[cal823]

You have to have intelligence to mean something to happen.
When an apple falls out of a tree, that's physics. The apple didn't mean to fall out of the tree, it just did, hence, if the apple fell just due to simple gravity, with no intelligence causing it to fall, it wasn't expressl "meant" to fall

[Starman]

Hello Starman:

I read the article you referred me to on how our solar system is miraculous... However, I couldn't get much passed the moon part. Here's some of what he says:

"As you can imagine, the probability of two planets colliding in the same solar system is extremely remote. Any "normal" collision would not have resulted in the formation of the moon, since the ejecta would not have been thrown far enough from the earth to form the moon."

He doesn't offer any SCIENCE to boost his claim. He just say's it's not so because he can't imagine the probability of two planets colliding (or it doesn't fit his preconceived notions). Therefore, it's not so……

Huh??

In fact, it's VERY probable. No, not just VERY, but VERY, VERY, probable when you consider the number of solar systems in, and the age of the Universe.

I don't think religionists or creationists like yourself have come to grips with the size of the Universe. How many solar systems do you think there are? Me?? I think there are MORE solar systems in the Universe than there are grains of sand on ALL the beaches of this planet. Given THAT number, I think a lot of things are probable.

How does religion deal with the possibility (probability) of lots of different beings in the Universe? Since probabilities play a large part in your argument, do you say there's NO probability of other intelligent life out there?

excon

You mean there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth combined. Still impressive in any case.



About the all those solar systems you are so certain exist. I wouldn't be so sure.
We have only examined a minute part with our feeble instruments and any conclusion based on that minute examination constitutes the fallacy of hasty conclusion based on too small a sample. It's like examining one microscopic corner of a room in a hotel which have thousands of millions of rooms and claiming that the conditions of that minute corner applies to the whole room and all the other billions of rooms. Not only that, but even to the billions of other undetectable rooms as well.

In any case, it's good that you require more than just a simple "I don't believe!" as proof and that you notice flaw in an argument which doesn't provide more that mere opinion. However, to draw vast conclusions based on an oversight in argumentation doesn't provide a justifiable basis for the far-reaching conclusion and all embracing categorizations you are attempting to derive from it.

Also, you should know that I am not even able to get past the atheistic abiogenesis claim which is the basis for the whole Godless story that comes after it. So if you only found that illogical statement in the whole article, that's not too bad.

Do I believe in the probability of other creatures out there? Of course. However, I don't believe that their existence depends on mere blind probability. That's where we differ. : )

BTW


Why do you think that people who believe in God are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the size of the universe. I have never met one who challenges the scientific description of the universe's size, neither on this forum or off it. So your conclusion seems quaint baseless to be exact. Unless you can show me where believers in God are challenging science on the size of the universe your idea has to remain in the opinion category.

excerpt
.

... the observable Universe is about 10 billion light years in radius. That number is obtained by multiplying how old we think the Universe is by the speed of light. The reasoning there is quite straightforward: we can only see out to that distance from which light can have reached us since the Universe began... Note: The observable Universe may be only a small part of the physical Universe. In some theories, the Universe may have expanded very fast just after the 'big bang', and only a little bit may have remained within range of detection. See, for instance: Inflation for Beginners

Measuring the Size of the Universe

So you se,e I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever with the size of the universe.

[CaptainRich]

Describable things and created things are not mutually exclusive. Or are you proposing that created things must be indescribable?

Created things are indescribable
that thing is describable
That thing wasn't created

I didn't see that analogy, at all. What I read was that because something is complex doesn't mean it was "designed." Stalactites are complex but I see no design. Crystal formation is random but still doesn't appear designed.

And the assumption that our planet was created for the sole purpose to put humans on leaves out that recent man has only been here for a few thousand years but the age of the planet is several billion years. Even if you include Neanderthals, Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , this rock in the cosmos has been left to evolve for a long, long time.

I've read where many people say the eye is too complex to have evolved. Yet a thesis, written by an optometrist, while studying Eskimos and their lack of need for corrective eyewear, many years ago, spoke to how the eye has evolved in our time. He stated that since our lives and needs have changed, so has our eyesight, in many cases. He stated that while studying those Eskimos, they didn't require eye glasses, because they were still then using their eyes to focus at longer ranges, across ice packs, and the eye skills of hunter/gatherers had been retained. But since then, we've become more sedintary and instead of chasing our food, ie: the cow, we've domesticated both plant and animal.

In my opinion, that's not designed. We have learned from our forebearers and we have evolved.

[Starman]

I didn't see that analogy, at all. What I read was that because something is complex doesn't mean it was "designed." Stalactites are complex but I see no design. Crystal formation is random but still doesn't appear designed.

I didn't say it is an analogy. I merely identified it as a premise. I also differentiated between random organization and organization which clearly indicates purpose--like the organization of the eye. For example with its, iris=shutter which regulates the amount of light [radiation] permitted to enter the eye, lens with its focusing attendant musculature permitting focusing of that radiation on the, retina which turns the radiation into nerve impulses and sends then to the optic nerve, which in turn transmits the CODED SIGNALS to the brain's occipital lobe which according to you just happens to know how to decipher them and just happens to know how to transform these neurotransmissions into images. That kind of so called merely by blind mindless chance organization.

And the assumption that our planet was created for the sole purpose to put humans on leaves out that recent man has only been here for a few thousand years but the age of the planet is several billion years. Even if you include Neanderthals, Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , this rock in the cosmos has been left to evolve for a long, long time.

I don't deny that the age of the planet is billions of years and neither do all of those believing in a creator. So your argument isn't applicable to me or to millions of others who believe in a creator and in the age of the earth as described by science.

I've read where many people say the eye is too complex to have evolved. Yet a thesis, written by an optometrist, while studying Eskimos and their lack of need for corrective eyewear, many years ago, spoke to how the eye has evolved in our time. He stated that since our lives and needs have changed, so has our eyesight, in many cases. He stated that while studying those Eskimos, they didn't require eye glasses, because they were still then using their eyes to focus at longer ranges, across ice packs, and the eye skills of hunter/gatherers had been retained. But since then, we've become more sedintary and instead of chasing our food, ie: the cow, we've domesticated both plant and animal.

Just as Darwin did, and he has been criticized by evolutionists themselves for it, you are confusing organism's potential for adaptability to environment as evolution when all it is adaptability to environment. That capability is part of an organism's genetics and has NOTHING to do with evolution as understood today.

In my opinion, that's not designed. We have learned from our forebearers and we have evolved.

And you are entitled to your particular opinion although it definitely isn't what evolutionists are teaching today. Thery prefer to believ in punctuated equilibrium now.


BTW

Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the member of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless." —*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

[Capuchin]

You seem to be fixed on this "blind chance" explanation. I have no idea wher eyou have got it from or why you still think that it how evolution or abiogenesis works when I have explained otherwise to you.

There's very little blind chance in the laws of physics, and there's very little blind chance in natural selection.

[Starman]

You seem to be fixed on this "blind chance" explanation. I have no idea wher eyou have got it from or why you still think that it how evolution or abiogenesis works when I have explained otherwise to you.

There's very little blind chance in the laws of physics, and there's very little blind chance in natural selection.

Feel free to explain again if you feel it will help clarify the issue.

[talaniman]

We go on and on and simply skirt the truth of the matter, WE DON"T know and rather than leave it at that we still wish to fill in the gaps with our own speculations.
Cows are prey, food animals we use for EATING and tastes better than bark if prepared the correct way. (BBQ)
A crazy A$$ human goes off, and kills a lot of other humans, has nothing to do with cows, period.
Mans knowledge of everything has holes in it, that we as humans tend to fill with speculations and opinions and its all well and good, except no one seems to want to give the correct factual answer..............I DON"T KNOW!. yet. Just as human evolution has replaced outmoded thinking it will again replace the blanks in our thinking, with facts if we exist long enough.

[cal823]

Yes, it is considered morrally right to kill cows
But is it ethically right? They are just as alive as we are. They are far more innocent than we are, since cows do not murder, rape, thieve, steal, hate, envy etc
They could be considered a superior race.

[CaptainRich]

yes, it is considered morrally right to kill cows
but is it ethically right? they are just as alive as we are. they are far more innocent than we are, since cows do not murder, rape, thieve, steal, hate, envy etc
they could be considered a superior race.

Morally and ethically are synonymous.

Very few species murder, rape, thieve, hate, envy etc.

Those traits belong virtually exclusively to the most dangerous species on the planet: humans.

How can cows be considered a superior race or even a superior species?
race - Definitions from Dictionary.com
species - Definitions from Dictionary.com

[firmbeliever]

As a Christian, I believe that God created humans to be superior and above all animals [Genesis], even angels; and because of this human life is precious.

Humans did not come from the same primordial muck that all other animals came from as evolutionists and alot of scientists will have you believe.


My question is to evolutionists, agnostics, atheists, perhaps non-Christians, who avidly call in to question Christian beliefs, and seem to be active on the "Christian" threads:

If you believe that humans are like other animals [a bunch of chemicals and molecules],
is the daily slaughter of cows [ which probably ranges in the thousands ] worse than the 32 dead in one day at Virginia Tech ?


If you answer 'no' then why?:confused:

Grace and Peace

Why even compare cows and human murder?

Cows,sheep,goat etc has been given to us humans by the Almighty as a food source (milk products and meat) and clothing/daily needs (wool,hide etc).

Humans being murdered and cows being slaughtered cannot be compared, especially when animals are slaughtered the Islamic way.
:: The Halal Science Center, Chulalongkorn University ::

So I do not think we should even compare a random killing spree of humans with slaughtering of cows for food ,
as food is a neccessity for survival and nutrition of the body.

[cal823]

Philophosy teaches that morals and ethics are different
One is what a particular society says is right
The other is what is truly right, like an overall truth about what is the right thing to do, that applies to all peoples, that all societies should strive to achieve.

[ukfoxboy]

Religion is something MAN MADE to keep people warm and fuzzy in their beds at night.
Where is your proof of ANY god? And don't give me the bible.. The lord of the rings was a good story too.

Everything on and including Earth is made up from the same basic elements. From a rock, to us. FACT
Get your heads out of the clouds, because your never going to be up there, unless your in a plane or a rocket.