If Darwin was correct

[DRoseDARs]

"Lacking proper conditions" is an excuse?

I've seen no evidence, no sign that your God is a living God. "He's in Heaven, we're on Earth." and "The work of God is not always seen." are the responses I typically get. Sound like excuses to me...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
But they must produce more oxygen than they use (or animals will have nothing to breath), so in a strict sense they do not need oxygen (they produce their own).

This is the most baffling bit of illogic I've seen in a while.

When you see 10+ planets with only one of them with life, and are presented with two theories:

a) one is selected by a creator to create lives.
b) lives grow by them selves on that planet, the other ones lack the conditions (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure exclusion of other planets) for life to survive.

Which one do you believe? Theory b)'s second part (other planets lack the conditions) look like some excuses to me, so I pick a).

Wait, this is worse.

I don't see why we should believe that life should be able to survive in any conditions. I don't think we've seen any form of life that can do so, and there are certainly places on the Earth where life does not exist (the core, for example).

One of the crucial things that makes the Earth habitable is our orbit and the fact that our moon stabilizes the planet. Without the moon, we'd have a huge wobble that would render conditions most inhospitable. That we have the moon is a product of chance, thanks to a collision eons ago with a Mars-sized object.

Now, if you want to believe there's a creator behind it all, that's up to you--but it's not necessary. It's perfectly possible that such a thing could come about by chance, particularly since there are on order of 77 septillion star systems in the known universe.

[Xin Yu]

(continue from previous post)

Then you ask: why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to survive?

theory a) the creator changed it to be so.
theory b) it is because such and such (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure other planets are excluded).

Again I pick a) since b) is just talking bulls.

[Xin Yu]

Try to write a joke about it (first time writer, be polite please), here it is:

From numbers 1 through 9, pick two and sum to 3. Why only 1+2 can be 3?

a) the creator of the system made it so
b) numbers 3,5,7,9 lack of water, 4,6,8 lack of oxygen so they do not satisfy the conditions to add up to 3. Hence only 1 and 2 are possible. However, 1+1 is gayish, 2+2 is also gayish, so only 1+2 can be 3.

Now pick an answer, please

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Then you ask: why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to survive?

theory a) the creator changed it to be so.
theory b) it is because such and such (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure other planets are excluded).

Again I pick a) since b) is just talking bulls.

Wrong question. It should be "why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to arise?"

It is probable that some sort of liquid is necessary for life to arise, since it would have to be at least initially some sort of chemical replicator. We haven't yet found another planet with sufficient liquid with enough local energy for replicators to arise. There would need to be enough energy input into the system for immense amounts of reactions to take place. These reactions would need (as far as we know) to contain fairly complex carbon compounds, processes which require heat. In our solar system at least, there isn't a planet or moon we have studied which satisfies even the most general conditions required for life to arise. The methane lakes of Titan (or the ice of Europa) may harbour life, but a) we've only just got to Titan, and b) the probe landed on land, where it is almost certainly too cold for life to survive.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think you really don't have a proper concept of evolution. I'll let one of the scientists explain it, but evolution doesn't mean we mutate with every generation. In fact, our species is quite young on this planet comparitively

According to some, Earth started Jan 1, 0001. We are now at around 4:00PM on Dec. 31. Man first walk at around 12: noon Dec 31. So in the life of our planet, we have only been here about 4 hours.
If you believe the Bible, most major event happen every 2 to 4 thousand years apart.
Now a man name Jesus died when he was 33 years of age. Most believe he was born about 4 BC, so that would make his dead around the year 0029/30. So if we get the 2000 years for a major event, 2029 to 30 would be the year. If we are to get the 4000 years event, I would not worry about it. I don't think I will be here for 4029.

[Provost Harrison]

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Joseph
According to some, Earth started Jan 1, 0001. We are now at around 4:00PM on Dec. 31. Man first walk at around 12: noon Dec 31. So in the life of our planet, we have only been here about 4 hours.
If you believe the Bible, most major event happen every 2 to 4 thousand years apart.
Now a man name Jesus died when he was 33 years of age. Most believe he was born about 4 BC, so that would make his dead around the year 0029/30. So if we get the 2000 years for a major event, 2029 to 30 would be the year. If we are to get the 4000 years event, I would not worry about it. I don't think I will be here for 4029.

What the hell was that supposed to mean?

[GePap]

Life on the moon would be sort of tought, given the extremely low temperatures and intense radioation given the utter lack of an atomosphere. At its basis, life is a bunch of self-replicating chemical reactions by large complex molecules- you need a cerrain set of conditions to allow complex molecules to form and not be broken down by radiation, and then you need some medium in which the process can start, and then replicate. The Moon lacks that.

As for evolution, the vast majority of lifeforms are still single cell or just a tiny collection of cells- your body today is full of different species in you gut and elsewhere. Evolution 'ends' for a species when it dies out, or when it has found a form so universally successful for its environment that furhter change is not advantageous. plenty of single cell organism have reached that point. Or look at sharks, over 300 million yeras, few changes to the basic body plan, cause it works so damned well.

[Bosh]

Then you ask: why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to survive?

theory a) the creator changed it to be so.
theory b) it is because such and such (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure other planets are excluded).

Again I pick a) since b) is just talking bulls.

First, what the hell is a talking bull?

Second, now we're getting into territory of the Anthropic Principle. Basically the earth and the universe are like they are because if they weren't like that we wouldn't be here. Obviously the earth is pretty exceptional, because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. It makes every bit as much sense to wonder at how a puddle of water amazingly exactly fits the contours of the bit of ground that its lying on.

[GePap]

How do we know the earth is exceptional?

There are billions of trillions of stars out there, and we have only the most rudimentary ability to explore that vastness. We have no way of knowing just how rare Earth is, or better said, every single planet could bge considered rare. In the vastness of the Universe life is a rather insignificant issue, scum covering the top 10 miles of a planet- big deal.

Man is so vain, isn't he? Most creatures are happy just being and continuing to be. We have to go around thinking everything was made for us, and never stop *****ing. If that is what people want to use as prooff of a creator, well, how can I sue the bastard for making people so badly?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Then you ask: why is earth the only planet out of these suitable for lives to survive?

We don't *know* that - we don't have any detailed information of any other planets. There is one single datum. Not useful for drawing conclusions.

Originally posted by Xin Yu
theory a) the creator changed it to be so.
theory b) it is because such and such (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure other planets are excluded).

Again I pick a) since b) is just talking bulls.

A is not a theory, it's bollocks. BTW, most Christians are evolutionists. Some Moslems are evolutionists. Just because somebody is religious does not automatically make him a Creationist.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Boshko

First, what the hell is a talking bull?

I think "talking bullsh*t" is what is meant.

Unless it isn't.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Try to write a joke about it (first time writer, be polite please), here it is:

From numbers 1 through 9, pick two and sum to 3. Why only 1+2 can be 3?

a) the creator of the system made it so
b) numbers 3,5,7,9 lack of water, 4,6,8 lack of oxygen so they do not satisfy the conditions to add up to 3. Hence only 1 and 2 are possible. However, 1+1 is gayish, 2+2 is also gayish, so only 1+2 can be 3.

Now pick an answer, please

Or you could set b) with the actual conditions that preclude the other integers, thereby making it a true and satisfactory explanation. Example:

a) the creator made it so
b) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are greater than 3 by themselves, and 3 needs no other number added to it, so 1 and 2 are the only possibilities. Further, 1+1 is too small and 2+2 is too large.

b) seems like a good answer to me.

[Japher]

The experts agree... Darwin may or may not have been right



That will never get old!