Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[zeromeansnothing]

re no evidence no belief Post1--Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

This you applies to all people who profess supernatural beliefs. It challenges the person involved to provide evidence. My favourite one on the list is a radio active spider..Sir Hamilton and I contend that we all appeal to authority and when this is the case we are all burdened with the preposterous conclusions that logically and theologically emerge from our individual pursuits, be they science or religion.

Observe these two bedfellow posts.

re Danmark Post 2667--Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/8-8-bill ... s-exist-mi... So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

re dianaiad Post2768--Now, if you were talking to ME, rather than to Danmark, you might have a greater point. Perhaps. Or not...after all, my belief system (Mormon) teaches straight up that there is life elsewhere. A lot of it, on many different planets. Don't think that any of 'em have ever paid a visit here though.



If this is not a match made in the heavens then I fail to see a difference of position that is significant between the two.

How long will I discuss the possible forms of abiogenesis before we will be imagining Mormonic Luciferian Hoards. When we engage in the highly speculative conclusions of our beliefs the demands for proof are a mute point.

[dianaiad]

re no evidence no belief Post1--Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

This you applies to all people who profess supernatural beliefs. It challenges the person involved to provide evidence. My favourite one on the list is a radio active spider..Sir Hamilton and I contend that we all appeal to authority and when this is the case we are all burdened with the preposterous conclusions that logically and theologically emerge from our individual pursuits, be they science or religion.

Observe these two bedfellow posts.

re Danmark Post 2667--Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/8-8-bill ... s-exist-mi... So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

re dianaiad Post2768--Now, if you were talking to ME, rather than to Danmark, you might have a greater point. Perhaps. Or not...after all, my belief system (Mormon) teaches straight up that there is life elsewhere. A lot of it, on many different planets. Don't think that any of 'em have ever paid a visit here though.



If this is not a match made in the heavens then I fail to see a difference of position that is significant between the two.

How long will I discuss the possible forms of abiogenesis before we will be imagining Mormonic Luciferian Hoards. When we engage in the highly speculative conclusions of our beliefs the demands for proof are a mute point.

I don't understand the point you are attempting to make here. Danmark uses scientific discoveries...planets discovered, etc....to show that it is quite possible for life to exist elsewhere in the universe.

I have a stronger belief; yes, science tells me that it's quite possible. My religion teaches that there absolutely is. (Not that this belief is something that is important to the way we live our lives; it's more a very interesting side note since there is nothing either religious nor scientific that hints at any sort of visit from any of those other possible life-forms.)

Please pardon me if I am wrong, here, but you seem to be hinting that there is something ludicrous about the idea that there might be life elsewhere as well as here. If you aren't holding such a position, why do you keep holding it up for ridicule/comment?

If you do hold this position, what evidence do you have that there is no life elsewhere and can't possibly BE life elsewhere?

[dianaiad]

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

I really don't know what you think you are talking about, but it might enhance your education if you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

Among other things if you peruse this site you might learn that it is meaningless to make conclusions about 'truth' based on percentages of who believes what. You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):

China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64–88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46–82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%–81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54–61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43–64%[109] (53.5%)

Now, I'm no sort of a mathematician. However, I fail to see how these numbers, the majority of which reflect less than 75% of their separate populations, can add up to 75% of the world population, even considering the population of China.

Now, that's just me being picky, I realize.

[connermt]

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

I really don't know what you think you are talking about, but it might enhance your education if you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

Among other things if you peruse this site you might learn that it is meaningless to make conclusions about 'truth' based on percentages of who believes what. You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):

China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64–88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46–82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%–81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54–61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43–64%[109] (53.5%)

Now, I'm no sort of a mathematician. However, I fail to see how these numbers, the majority of which reflect less than 75% of their separate populations, can add up to 75% of the world population, even considering the population of China.

Now, that's just me being picky, I realize.

It doesn't matter as you said "...you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it."
You're stuck in believing what you want that fits with your POV - no need to introduce facts or data to you by your own admission.
Sometimes, people like you just like to argue to justify their own beliefs to themselves (unless there's another reason).

[dianaiad]

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

I really don't know what you think you are talking about, but it might enhance your education if you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

Among other things if you peruse this site you might learn that it is meaningless to make conclusions about 'truth' based on percentages of who believes what. You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):

China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64–88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46–82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%–81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54–61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43–64%[109] (53.5%)

Now, I'm no sort of a mathematician. However, I fail to see how these numbers, the majority of which reflect less than 75% of their separate populations, can add up to 75% of the world population, even considering the population of China.

Now, that's just me being picky, I realize.

It doesn't matter as you said "...you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it."

Uhmn...I didn't say that. Since I did not, does"it " still 'not matter?" Just curious.

[zeromeansnothing]

re dianaiad Post2825--I don't understand the point you are attempting to make here. Danmark uses scientific discoveries...planets discovered, etc....to show that it is quite possible for life to exist elsewhere in the universe.

Please be careful that you do not misstate his position here. I did, when I interpreted his quote as being an expression of absolute certainty given the maths involved which would logically lead to that conclusion. You state that Danmark uses scientific discoveries to show that it is quite possible when what he actually said was that it is highly likely. I am bringing this to your attention so that you do not make the same mistake I did. Highly likely is hard to pin down. JoeyKnothead found it difficult to pin down my use of the rather vague terms, greater and proper. He requested a definition.

It is difficult to understand how an expression of your own stated belief preference in your own words by either you or Danmark would expose either of you to ridicule. Ridicule was rife on this thread without my help. Thank You for your response. If you want to explain your beliefs with reference to the opening post that would interest me and if the potential of a belief in biogenesis does not produce weird and wonderful life forms, I would like to hear about that too. Is the opening post referring to religious beliefs only as it just says you?

[dianaiad]

re dianaiad Post2825--I don't understand the point you are attempting to make here. Danmark uses scientific discoveries...planets discovered, etc....to show that it is quite possible for life to exist elsewhere in the universe.

Please be careful that you do not misstate his position here. I did, when I interpreted his quote as being an expression of absolute certainty given the maths involved which would logically lead to that conclusion.

Yes. I know.

You state that Danmark uses scientific discoveries to show that it is quite possible when what he actually said was that it is highly likely.

"quite possible' and "highly likely" are considerably closer than "highly likely" and "absolute certainty." However, I will let Danmark object to my terms, if he wishes to do so.

I am bringing this to your attention so that you do not make the same mistake I did. Highly likely is hard to pin down. JoeyKnothead found it difficult to pin down my use of the rather vague terms, greater and proper. He requested a definition.

I hope that you gave him one?

It is difficult to understand how an expression of your own stated belief preference in your own words by either you or Danmark would expose either of you to ridicule.

That was my thought...which is why I asked you why you seem to be trying to ridicule either position. I could be wrong about that, which is why I asked. In fact, I'm not a bit certain what your point actually is regarding this issue.

Ridicule was rife on this thread without my help. Thank You for your response. If you want to explain your beliefs with reference to the opening post that would interest me and if the potential of a belief in biogenesis does not produce weird and wonderful life forms, I would like to hear about that too.

Define 'weird and wonderful.' Something more weird, say, than extremeophiles, tubeworms that exist off of 'smokers' at the bottom of the ocean, or the platypus? Something more wonderful than Birds of Paradise, grizzly bears or hammer head sharks?

Is the opening post referring to religious beliefs only as it just says you?

I believe that the topic has strayed from the OP a bit. However, since you want to refer to that post, my answer to it is..."define 'evidence'"...which is a repeat of the answer I gave earlier.

I think.

[olavisjo]

.

Additionally, programming the countless variables and instructions would be a monumental task.

I agree, the amount of intelligent design required is far beyond humans.

[olavisjo]

.

In response to my request for evidence i.e. the publication in which Crick debunks Darwinian Evolution...

I never claimed that there was a publication in which Crick debunks Darwinian Evolution. Read it again...

Since the time that Darwinian evolution was debunked by Francis Crick in 1958, the only tenable theory of evolution is Intelligent Design.

[zeromeansnothing]

re dianaiad Post 2830--"quite possible' and "highly likely" are considerably closer than "highly likely" and "absolute certainty."


Thank You for your reply. I would not like to have to defend the above position within the context of the maths being used by scientist to describe the universe. It would degenerate into the mathematical folly ie 1=.999999999.....

I understand your reluctance to address the opening post and I share this.
The simple question that I asked in the last post is. Does it confine its range to religious beliefs only or does it include scientific speculation. I have no belief in any of the items mentioned specifically but I would be reasonably confident that radio active spiders are plentiful around the old Chernobyl nuclear plant. There would be some in Japan as well. If enough of these creatures bit you I do not know what would happen and I do not plan on doing the research.