exactly what it says

like; government is in the pocket of big business, the military industrial complex has won out and Dodger dogs actually taste like cheap turkey franks.

[DarkShadow]

...and Dodger dogs actually taste like cheap turkey franks.

Somebody out there understands.

[City Dad]

Somebody out there understands.

intentionally ingesting a Dodger dog is all about the ceremony and symbolism, the tradition... nobody taking Holy Communion does so because the hosts are so crispy-crunchy delicious.

[DarkShadow]

... nobody taking Holy Communion does so because the hosts are so crispy-crunchy delicious.

Tell that to the legion of Dodger fans who actually think those things taste good. Imagine my surprise when visiting, well any ball park, and finding out those things were the worst of the bunch. It was like finding out Santa Claus really didn't exist.

I eat one, because as you said, I need so sacrifice some pork in the name of beísbol.

And I thought communion also dealt with wine. That's why I used to line up for, until they told me that since I never completed my first communion, I wasn't allowed to sip on Jesus Juice. So now I bring a flask.

[Lady Quagga]

And I thought communion also dealt with wine. That's why I used to line up for, until they told me that since I never completed my first communion, I wasn't allowed to sip on Jesus Juice. So now I bring a flask.

Well how about that? I took First Communion, but not Confirmation. Nice to see someone lower on the Sacramental ladder than me.

I eat Dodger Dogs for the free condiments. Nothing like cranked-out rehydrated onions, I tell ya.

[DarkShadow]

Well how about that? I took First Communion, but not Confirmation. Nice to see someone lower on the Sacramental ladder than me.

I eat Dodger Dogs for the free condiments. Nothing like cranked-out rehydrated onions, I tell ya.

Yeah, my parents told me the only reason they baptized me was because at age 9 months, I couldnt say "no."

I did cry tho. Got pics to prove it.

[hookdfisherman]

.


exactly what it says.



Such as, forgive me father for I have sinned...?





I went to Dodgers Stadium and ate a Dodger Dog, also I stole that hotdog and it was so good that I stole another. I didn't eat it, I felt too guilty so I gave it to a homeless person.
















I also had lovely thoughts about Katy Perry, I think about her a lot, she means so much to me !






That's it for now, I feel so much better. Thank you city Father Flanigan.


.


.

[smokehound]

http://media0.giphy.com/media/4pMX5rJ4PYAEM/giphy.gif

:\

[fish hunt]

back to in and out id like an onion sandwich with a buger and cheese please and can you put some garlic on that

[hookdfisherman]

.


In-N-Out's Pup Patty

image: http://cdn.foodbeast.com/content/uploads/2015/03/puppyinnnout.jpg

45884

puppyinnnout: showing Squirkee, Chubs the Frenchie

In-N-Out is a must whenever in California, even for your four-legged friend. If you're loving a Double Double in your car and your dog is giving you those sad puppy eyes, you can order him a Pup Patty. It's just a plain, unseasoned burger patty with no salt, just like Uncle Jim used to grill for Memorial Day.


Read more at http://www.foodbeast.com/news/secret-doggie-menus/#5xqWwwWjXFP4wLec.99


.