Atari X heard from echicken about Proving God? on 01-13-10

And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesis e>that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.

He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It is multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand that.
It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

Just I can't prove that anyone is not the room next to me unless I can see into
that room in some way.


--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...The average raindrop falls at 7mph
þ Synchronet þ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to echicken on Thu Jan 14 2010 12:44:00

And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesi e>that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.

He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand t It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

You're absolutely right and I agree with you completely.

If you define God as a metaphysical thing, then his existence can neither be proven nor disproven by science. My mistake was in assuming that, by testing the existence of God with this scientific process, he was keeping the experiment fair by allowing for the possibility of physical proof, defining God as a being with physical properties. Looking back it seems he was not defining God in this way, as many of his other statements would fail to make sense if he defined God as anything but a metaphysical concept.

In fact, looking back upon it, it seems that a lot of what he said is very confusing. He describes a paradox in which God can only be God if he is a metaphysical, faith-only, unprovable being, so if you set out to prove God's existence and *found* physical proof, you would unseat God from the realm of metaphysics therefore proving him not to be God. Then he turns around and says that a lack of physical proof is somehow a disproof of a metaphysical God, when if God was metaphysical there couldn't possibly be physical proof.

It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

This would only be true if we all agreed to define "God" as a wholly metaphysical thing. One possible source of confusion here is that we don't all believe, or disbelieve, in the same concept of God.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to Atari X on Wed Jan 13 2010 09:05 am

Curt heard from Atari X about Proving God? on 01-13-10

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you don't really understand AX>the scientific method works. Or, at least you aren't revealing that know AX>in your post.

OK asshole, so it's OK to posit shit we can't see or have a prayer of EVER proving like extra dimensions. And I agree that it is OK. It's not repeatabl provable but it is somehow 'scientific' even though that defies the very defintion of what science as what is usually defined by idiots like yourself

However, to posit that there is some autonomous intellegence in those dimens acting in some fasion to cause effect here is somehow not scientific and is frowned upon eventhough its the best explanation for what we see.

That is bulllshit and all of your holier then thou replies won't change that And poeple are waking up to this.

People are waking up to believing in a Magic Grandpa who controls the universe and will spank us if we don't do as he says?

No, there's no God, there's no proof of God, there can be no proof of God. God exists on faith alone - in short, he doesn't exist. Trying to say that there's any scientific validity for an omniscient superbeing responsible for the creation of the universe is totally ludicrous.

God was created from whole cloth for the purpose of keeping the ignorant and easily led in line with guilt and repression.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to echicken on Thu Jan 14 2010 12:44 pm

Atari X heard from echicken about Proving God? on 01-13-10

And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothesi e>that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.

He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand t It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

Just I can't prove that anyone is not the room next to me unless I can see i that room in some way.

I think you are under the delusion that "metaphysical" means something
concrete and tangible - but it is really just a blanket term for things that we don't understand in a physical sense.

Like ESP, Witchcraft, and, of course, Christianity.

Just because it's a BIG WORD doesn't give you any more credibility than you had before you used it.


---
þ

Re: Proving God?
By: Atari X to Curt on Fri Jan 15 2010 08:38:01

I think you are under the delusion that "metaphysical" means something concrete and tangible - but it is really just a blanket term for things that don't understand in a physical sense.

You clearly didn't read Curt's message if this is your reply. He was very obviously using the term "metaphysical" to describe something intangible and beyond the physical realm. And I tend to agree with his definition of the term than yours.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Trying to say that there
any scientific validity for an omniscient superbeing responsible for the AX>creation of the universe is totally ludicrous.

No one is doing that.


--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...Warning: Do not reu

People are waking up to believing in a Magic Grandpa who controls the univers
and will spank us if we don't do as he says?

The idea that anyone who might disagree with your dogmatic metaphysical views can only be a religous nut is pretty obvious in your posts.

"Mage Grandpa" Funny. That's not what I said and you know it. But you need to misquote, bend and stack the deck so you can be right. That is the problem of all athiests who believe science backs thier religous views.

If you want to claim there is no God then fine, but leave science out of it because science can't help you.

Christians who cannot be wrong have the same problem. This is a human condition.

I said what I meant. Possible autonomous intelligence. Not a super being. Not the creator of the universe. I didn't say science could *prove* it either. I said science might be able to be used to look for the effects of such an intelligence and possibly someday be used to peer into these dimensions where such an intelegence might exist.

If these other 7 or 8 other dimensions really do exist then why should we think
that autonomous intelligence only exists here and not there? Isn't that like saying life can only exist on this planet and nowhere else? If these places are
real shouldn't we be getting on with trying to observe them?




--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...... All we are saying is Give Nukes a Chance
þ Synchronet þ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to echicken on Thu Jan 14 2010 12:44:00

And any number of experiments you could conduct to bear out your hypothes
that God does not exist would be absolutely valid, this is true.

He cannot prove a metaphysical statement with any observable experiment. It
multually exclusive and logically impossible. Everyone needs to understand
It is impossible for any experiment to prove that God does not exist.

You're absolutely right and I agree with you completely.

Thanks. I'm glad someone else sees this.

This would only be true if we all agreed to define "God" as a wholly e>metaphysical thing. One possible source of confusion here is that we don't al
believe, or disbelieve, in the same concept of God.

I don't really care who believes what except when it comes to HOW they get there. Athiests who want to claim science helps thier religous views are going to get an earful here. Xians who want to do the same will get the same earful.




--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...This message has ended, go in peace...
þ Synchronet þ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to Atari X on Sat Jan 16 2010 10:40 pm

The idea that anyone who might disagree with your dogmatic metaphysical view can only be a religous nut is pretty obvious in your posts.

Anyone who would disagree with me would be someone who has faith that there is a God, simple as that.

"Mage Grandpa" Funny. That's not what I said and you know it. But you need t misquote, bend and stack the deck so you can be right. That is the problem o all athiests who believe science backs thier religous views.

Science does back my lack of religious views. I have beaten that point into the ground, I think.

If you want to claim there is no God then fine, but leave science out of it because science can't help you.

It's because of science that I don't believe in God.

Christians who cannot be wrong have the same problem. This is a human condit

Yes, I see how we are the same. I believe in rational explanations of the universe, and Christians believe in fantasy worlds with magic angels and sinister demons.

Yes, I see how we are soooo similar.

I said what I meant. Possible autonomous intelligence. Not a super being. No the creator of the universe. I didn't say science could *prove* it either. I said science might be able to be used to look for the effects of such an intelligence and possibly someday be used to peer into these dimensions wher such an intelegence might exist.

There might also be purple dinosaurs on distant planets. It doesn't mean I am going to waste my time postulating their existence. I am asking, "what can god do for me?" and you answering, "god's across the street and can't hear me."

If these other 7 or 8 other dimensions really do exist then why should we th that autonomous intelligence only exists here and not there? Isn't that like saying life can only exist on this planet and nowhere else? If these places real shouldn't we be getting on with trying to observe them?

First off, it's science fiction to assume that other dimenions will be somethign that we can experience at all. And bad science fiction at that.

But, to address your assertion - in a universe that is nearly infinite, then there are nearly an infinite number of possibilities for what secrets our universe might hold. Anything you can make up is probably as plausible as anything anyone else could make up. But, through observation, gathering data, making theories, and eliminating contradictions, we can come to the truth.

And the truth is, there is no evidence that someone else is driving this boat, and lots of evidence that evolution and slowly methodical processes are.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.

And the truth is, there is no evidence that someone else is driving this boat
and lots of evidence that evolution and slowly methodical processes are.

I don't believe that is neccesarily true. I think you *might* be mistaken. Evolution is a slippery word. Change over time is obvious. What is not obvious is how life started here, why the fossil record is such a mess for Darwin's theories, or why even the simplest protocell is still so impossible to build.

It IS obvious however that if you even start to question "evolution", then you are immediatley branded a creationist, etc etc.

I guess we can question everything except "sceince" which is too bad becasue science only gets better by being questioned.





--- * QW

Yes, I see how we are the same. I believe in rational explanations of the AX>universe, and Christians believe in fantasy worlds with magic angels and AX>sinister demons.

Yes, I see how we are soooo similar.

No you don't. The similarity is that niether of you are capable of correction in
the area of your religous views.

But if you want proof that there is no God, then we all now have it. NO LOVING GOD WOULD ALLOW MY BELOVED CHARGERS TO BE BEATEN BY THE JETS AT HOME OR ANYHWERE
ELSE!!!

Any hope of theism I had is now dead and buried with all my hopes and dreams. I
wish the world would just explode.

I hope you are happy now. I am utterly broken.

It's because of science that I don't believe in God.

I used to say that too. The day I turned atheist was up until that moment the most liberating moment of my life. God didn't exist and if he did, he was sure going out of hisway to hide himself, that was for damn sure.



--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
-

Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to Atari X on Mon Jan 18 2010 03:31 pm

I don't believe that is neccesarily true. I think you *might* be mistaken. Evolution is a slippery word. Change over time is obvious. What is not obvio is how life started here, why the fossil record is such a mess for Darwin's theories, or why even the simplest protocell is still so impossible to build

It IS obvious however that if you even start to question "evolution", then y are immediatley branded a creationist, etc etc.

I guess we can question everything except "sceince" which is too bad becasue science only gets better by being questioned.

The best part about science is that it doesn't give many facts, it only suggests things that are probably facts based on a preponderance of evidence.

For example, there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that evolution is, in fact, a reality.

They have a pretty good idea of how life started here, and it begins with self-replicating molecules in the chemical soup that was the birth of our planet.

As far as the fossil record goes, that's a strawman and a distortion. There's an abundance of evidence suggested by the fossil record that suggest evolution.

Given all of that, evolution is the most liekly culprit to explain the evidence laid before us. And if not evolution, what other process would you suggest?


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: Proving God?
By: Atari X to Curt on Tue Jan 19 2010 08:40:27

The best part about science is that it doesn't give many facts, it only suggests things that are probably facts based on a preponderance of evidence

This is exactly how I see it. I side with science in all things while allowing that its facts and proof are only based on the evidence at hand and may change depending on any other evidence presented in the future.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

They have a pretty good idea of how life started here, and it begins with AX>self-replicating molecules in the chemical soup that was the birth of our AX>planet.

Damn it. I hate getting sucked into this shit because really it isn;t that important to me -BUT- what you are talking about abiogenesis through protocells.
HUGE problems with that. Seems they can't build a protocell let alone even hope
to get a protocell build itself *eventhough we know how they work*.

As far as the fossil record goes, that's a strawman and a distortion. There's
an abundance of evidence suggested by the fossil record that suggest evolutio

The fossil record is jumbled up badly. That's not a strawman. The fossil record
shows life here as soon as the planet can support it - which so far according to
science isn't possible. A basic self-replicating protocell is an incredible problem right now. People are working on it. And I really do hope they make progress but so far it doesn't look so hot.

Then we have relatively little change for billions of years and bam, then this inexplicable explosion of diversty. Both of these facts are against what we should expect to find from the theory of starting simple and getting gradually more and more complex.

Given all of that, evolution is the most liekly culprit to explain the eviden
laid before us. And if not evolution, what other process would you suggest?

I would like to see further RnD with protocell construction. At some point we're
going to have to cave if we can't get one to poof into existence on it's own. Building one in a lab will not do. Although building a self-replicating protocell would be a good and awesome step in the right direction, building one
only proves that inteligent beings can start life. And that is the definition of
Intelegent Design.

In order to really prove life started here by unguided means, we'll need to replicate it. That shouldn't be to tough seeing that life got started here practially as soon as the planet would support it.




--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...This tagline is umop apisdn
þ Synchronet þ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

Re: Proving God?
By: Curt to Atari X on Tue Jan 19 2010 07:36 pm

>

The fossil record is jumbled up badly. That's not a strawman. The fossil rec shows life here as soon as the planet can support it - which so far accordin science isn't possible. A basic self-replicating protocell is an incredible problem right now. People are working on it. And I really do hope they make progress but so far it doesn't look so hot.

Then we have relatively little change for billions of years and bam, then th inexplicable explosion of diversty. Both of these facts are against what we should expect to find from the theory of starting simple and getting gradual more and more complex.

Given all of that, evolution is the most liekly culprit to explain the ev AX>laid before us. And if not evolution, what other process would you sugge

I would like to see further RnD with protocell construction. At some point w going to have to cave if we can't get one to poof into existence on it's own Building one in a lab will not do. Although building a self-replicating protocell would be a good and awesome step in the right direction, building only proves that inteligent beings can start life. And that is the definitio Intelegent Design.

In order to really prove life started here by unguided means, we'll need to replicate it. That shouldn't be to tough seeing that life got started here practially as soon as the planet would support it.

You know, you cross up your facts so badly in your drive to provide a pseudo-intellectual argument, that you lose all credibility.

We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that assumes that life started here by some magical force.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: Proving God?
By: Atari X to Curt on Fri Jan 22 2010 07:53 pm

We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that assumes that life started here by some magical force.

can one not believe in god and evolution too?, we may have evolved from single celled goop but our intelligence was taught by some other power, what is your take on the pyramids in egypt, mexico, cambodia, the veritable airport in peru?

just a though.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

---
þ Synchronet þ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Proving God?
By: mrproper to Atari X on Sat Jan 23 2010 12:25 am

Re: Proving God?
By: Atari X to Curt on Fri Jan 22 2010 07:53 pm

We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that assumes that life started here by some magical force.

can one not believe in god and evolution too?, we may have evolved from sing celled goop but our intelligence was taught by some other power, what is you take on the pyramids in egypt, mexico, cambodia, the veritable airport in pe

just a though.

Tim Smith (Mrproper)

If I was pushed to come up with an off-the-wall theory, it still wouldn't involve a God figure manipulating things. It would probably involve visitations by a highly evolved race that has long since left this part of galaxy. That would explain a lot.


---
þ Synchronet þ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net

Re: Proving God?
By: Atari X to mrproper on Sat Jan 23 2010 12:12 pm

If I was pushed to come up with an off-the-wall theory, it still wouldn't involve a God figure manipulating things. It would probably involve visitations by a highly evolved race that has long since left this part of galaxy. That would explain a lot.

same here.. even the bible speaks of ufo's.. you ezekial (sp) the wheel withing the wheel and chariots of fire.

I'm not out to judge ones religion much, I'm too much a bigot, scientology seems crazy to me, and is of course fiction but some can be rooted in truth, just as true as the bible can be explained.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

---
þ Synchronet þ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Proving God?
By: mrproper to Atari X on Sat Jan 23 2010 08:59 pm

Re: Proving God?
By: Atari X to mrproper on Sat Jan 23 2010 12:12 pm

If I was pushed to come up with an off-the-wall theory, it still wouldn't involve a God figure manipulating things. It would probably involve visitations by a highly evolved race that has long since left this part o galaxy. That would explain a lot.

same here.. even the bible speaks of ufo's.. you ezekial (sp) the wheel with the wheel and chariots of fire.

I'm not out to judge ones religion much, I'm too much a bigot, scientology seems crazy to me, and is of course fiction but some can be rooted in truth, just as true as the bible can be explained.

--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

I like the UFOS in the bible. but I think they were aliens.
i.e. if you were primitive man and you saw a ship land, how would you write about it? big firey bird comes down from sky to ground...

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: Proving God?
By: Corey to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 09:56 am

I like the UFOS in the bible. but I think they were aliens.
i.e. if you were primitive man and you saw a ship land, how would you write about it? big firey bird comes down from sky to ground...

who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

who knows?


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

---
þ Synchronet þ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Proving God?
By: mrproper to Corey on Sun Jan 24 2010 04:06 pm

Re: Proving God?
By: Corey to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 09:56 am

I like the UFOS in the bible. but I think they were aliens.
i.e. if you were primitive man and you saw a ship land, how would you wri about it? big firey bird comes down from sky to ground...

who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

who knows?

--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

maybe we are setlers from another planet?
and when we go here we turned retarded and forgot everything.
maybe we were the scum on the universe and we got dumped here to fend for ourselfs.

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: Proving God?
By: mrproper to Corey on Sun Jan 24 2010 04:06 pm

who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

Yes but...who created them?

At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by something else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

---
þ Synchronet þ :: montereybbs.com ::

Re: Proving God?
By: esc to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 07:22 pm

Re: Proving God?
By: mrproper to Corey on Sun Jan 24 2010 04:06 pm

who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thro their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

Yes but...who created them?

At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by somethin else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

esc(montereybbs/demonic/mimic)

ok, but thats like the chicken and the egg. each comes from the other.

Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...

---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: Proving God?
By: Corey to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 04:13 pm

maybe we are setlers from another planet?
and when we go here we turned retarded and forgot everything.
maybe we were the scum on the universe and we got dumped here to fend for ourselfs.

could be.. point taken.. this debate is useless.


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

---
þ Synchronet þ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Proving God?
By: esc to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 07:22 pm

who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

Yes but...who created them?

At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by something else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

Yeah.. the chicken or the egg.. I dunno.. and I will never in my natural life know.. but if this universe and everything in it just "banged" into existance where did the pressure come from to create the matter, and where is from?


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

---
þ Synchronet þ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA

Re: Proving God?
By: mrproper to esc on Sun Jan 24 2010 10:37 pm

Re: Proving God?
By: esc to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 07:22 pm

who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thrown their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

Yes but...who created them?

At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by something else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

Yeah.. the chicken or the egg.. I dunno.. and I will never in my natural lif know.. but if this universe and everything in it just "banged" into existanc where did the pressure come from to create the matter, and where is from?

--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

geez, people are still banged into existance now... :)
or are people just screwed together?


Caput meum major podice meo.
This message has ended, go in peace...


---
þ Synchronet þ Three Stooges Gentlemens Club - Las Vegas, Nv - tsgc.dyndns.org

Re: Proving God?
By: esc to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 19:22:35

who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have thro their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

Yeah, there's no reason why this couldn't be the case, but . . .

Yes but...who created them?

At some point, something just became reality, and wasn't created by somethin else. My feeling is that this is where our world and life came from.

You've hit the nail on the head. By attributing our creation to something else we're only deferring the problem; at some point the question of how our creator(s) was(were) created. The idea that the universe just suddenly exploded out of nothing is no less valid or difficult to wrap the brain around than to accept the concept of infinity and a god who has simply always been there. We're always faced with the question of exactly how this all got started, at its very root.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

Re: Proving God?
By: Corey to esc on Sun Jan 24 2010 20:20:50

ok, but thats like the chicken and the egg. each comes from the other.

Now they do, but at one point either the first chicken laid the first egg after having acquired the ability to do so, or the first chicken hatched out of the egg of some slightly less evolved bird (or maybe even a lizard.) It's a fine way to describe a paradox but I don't think it's meant to be interpreted literally.

And the post that you're replying to is basically saying that aliens-as-our-creators is not an answer in itself because we still want to know where those aliens came from in the first place. You're not exactly disagreeing with him even though your phrasing makes it seem that way.

echicken
electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com - 416-273-7230

---
þ Synchronet þ electronic chicken bbs - bbs.electronicchicken.com

In order to really prove life started here by unguided means, we'll need t
replicate it. That shouldn't be to tough seeing that life got started here
practially as soon as the planet would support it.

You know, you cross up your facts so badly in your drive to provide a AX>pseudo-intellectual argument, that you lose all credibility.

Please tell us which facts are crossed up.

We don't have to prove life started here by unguided means - because that AX>assumes that life started here by some magical force.

That sort of rhetoric only makes sense to people who NEED to have an all or nothing view about the so-called 'battle' between science and faith.


--- * QWKBack 2.0.1.1 * 32bit Windows
---
...... All we are saying is Give Nukes a Chance
þ Synchronet þ The Ultimate BBS! 2006 - UBBS2006.SYNCHRO.NET

On 01-24-10, mrproper said...

Re: Proving God?
By: Corey to mrproper on Sun Jan 24 2010 09:56 am

I like the UFOS in the bible. but I think they were aliens.
i.e. if you were primitive man and you saw a ship land, how would you w about it? big firey bird comes down from sky to ground...

who's to say these "aliens" aren't our higher power? could they have throw their DNA in the soil of the earth to create beings in their image?

who knows?

You mean, was the earth terriformed by aliens?

Gryphon x Cyberia BBS x cyberia.darktech.org

--- Mystic BBS v1.08 A31 (Linux)
* Origin: Cyberia BBS | Cyberia.Darktech.Org | Kingwood, TX (2000:281/324)

Re: Re: Proving God?
By: Gryphon to mrproper on Thu Jan 28 2010 09:48 am

who knows?

You mean, was the earth terriformed by aliens?

I mean, anyones concept of our creation can be taken, nothing should be overlooked, if one has faith in one outlook they should be able to keep an open mind to other ways of existance.


like i said.. Who knows?


--

Tim Smith (Mrproper)
WarZone BBS: warzone.synchro.net
BBSsearch : http://search.synchro.net

---
þ Synchronet þ Warzone - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA, USA