Well here it is. I decided to sit down tonight and finish typing this up. I know some of you read the other thread I started but just in case here is the link.

[URL="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18976&highlight=cowardly"]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18976&highlight=cowardly[/URL]

It is the first in what I would like to be a series of topics from my years of research I have commited myself to. It may be a lot of reading but if you have any interest in science and stuff then read it, you may learn something and become that much smarter in doing so.:D At least it can pass the time while you are at work ;)

[COLOR=#bbbbbb][FONT=Times New Roman]I will examine a few of the variables needed to produce a life-supporting planet and then calculate the mathematical probability of such a functional planet developing by chance alone from the big bang, or basically an accident. First I will calculate the probability for each variable individually. Then I will calculate the possibility of the variables occurring simultaneously.

Normally, the calculations for probability would be based on many factors with regard to the entire universe. However, these calculations result in extremely large numbers that are not necessary to make the point, to keep the following probabilities smaller and simpler, I will only use a few familiar examples that are based on conservative, common sense values.

First is the right kind of galaxy

In a discussion about life in space we need to realize that not all galaxies are the same. Our galaxy is a type b spiral galaxy. That means our galaxy looks like a pinwheel of medium tightness in the winding of its arms. Interestingly, spiral galaxies are rare in space. Some eighty out of every one hundred galaxies are classified as elliptical galaxies. Unlike spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies are made up of older stars and contain very little dust and only limited amounts of other solid materials. There is nothing in an elliptical galaxy from which to produce a planet, let alone to make life to put on that planet.

Similar problems exist for the other types of galaxies as well. Seyfert galaxies for example, explode every so often, shattering everything in and around them. There is good evidence available showing that well under 1 percent of all galaxies in space have the conditions necessary to sustain life. If we accept a figure of 1 percent, that means that the odds of having the right kind of galaxy by chance is 1 in 100.

Next, the right position in the galaxy

The position of our earth in the galaxy is essential to our survival. Throughout most of our galaxy, the gravitational and magnetic forces are so intense that a solar system like ours could not remain intact. Only in 2 doughnut shaped areas located outside the central bulge of the galaxy could a solar system like ours safely exist. Taking the calculated volume of our galaxy and dividing it by the volume of the area that a solar system like ours could exist gives us a value of approximately 150. Therefore, the odds of having a solar system located in one of those doughnut shaped areas is 1 in 150.

The right kind of star

Another factor we must include in our calculations relates to the kind of star needed to serve as the sun of our solar system. Of the 100 billion stars in any given galaxy, only a very small percent would be identical or nearly identical to our sun with the proper size, radiation, and temperature needed to support the kinds of systems found on the earth. For instance, the Hubble telescope revealed in 1996 that 70% of all stars are red dwarfs, 10% are white dwarfs, and 15% are K dwarfs. That means that 95% of all stars are too small and cold to support a functional solar system.

Someone might respond that this should not be a factor because a planet could simply be closer to a colder star. However, there is a limit to how close a star can be to a planet without its gravitational force destroying the planet. This limit is called Roche?s Limit. It is the closest distance in which a planet can be situated from its parent star (sun) and not be torn apart by its tidal bulges developed within its crustal skin.

Dwarf stars would require a planet to be too close to survive because that planet would have to be inside Roche?s Limit to be warm enough to support life as we know it. With the elimination of all 95% of the suspected dwarf stars from our calculation, I am left with about 5 billion (5% of 100 billion) stars in our galaxy that may include a sun like ours.

A significant number of these remaining stars would also include binary or trinary stars, blue stars, and red giants like Betelguese in the Orion constellation. Binary or trinary groups are multiple stars orbiting on another. They too, would destroy any planetary satellite like our earth, because blue stars emit too much destructive heat and radiation and red giants are much too large, they would not qualify as eligible substitutes for our sun either.

The star we need would have to be just hot enough to allow for a suitable planet to orbit outside Roche?s Limit and yet be at a distance that would sustain life-supporting temperatures. Therefore, if we generously assume that 100 million of the remaining 5 billion stars were possible replacements for our sun, we would have a galactic probability ration of 1 to 1000.

The right distance from the sun

Studies of Venus have shown that our distance from the sin is critical to the existence of life. Venus is a near twin to our earth in many ways, but its closeness to the sun and its slow backward rotation rate have left the planet with a dense cloud cover made out of sulfuric acid, causing ground temperatures to rise up to 900 degrees F. Earth distance from the sun also becomes crucial when we consider how important water is for sustaining life. For water to exist in a liquid state, a very specific temperature range must be maintained. The freezing point of water is 32 degrees F and its boiling point is 212 degrees F. This requires that our distance from the sun has to be a distance that will keep the average ground temp well above 32 degrees F at night and significantly below 212 degrees F during the day.

If we were any closer to the sun than we are, all our water would be in the vapor state. Of we were any farther away from the sun that we are our water would exist only as solid ice. Since there are 10 planets in our solar system (counting the asteroid belt as a planet for math purposes), only one of these ten is at the right distance for water to continuously exist as a liquid. Based on this, we could conservatively say that the odds of having a planet the right distance from the sun are 1 in 10.

The right planetary tilt

Another essential design feature is the tilt of inclination of the earth?s axis. This tilt, along with the distribution of landmasses and the chemical properties of water, is also critical to maintaining a reliable range of temperature on the earth?s surface. Our summer in the Northern Hemisphere occurs when we are farther away from the sun. During summer in the Southern Hemisphere the earth is closer to the sun than it was during our Northern Hemisphere summer. It is evident that there would be a great deal more heat accumulated in the Southern Hemisphere during its summer that there would be in the Northern Hemisphere. This is, in fact, what would happen if there were not two significant design features incorporated within the earth?s physical makeup to prevent it ? the distribution of landmasses and the heat retention properties of land and water.

The Right Land-and-Water Distribution

A casual look at any world map shows that most of the landmass of planet earth is in the Northern Hemisphere. This naturally leaves most of the Southern Hemisphere covered by water. Water has a large heat capacity, and land does not. This means that water both absorbs and releases a of heat slowly. Landmasses, on the other hand, do just the opposite.

Therefore, when the Southern Hemisphere is close to the sun, most of the sun's heat is dissipated when it reflects off the water. Some of the heat that the water does absorb is circulated to the colder Northern Hemisphere by ocean currents. If water were not concentrated in the Southern Hemisphere, this heat dissipation and transfer system would not work.

These two properties, working together with the earth's tilted axis, help to moderate global temperatures. The northern landmass area absorbs maximum solar energy when the earth is farthest from the sun, while the southern waters both store and reflect heat when the earth is closest.

It is because of earth's tilt and the complimentary heat retaining properties of land and water that we experience the four season and other climatic variations essential to life. Since these combined features are unique to planet earth, the odds of them occurring in our solar system are again 1 in 10

More Right Conditions For Earth

Mars has demonstrated for us what a thin atmosphere does to help shape a plant's surface. Without a large solitary moon, a planet cannot maintain the tilt of its axis critical to the mixing of atmospheric gases. That is another factor that has apparently rendered Mars inhospitable for life. Our studies of the atmospheres of other planets have proven how carefully designed our earth is, with some twenty-six different atmospheric layers, each serving a separate function essential to preserving life. In addition, charged particles raining down from space, from the sun, and from the other stars are repelled by the earth's magnetic field. This may be our most important shielding device next to the atmosphere itself. Again, using our solar system as a basis, the odds of these three features happening by chance are 1 in 10, respectively. We also have discovered that our super massive planets of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune passively serve a vital purpose as they use their huge gravitational fields to draw comets away from possible collision with earth. A good look at the moon says it grabs some too. We give this a very conservative probability of 1 in 40 since there really is no way to tell how many comets have been diverted.

No life-bearing planet or system could exist near a black hole. As has already been mentioned, because of a black hole's tremendous gravitational field, not even light can escape from a black hole. Our only evidence of its existence is we see matter being swallowed up by it. If a black hole came near a star like our sun, it would instantly destroy both the sun and our earth, along with all the other planets in our solar system. Again we give this a conservative number of 1 in 250.

Probabilities For Chance Producing A Life-Supporting Planet

At this point you might be thinking that these odds are well within the realm of possibility, so what have I proven This is true. All of these events could have happened individually. In the case of a life-supporting planet, however, they all must be happening at the same time and place, which changes things in a considerable way. In order to appreciate how small the probabilities become when so many events must take place simultaneously, we need to review the basic rules of probability. If I have a deck of cards that is thoroughly shuffled (to add that extra bit of chance), and I ask you to draw the ace of spades blindly from the deck, the probability is 1 out of 52 or 1/52. Now suppose I asked you to draw the ace of spades twice in a row, shuffling the deck each time.

In other words, you draw the ace, I shuffle it back into the deck, and you draw it again, twice in a row. What are the odds now? They now become 1/52 x 1/52 or 1/2,704. When these two have to occur in a row, you multiply the individual probabilities together. The odds of drawing the same ace four times in a row would be 1/52 x 1/52 x 1/52 x 1/52 which equals, 1/7,311,616. Now that is just four times in a row. So now look again at the probabilities listed here and then figure out the mathematical probability of them all occurring at the same time and place.

Right kind of galaxy............................................ ..1 in 100 Being in the right place in the galaxy.......................1 in 150 Having the right kind of star as a sun......................1 in 1000 Being the right distance from the star (sun).............1 in 10 Having the proper planetary mass..........................1 in 10 Having the proper planetary spin............................1 in 10 Having the proper planetary tilt...............................1 in 10 Having comet sweeping planets..............................1 in 40 Not being near a black hole....................................1 in 250 Having a large solitary moon...................................1 in 10 Possessing a magnetic field capable of shielding........1 in 10 Now do the math and we come up with..................1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000

A number that any logical thinking human can clearly see is beyond any chance of accident.

This figure only includes conditions needed to SUPPORT life on earth. It does not include all the other precise chemical balances needed in the composition of the atom and the elements making up matter. And it does not include the factors needed for life itself, as demonstrated in its complex chemical codes of DNA and RNA.

Now lets put this a little more in perspective. With this small example of 11 necessary characteristics used here, we find the odds for a chance occurrence are far greater than anything we humans would care to bet our lives on. For example, parachute clubs have often stated that the odds of surviving a fall without a parachute from 10,000 feet are one in ten million. If offered a billion tax-free dollars to jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, with the proviso that you had to live to collect the money, would you accept the offer? Not if you were sane. The odds of surviving are much too small for any rational person to accept. Yet the odds of there being an accidental planet hospitable for life using only the few parameters here considered are 15 billion times less likely than surviving a free--fall from 10,000 feet. With odds like this, you have to wonder why anyone would choose chance over design. It seems that the evidence clearly testifies to the intervention of a personal, intelligent planner and designer, whom the Bible calls the God of Heaven and earth. In future posts I will consider even more conditions needed for life. When all of these essentials are analyzed, the odds of the existence of God become so great that they far exceed not only the total number of possible stars, but even the atoms that make up the cosmos.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: Some of my research as I promised

thats assuming life is only carbon based...

Re: Some of my research as I promised

i still have no proof of design... just an assumption that it's greater than one in 150,000,000,000,000,000. show me proof

Re: Some of my research as I promised

even if the likelyhood is greater than the figure you suggest, isn't the universe vast enough to allow for that probability to occur many times over?

Re: Some of my research as I promised

CDJ life exists on earth outside our own tollerences of what we perceive as habitable or life sustaining . It only takes a flicker of life to begin the process of adaptation it has been proved for species in the artic or species in the very depths of our oceans surviving off volcanic vents . Don't forget also their are species in the desert subjected to twice the temperature we consider normal and then at night they have to survive at temperatures 50c below what it is at high sun . they have adapted overcome . the chances of u rolling 100 consecutive 6's on a dice are 6 to the power of 100, not got a scientific calculator with me but it is a hugly improbable number, but if u roll that dice every minute of every day for a milenia it will eventualy happen , this is what makes life happen [B][U]TIME ,[/U][/B]odds are always evened out over time . Einstien someone who some ppl believe is the greatest mind to ever walk this planet said of quantom physics "god dosn't play dice" . howeva as casino's have figured out if u use time to ure advantage then odd's even out . the odds u equated assume all planets suns and galaxies were created at the same time ( hence you pointing at old stars in other galaxies) but almost all stars have a goldilocks moment when they could possibly support life . and by moment i mean a billion years . all science can be twisted and there are a few that support your theories on a mystical hand shaping our lives . But there are 1000 times more supporting my view . i play the odds just like god and i'm going for the dead cert

Re: Some of my research as I promised

Also You go on about atoms . this is the only area i actualy believe there to be a god ( my personal belief ) mass had to originate from somewhere . space is there to be created . where did this mass come from? . this is the only thing that leads me to believe in something mystical . but my personal feelings are that the mass we are created from could be god . fuck knows, it is a question you cannot answer . mass precedes time . time precedes man . the main stasis of my argument about religion is the vastness of the cosmos ( you yourself have stated this in your post cdj ) but according to most religeuos teachings we are so very important to god . so why are we stuck on a irrelevant speck of dust floating in a not too spectatular galaxy with a midget of a sun in a poxy lil solar system no where near the center of the universe . and also why are stars still being in born in nebulars if god put his feet up 30,000 years ago after spending 5 sevenths of his working life creating us . Ure book is dreadfully wrong or the facts are

Re: Some of my research as I promised

Ever done any extinsive research on the big bang. Most people only know a super small fraction of the theory of the big bang.

Where did the matter come from?

Theorist suggest that matter just caused itself to exist. Spontaneous existence. You can not even imagine what absolute nothing would be like because we are finite beings and absolute nothing is infinite.

Has time always existed? What was the measure of time before man started using his measurements.

This is something the theorists use to measure. It is called Planck time.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ?quantum of time?, [B]the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning[/B], and is equal to 10-43 seconds. [B]No smaller division of time has any meaning[/B]. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that [B]the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds.[/B]

Can you explain what negative time is?

Ok, so here we have man trying to put a measurement on something he can not grasp as it is out of his finite understanding. Notice what I put into bold type.

If time is infinite in its makeup then how can man say that 10 to the negative 43rd power is the smallest measurement of time?

Ever wonder why it is called the [B]theory of the big bang[/B]?

[B][U]theory[/U][/B] A noun 1 hypothosis, possibility, theory [I]a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory[/I]

You can not make up negative time in a scientific test.

It is a theory because it can not be proven. If you believe science to be your true guide then you are also basing it in faith as one who believes God created all does.

I guess it is going to come down to this:

Put all that you think you know about science and God aside and ask yourself one question, the most basic fundamental question that partains to creation -

Is it truly possible for something to create itself out af absolute nothingness?

Re: Some of my research as I promised

the bible isn't fact either, buddy. it's a story.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

Cowardly do you only read ure own posts ? read the one above ure own for fucks sake . and as for my research on this subject to even compare u have to read alot and i mean alot of books on this subject . it is one of my hobbies . brian greene- the elegant universe would be a good starting point for you but if that's too advanced go for a dumbed down stephen hawkins book . this is something i study with almost as much passion as u put into your bible . know ure stuff before you take me on on this stuff boyo . i don't need to quote from books or drag scrypts of web pages . this is the main basis for my anti religous beliefs and i know my shit

Re: Some of my research as I promised

by the way i don't know if u noticed but i also have the ability to put in 2 lines what it takes u to put into 30 . another thing u should look into

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=Kobe]even if the likelyhood is greater than the figure you suggest, isn't the universe vast enough to allow for that probability to occur many times over?[/quote]yeah that's what i'm thinkin'.. i've heard that scientists estimate the total number of stars in the universe to be somewhere around 10 billion trillion. which is a lot more than 150,000,000,000,000,000.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

^^ exactly. Also CDJ, I don't think you're giving life the credit it deserves. As I think someone else mentioned, lifeforms thrive in a host of different environments here on earth alone. There are creatures that live in active volcanoes, FFS. Life doesn't emerge only when the conditions are just-ever-so-perfect. It's the other way around. Life tries to work around the roughest conditions to continue.

I have a feeling that if were to really get in there and poke around, we'd probably find other life here in this solar system alone, either on another planet or a moon of a planet. I'm not talking about intelligent life, mind you, but bacteria, fungus, plants, single-celled organisms or possibly something we can't even conceive. Wouldn't surprise me at all. I'm not a kook, I just think it's arrogant to think we're the only lifeforms out there. Maybe our own SS is too close, but there's other life out there somewhere. Lots of it.

None of this disproves the existence of God, of course -- but nothing that you're saying proves the existence of God, either...

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=bart_smastard]Cowardly do you only read ure own posts ? read the one above ure own for fucks sake . and as for my research on this subject to even compare u have to read alot and i mean alot of books on this subject . it is one of my hobbies . brian greene- the elegant universe would be a good starting point for you but if that's too advanced go for a dumbed down stephen hawkins book . this is something i study with almost as much passion as u put into your bible . know ure stuff before you take me on on this stuff boyo . i don't need to quote from books or drag scrypts of web pages . this is the main basis for my anti religous beliefs and i know my shit[/quote]

I was typing that post when you were typing yours so I did not get to read your post as it was not up there when I pushed reply

so no need to insult berfore you know the scoop

as far as reading and research

1. You have no idea what, or how much I have read

2. I am not taking you on I am putting things up there for people (yes other people than just you) to read and thnink on.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=influx]yeah that's what i'm thinkin'.. i've heard that scientists estimate the total number of stars in the universe to be somewhere around 10 billion trillion. which is a lot more than 150,000,000,000,000,000.[/quote]

never take an estimate for a fact, always remember that it is an estimate

Re: Some of my research as I promised

About the big bang theory, black holes, which are mathematically prove to exist, eventually collapse down to a singularity, which is precisely what is believed to be the origin of the big bang. If huge amounts of matter can condense down to a single point, why would it be so hard to fathom the converse?

This is a very provocative subject, and the bottom line is nobody knows the answer. That is the part you seem to be overlooking in your convictions as you work backwards from your conclusion.

Since you like definitions, "faith" is defined as believing in what cannot be proven. Various sciences including biology, quantum physics, and astronomy have shown much of what we cannot conceptualize based on our everyday experience can indeed still be proven, so I'd avoid using the word faith along with science. Remember, the world being round was once a theory as well. Mankind is still relatively in the dark ages as far as our discovery of creation goes, many breakthroughs still await. Personally I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

well for one thing, what do you classify as life ? anything that walks around with a beating heart ? what about plants in this case ? I think a good point to start the debate would be are there any planets or cosmic bodies out there that have the ability to sustain at least some form of intelligent life capable of communicating with other life forms (for the sake of this debate, lets say us).

You go back to the Drake Equation, plugin the numbers, and get a ridiculous number of extremely slim odds. But in the grandiosa of the universe in terms of size + the number of planets that could inherit intelligent life..... the chances of us meeting them with out technological prowess is NONE (unless they drop in and announce themselves).

So where are we going again with this thread ? :p

Re: Some of my research as I promised

going in any direction

it is just to provoke thought

Re: Some of my research as I promised

Is this thread not provoking thought in what you actualy believe in CDJ? If you are delving into books on the big bang and if you are also quoting from these books you must repsect what they say . Is this thread actualy changing ure opinion on the book of genesis ? . The part that says god created this planet and all that lives upon it 30,000 years ago. ( 18billion i think is the actual age of the universe) also if god created all this for us it would be perfect and last for eternity , and not just have 1.5billion years left before our own sun starts to die and swallows up our own solar system . also why are stars still bing born if on that first day of creation god completed his work making the heavens. many christians believe more in the big bang than they do in creation . does this make them less righteous than you or just less blinkered ? . The biggest and most difficult question mankind can ask is where did we come from? why are we here? . religion gives some ppl the answer but it takes blind faith to ignore the science disproving what those religions say

Re: Some of my research as I promised

Universe is actually 13.5 billion years old (give or take a few 1000) and as for God creating the universe and everything on it.... I go back to my post in your other thread about strange facts....

The earth is a little over 3 billion years old and there has been at least some form of life on the earth for the last 980 million years..... then what was it 50,000 years ago that made the apes (if Darwin was right) stand upright, start walking around like humans in addition to possessing some form of comprehensible intelligence. Was God just not there for the previous 979,950,000 years ?

[B]EDIT:[/B] And if it wasnt God..... what was this external factor that caused it ?? Aliens visiting earth seeing the potential we may have several tens of thousands of years in the future ? To which I go back to my original thoughts from a similar thread in MS V1.0

is God only just a race of super intelligent / super advanced Alien species thats responsible for some sort of creation all over the universe ? But they too would be bound to the limitations of the universe right ? I mean you cant alter EVERY SINGLE THING there is to alter..... maybe there is..... and that is probably what we mean as God

Re: Some of my research as I promised

I guess not. And in a way, for Christians history didn't start untill when their books says I did. Over here we call that 'eyepatches'.

Belief in itself is not a real big problem, but to deny all that has been proven so far is just ridiculous.

does anyone remember that last scene in 'Men In Black'?? The one where the camera zooms out, only to reveal that our galaxy is only one of many others in a marble, which is put in a bag with a few others by some alien lifeform?

For all I care, that could be the truth...

Re: Some of my research as I promised

afar from being a marble thats put into a bag.... the reference to being one of several 100 billion is fairly accurate.... there are several 100 billion solar systems in a galaxy and several 100 billion galaxies in the universe.... the magnitude of the size of the universe is incredibly well depicited during the start of the movie "Contact".

The pull back - starting from a satellites view of North America heading out past distant Galaxies is not only breathtaking.... just makes you realize how really insignificant you are living on this little blue dot

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[IMG]http://www.crayoncastles.com/i/eapillows/No_Girls_Allowed_Hanger_HNG-52b.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Some of my research as I promised

were u meaning to post in the Nonsense thread ?

Re: Some of my research as I promised

E my previous post was a 6 A.M.er shutting off comp before i headed off to work and what's 4 and a half billion years between friends anyway;) . Anyhows i have never disputed there being a god at some stage in the birth of this universe . This thread is about what religous teachings say about the creation of the stars our planet and ourselves.The universe is so perfect for creating life as we know it so it must have had an intelligent hand shaping things .. WRONG .. maybe :lol: . As we see time and time again life is a formidable force that strives to survive and strives for an upper hand against those around it . If the universe was different then lifeforms would be different but i would put money on life still bing created by the collision and interaction of whateva material there was . Life is a persistant force that strives to be bigger and better . But so many other things we don't consider to be living are as well . A galaxy is created by a high density of matter pulling as much material as it can towards it 's center ( this is simplified id'e have to quote from books and this post would be longer than one of CJD's) absorbing as much energy as it can to create interaction and change within itself . All galaxies are unique and are constantly changing and bringing new life ( suns) into existence . So are these alive ? Suns are the same they drag as much matter towards them as possible and strive to be the bigest most dominant object they can be . It is the nature of things to want to grow and be bigger. Things also strive to change and not stand still , demanding to dominate and become more than they are . A large white dwarf star because it is the biggest in the neighbourhood and fed up of it's life being stagnant will grow and grow swollowing everything it can then when it can grow no more will implode and create a black hole giving it'self enough gravity and power to drag more and more matter towards it because it wants to interact with more and more matter ( i know this all sounds daft and what could it have to do with living organisms but i am trying to say that change, interaction and growing is what living bodies want to do ) this is how life creates itself it just takes time/energy/and matter . damn i seem to have lost what it was i was supposed to be saying now ..fuck ... wait a sec i know . :D . Life may seem like a miracle but then again winning the lottery with odds over 14 million to 1 is aswell but someone wins it everyweek, and if u played it everyweek for 400 million years the odds are in ure favour that ude win it too . Long shots and improbable odds shorten over time making them almost certainties . But if the founders of most religions realy had a one to one with god and he explained what to put in the book that represents his thoughts and conditions . THEN WHY THE FUCK DID HE LIE TO THEM ABOUT CREATION..

encryption it was 90,000 years ago that the first human remains found date back to . but what's 40,000 years between friends :)

Re: Some of my research as I promised

Lets examine facts here and not our feelings.

There is no scientific evidence that the earth is 15 billion years old. It is an estimate.

Find me any and I mean any scientist that will tell you that all scientific explanations for creation and the universe are not theories.

Some of you seem to forget or just do not know that a theory means someone is guessing about something.

Perhaps someone needs to stop using their feelingas and hatred toward religion to guide their thoughts and use a little common sense.

Some people would not know the truth on a subject if it were a bomb exploding in their living room.

I will continue to endure the insults. They do not mean anything except that some people need to mature a little more. Most people stopped insulting others after high school. It is called respecting others. Maybe more people above the age of 18 should try it.

Some people say that to get respect you have to give it but, I say respect everyone even if they do not respect you, because in doing so the true charcter of each person is magnified, glorified, or shamed.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=cowardly dj] Perhaps someone needs to stop using their feelingas and hatred toward religion to guide their thoughts and use a little common sense.

Some people would not know the truth on a subject if it were a bomb exploding in their living room.

I will continue to endure the insults. They do not mean anything except that some people need to mature a little more. Most people stopped insulting others after high school. It is called respecting others. Maybe more people above the age of 18 should try it.

Some people say that to get respect you have to give it but, I say respect everyone even if they do not respect you, because in doing so the true charcter of each person is magnified, glorified, or shamed.[/quote]

Fucking hell yet another spitting out of the dummy post by cowardly. Why is it when ppl arn't agreeing with you they are being immature and stupid ? And as for not knowing the truth if a bomb exploded in your living room nonsense you are the one going on about facts from scientists. But if their views arn't being twisted to suite what you think they are falsehoods ? Do you actualy discuss or only dictate ? You go on about respect , but you have insulted more ppl on here in 3 months than anyone else ( me included) and at least when i do it my tongue is in cheek and it's half in jest

Re: Some of my research as I promised

Once again the point of my post was completely missd. Let me break it down as simple as I can

I have not asked anyone to agree with me. I have put it out there as food for thought.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[QUOTE=cowardly dj]Lets examine facts here and not our feelings.

There is no scientific evidence that the earth is 15 billion years old. It is an estimate.

Find me any and I mean any scientist that will tell you that all scientific explanations for creation and the universe are not theories.

Some of you seem to forget or just do not know that a theory means someone is guessing about something.

Perhaps someone needs to stop using their feelingas and hatred toward religion to guide their thoughts and use a little common sense.

Some people would not know the truth on a subject if it were a bomb exploding in their living room.

I will continue to endure the insults. They do not mean anything except that some people need to mature a little more. Most people stopped insulting others after high school. It is called respecting others. Maybe more people above the age of 18 should try it.

Some people say that to get respect you have to give it but, I say respect everyone even if they do not respect you, because in doing so the true charcter of each person is magnified, glorified, or shamed.[/QUOTE]

Dude, in disregard of your last post:

C14 dating techniques are wuite accurate: the eath's age is not just a wild, guess, there is a margin, but so small that it is quite accurate to say this planet is almost 5 bln years old (not over 3, as -e- stated).

A large part of the evolution theory has already been backed by substantial [I]evidence[/I], please do not ever forget that. So far science is ahead of religion in proving it's point. All 'you' have is a book, 'we' have hard fact data. If the fact that science cannot prove the originin of life is enough reason for you to say it is 'wrong', then let me remind you of the fact that your assurance of our original hails from a book, not from any reasearch or whatever, allright? You'll have to trust that the people who wrote it weren't just a few dillusional attention-whores. When it comes to evidence the evolutionist have a lot more to back up their story than any religious person.

Now if your throw in the argument the scientists are only human: yes, that is very true. But at least a lot of scientific formula's, theories and whatnot can actually be proven. They are facts. They can be checked over and over again, in the past, present and future. The bible, Qur'an, Thora and such cannot. They have been produced at one point in history, never to be disputed or revised/rewritten again.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=cowardly dj]Lets examine facts here and not our feelings.[/quote]

Yes, lets.

[quote=cowardly dj] There is no scientific evidence that the earth is 15 billion years old. It is an estimate. [/quote]

So when a builder says to you that he estimates that some work will take 3 days to do, do you tell him that this is not scientific fact? No you accept that with his years of experience he is able to project the time that he will spend doing a job reasonably accurate, yet he is also aware that he cannot predict every single parameter to the nth degree. Yet he knows that his estimate will be reasonably accurately to within a predictable margin. That is what an estimate is. You seem to be confusing the word "estimate" with the word "guess".

[quote=cowardly dj]Find me any and I mean any scientist that will tell you that all scientific explanations for creation and the universe are not theories.

Some of you seem to forget or just do not know that a theory means someone is guessing about something.[/quote]

This is the difference between science and faith. Yes, a scientist will accept that his explanations are theories, but these are theories based on known parameters that serve to explain facts as we are able to observe them. Any scientist will accept the possibility that he may subsequently be proven wrong. This is the very nature of learning. People used to believe that the Universe revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat. The main opponents of these theories have consistently been the church, and as known facts and knowledge have increased, so these theories have been demonstrated to be false.

Theory does not mean someone guessing about something (struggling very hard here not to personally insult you). [I]Guessing[/I] means that someone is guessing about something. When someone theorizes, they take known facts and extrapolate them to make scenarios that fit their observations. Then they work to discover proofs or better theories.

[quote=cowardly dj]Perhaps someone needs to stop using their feelingas and hatred toward religion to guide their thoughts and use a little common sense.

Some people would not know the truth on a subject if it were a bomb exploding in their living room.[/quote]

Try looking in the mirror some day.

[quote=cowardly dj]I will continue to endure the insults. They do not mean anything except that some people need to mature a little more. Most people stopped insulting others after high school. It is called respecting others. Maybe more people above the age of 18 should try it.[/quote]

Trying to play the martyr doesn't do you any favours Cowardly. I've seen very little in the way of insults here, only people thinking about what you've written, then rebutting with their own thoughts. This in one of the key ways that learning increases, but only if the person who kicked off the thread doesn't bawl his eyes out and bemoan the fact other people actually dare disagree every time that someone argues.

And lets not forget here - the Bible wasn't handed down to us from the heavens. It was written by people who felt that they had something to tell, then compiled, edited, censored and translated by people who had their own, mostly political, agendas. If Jesus (who almost certainly existed as a real person) had any idea what St Paul was going to do with his name, then I wonder if he might have gone about things differently???

Re: Some of my research as I promised

^^ eloquently put ^^

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=NastyD]This is the difference between science and faith. Yes, a scientist will accept that his explanations are theories, but these are theories based on known parameters that serve to explain facts as we are able to observe them. Any scientist will accept the possibility that he may subsequently be proven wrong. [/quote]

Whereas religious docterine blindly soliders on regardless of what other facts, theories or alternate faiths suggest.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=cowardly dj]never take an estimate for a fact, always remember that it is an estimate[/quote]right, and i have. even at an estimate, 10 billion trillion is a whole hell a lot bigger than 150 quadrillion i think it was. remember 10 billion trillion is 10 billion trillions... which is prolly like 10 billion times that of 150 quadrillion... which makes for a lot of possibilties for life in the universe.

[quote=cowardly dj]There is no scientific evidence that the earth is 15 billion years old. It is an estimate.[/quote]i don't think anyone ever said that. i think you might be refering to the approximate age of the universe. it's fairly widely accepted that the earth is estimated at being about 4-5 billion years old and the universe being 12-18 billion years old depending on the instrument used.

[quote=cowardly dj]Once again the point of my post was completely missd. Let me break it down as simple as I can

I have not asked anyone to agree with me. I have put it out there as food for thought.[/quote]we understand that. you don't have to "break-it-down" for us. you're not as smart as you think you are.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

To be honnest guys CDJ has a belief he deeply and profoundly believes in it goes against the majority of ppl's views and logic but he has found something that makes him happy . Because he dosn't need these beliefs proving to himself and in his heart these facts came from a higher and more intelligent being than we shall ever meet , his views seem arrogant dismissive of others . Also when he sees an element in science that could somehow aid him in getting the message over to us he seizes upon it and dismisses those parts that don't suit . On his original post his figures do add up if you are saying all life is the same , all life needs the same conditions and all life was created at the same time , on the same kind of planet in the same kind of solar system under the same kind of sun . He mentioned the ideal conditions for water to exist in it's fluid state though somehow forgot to mention the moons of jupiter where there is plenty of fluid water under glaziers of ice . And that's just in our own solar system . He mentioned old stars and galxies not being able to support life . But those galaxies and stars were as young as ours once . He mentions spiral and eliptical galaxies . Though those eliptical galaxies were spiral until they came close to another galaxy. New glaxies being born all the time and new stars are born every minute of everyday . Our position in this galaxy hasn't always been were it is and 1.1 billion years ago when the very first lychens and algie spawned on this floating rock we deffinately wern't where we are now . So position is not so vital either . The list of counter arguments go on and on and on and on . Though as i state cdj's figures were right .

It's just life as we know has a will of it's own , molecules/atoms protons/neurons/electrons/muons and quarks ( prob goes even smaller we are still finding out ) all want to react with eachother they have forces that make them oppose but other forces that want to keep them near . It is in natures nature to have these kind of relationships it goes from the massive to the miniscule . And that was how life was created here and maybe a billion other places. some ppl think life starting was a miracle , i believe it was inevitable

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[QUOTE=influx]you don't have to "break-it-down" for us. you're not as smart as you think you are.[/QUOTE]

"break-it-down" :ROFLMAO: I fuckin love it!

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[QUOTE=cowardly dj]Now lets put this a little more in perspective. With this small example of 11 necessary characteristics used here, we find the odds for a chance occurance are far greater than anything we humans would care to bet our lives on. For example, parachute clubs have often stated that the ods of surviving a fall withourt a parachute from 10,000 feet are one in ten million. If offered a billion tax free dollars to jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a prachute, with the proviso tht you had to live to collect the money, would you accept the offer? Not if you were sane. The odds of surviving are much too small foar an y rational person to accept. Yet the odds of there being an accidental planet hospitable for life using only the few parameters here considered are 15 billion times less likely than surviving a free--fall from 10,000 feet. With odds like this, you have to wonder why anyone would choose chance over design. It seems that the evidence clearly testifies to the intervention of a personal, intelligent planner adn designer, whom the Bible calls the God of Heaven and earth. In future posts I will consider even more conditins needed for life. When all of these essentials are analyzed, teh odds of teh exostence of God become so great that they far exceed not only the total number of possible stars, but even the atoms that make up the cosmos.[/QUOTE]

OK, now that everyone in the office has left my cube and we've all stopped laughing from reading this post, I'll just put my two cents in. Since Cowardly hasn't responded to several posts of mine in the past where I've reached out in an effort to at least agree to disagree, I see no sense in not deciding to be devil's advocate. (Duh, I already chose to do that when I signed up to be gay)

Lets just say that it were statistically provable or possible that a "creator" is more likely than "shit happening" and in that being the "safer bet" to "choose"....

And so this choice not only involves "eyepatching" or "blind faith", but also involves a lot of rules or "commandments" that at some times don't make a lot of sense, and at others make perfect sense (it makes perfect sense that the Bible puts all the power and control into the hands of hetero-man and puts almost all of the fear and consequences in front of the faces and in the back of the minds of everyone else..... Perfect sense as to who wrote it/would benefit from it). Additionally, in following all of the rules one has to "worship" the same creator who made things possible such as plague, war, hatred, loneliness, depression, Jock Itch, and George W Bush. Granted, all of the wonderful things that exist are made by the same "dude", but given the cruelty of the more fucked up shit versus the sad # of miracles these days (? lazy or inconsiderate/Selfish ?) I'm not likely to start worshipping at any time soon.

And even if the worship and the obedience are executed flawlessly ( I mean like even if the chinese judge agrees) why on earth would you choose to sepnd the rest of eternity stuck in this guy's house? Can you imagine what twisted shit would be in store for you there? Like, what is gonna be included in this guy's idea of fun, and is his Idea of salvation and harmony even remotely close to that of mine? And finally still, think of all the people who are gonna be there that you KNOW you totally don't want to even know about let alone spend eternity with. I mean yeah, a lot of them are really nice, but nice and boring arent mutually exclusive. So until the existence of the devil and the proof that this "Hades" is really such a horrible place and that I'm forced to choose the former or the latter, I'm not gonna go with the god from the book... Who wants to party?

Re: Some of my research as I promised

Kinda strange that Katrina devastated NO the week of the gay celebration festivities

Press on people... the truth will be know, but all too late for most.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=cowardly dj]Kinda strange that Katrina devastated NO the week of the gay celebration festivities

Press on people... the truth will be know, but all too late for most.[/quote]

ummm you're a motherfucker for even suggesting that. and as a catholic, you should know that your religion says god doesnt interfere in our lives, he lets us make our own choices...without that, people wouldnt have the freedom to 'chose' him or not. Katrina hitting new orleans was a random act of nature, not god punishing people for being gay, moron.

ps. i find it highly ironic that self-professed religious people, such as yourself, tend to be some of the most hateful, biggoted bastards on the planet. peace and love for everyone (unless they dont follow the bible, then they should be killed by a hurricane, right?)

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=day_for_night]ps. i find it highly ironic that self-professed religious people, such as yourself, tend to be some of the most hateful, biggoted bastards on the planet. peace and love for everyone (unless they dont follow the bible, then they should be killed by a hurricane, right?)[/quote]

Check your Bible and tell me

Re: Some of my research as I promised

[quote=day_for_night]and as a catholic[/quote]

BTW in case you were under the impression that I was Catholic that is not correct.

If that is not what you were saying then nevermind.

Re: Some of my research as I promised

well whatever the hell you are, you've got some skewed views. and ya, i've read the bible, i went to catholic school for 13 years.

old teastement = dont worship god, you're going to hell

new teastement = god loves you no matter what

bit of a conflict, but most people would say the new teastement is alot more compassionate, something you've obviously skipped...