- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Drifting insinuates that God did not direct. GPS.I suppose, but even in calm waters it would have drifted to an extent. Any wind, movement in the water from the rain early on, etc.
Drifting insinuates that God did not direct. GPS.
I would be surprised if there were not aliens in our multiverse.
The evidence says Earth bears life. It does not say ONLY Earth bears life.
To think we are the only life forming planet in the universe is <snip>...
Doesn't the multiverse hypothesis say that there could be another you or me out there but living a different life in a different world. Or doesn't it say there could be many universes where there could be some with strange creatures or some that never created any life. In fact there is suppose to be a different scenario for each universe as each one was slightly different so that it could explain how ours was so right that it created us and has the perfect conditions for life.
Considering that god apparently has unlimited control over the weather, I would consider those natural means by which the ark drifted to either be accounted for by god or influenced in some way by god. We both agree that should the flood story be true, the ark didn't end up in the same spot it started out in, so let's leave it at that.
That's the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics - each particle's 'choice' creates two distinct universes, and never the twain shall meet.Doesn't the multiverse hypothesis say that there could be another you or me out there but living a different life in a different world.
That's the 'anthropic principle' (hard or soft, I forget which) - the idea that a sufficiently large number of planets means extra-terrestrial life is all but guaranteed. If there are multiple universes, there are that many more planets!Or doesn't it say there could be many universes where there could be some with strange creatures or some that never created any life.
It's often said that Shakespeare exists encoded somewhere within the digits of pi, because it has an infinite non-repeating decimal expansion. But that property alone isn't enough to ensure Shakespeare exists, as it's quite easy to select a number with an infinite non-repeating decimal expansion which absolutely doesn't have Shakespeare encoded somewhere therein*.In fact there is suppose to be a different scenario for each universe as each one was slightly different so that it could explain how ours was so right that it created us and has the perfect conditions for life.
So all that tells us is we've not found life yet. We've barely scratched the surface of the planets and moons in our solar system - no, wrong,we've barely seen the planets and moons in our solar system, let along conclusively proven there's no life there.Yes, we even checked the moon for life contamination from earth. None.
No other found in our system. The only system with life at all.
No signs found on meteors from deep space.
No signs of life "trying" to form out of minerals.
No random efforts of life from rock or chemicals or minerals.
Nothing.
So all that tells us is we've not found life yet. We've barely scratched the surface of the planets and moons in our solar system - no, wrong,we've barely seen the planets and moons in our solar system, let along conclusively proven there's no life there.
So I reaffirm what I said: the evidence does NOT say life exists only on Earth. Do you, or do you not, disagree?
How would I know? If God guided it, it ended up in just the right place.Considering that god apparently has unlimited control over the weather, I would consider those natural means by which the ark drifted to either be accounted for by god or influenced in some way by god. We both agree that should the flood story be true, the ark didn't end up in the same spot it started out in, so let's leave it at that.
There are various theories about how that distance could be circumvented.
Look at what you're saying:You're not listening because you refuse to believe the science:
No signs of life "trying" to form out of minerals.
No random efforts of life from rock or chemicals or minerals.
Nothing.
All evidence says life does not form naturally.
Use all your brains and try to make some.
Then ask a dog to try it.
Then ask a fly to form some life from minerals.
You can see the direction this is heading.
Science says life is impossible to create. And far less probable to stumble upon.
Look at what you're saying:
1) No signs of X
2) Therefore, science says X is impossible
This is not rational thinking.
"You're not listening because you refuse to believe the science:
No signs of life "trying" to form out of minerals.
No random efforts of life from rock or chemicals or minerals.
Nothing.
All evidence says life does not form naturally.
Use all your brains and try to make some.
Then ask a dog to try it.
Then ask a fly to form some life from minerals.
You can see the direction this is heading.
Science says life is impossible to create.
And far less probable to stumble upon.
I stand by my paraphrase.You look at what I said instead of a very poor spin on a paraphrase of an idea of a memory of what you read.
I stand by my paraphrase.
You said: "No signs of life "trying" to form out of minerals. No random efforts of life from rock or chemicals or minerals. Nothing."
And from that you concluded: "All evidence says life does not form naturally. Science says life is impossible to create."
You said, "There are no signs of life on these specific objects, so therefore science says life is impossible to create."
That is genuinely what I believe you said. If I am wrong, explain to me my error.
(I want to have a rational, civil discussion with you, so please do me the courtesy of not being so nasty as to hurl insults my way. Or does 'love your neighbor' mean nothing these days?)
Look at what you're saying:
1) No signs of X
2) Therefore, science says X is impossible
This is not rational thinking.
Not only that, but no life anywhere else within
spitting distance either. Nor signs of life in radio or visual spectrum's.
Or in gamma ray spectrum. Nothing anywhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?