Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

It's sure getting boring reading your posts informing everybody else about what you consider their faults to be bearing in mind that them having these faults is axiomatic given your starting position.

And your bald intemperance of expression is a clear indication of your lack of tolerance and your unbalanced mind.

There is no hiding the fact that from an evolutionary point of view religious belief was a necessity for the development of societies. Nothing that I know of which started out atheistic has ever been selected in.

I have not noticed that "the number of Creationists from the UK is on a marked increase." Perhaps you are searching for evidence too avidly. One can easily see the atheist's avid search for evidence on all the threads they participate in and none of it is worth a blow on a hobo's snot rag.

I imagine they spend half their time on sites where such items abound and choose little blurts for our perusal which have been given out by some self-publicist who has become aware that leading the population into promiscuity, lechery and debauchery is a promising strategy to adopt in a world of selfishness. Even a 10% segment of the population which is militant about itself is a lush meadow of greenery to graze in. We get the cow pats. What they have left behind and most of them topped off with a mighty fine crust around which a few flies play.

Lift the crust. With a long stick is recommended.

What you need to do is persuade people, in one of those re-conditioning centres you once proposed, not to bother their silly little heads about where we came from, why we are here, where we are going and what's it all about. They will insist on such meditations won't they. You do yourself.

Do that and promiscuity, lechery and debauchery will cease to have meaning and be replaced by "going to the recreation unit" Or "an evening at the Leisure Complex" . Or "I think I'll have a night in tonight". Admittance according to production targets league tables. The rate-buster heaving a sigh of relief that his "piece of ass", in Wilso prose, has a headache. The idle dead-beats getting the Giotto types in the Latin Quarter. A bit like now only made more formal and as neat, organised and functional as even the most pedantic scientific methodologist could possibly wish.

The largest dictionaries will probably record those emotive words, which mean nothing to me already, for a period of time but marked archaic.

And we can save on cyclotrons and fossil industrialists into the bargain.

You have to laugh really. Both Religion and Science feed from the same stream. An incapacity to live in the present. And even the place.

The horizons of time and space offer no temptation to enough people to show that being so tempted must be learned. Conditioned. It cannot be innate. In fact, when it is sheer laziness which overcomes any temptations it is surely truer to the human instinct.

If it is conditioned it can be de-conditioned. But not with the ruling elite of course. Their task in my atheist project is to look to the future with the lessons of the past in mind and also to prevent the population from ever getting up on the cross they are fastened on.

In a scientific world plebs who bother their silly little heads about where we came from, why we are here, where we are going and what's it all about would be subversive and ruthlessly exterminated.

It's sure getting boring reading your posts informing everybody else about what you consider their faults to be bearing in mind that them having these faults is axiomatic given your starting position.

And your bald intemperance of expression is a clear indication of your lack of tolerance and your unbalanced mind.

There is no hiding the fact that from an evolutionary point of view religious belief was a necessity for the development of societies. Nothing that I know of which started out atheistic has ever been selected in.

I have not noticed that "the number of Creationists from the UK is on a marked increase." Perhaps you are searching for evidence too avidly. One can easily see the atheist's avid search for evidence on all the threads they participate in and none of it is worth a blow on a hobo's snot rag.

I imagine they spend half their time on sites where such items abound and choose little blurts for our perusal which have been given out by some self-publicist who has become aware that leading the population into promiscuity, lechery and debauchery is a promising strategy to adopt in a world of selfishness. Even a 10% segment of the population which is militant about itself is a lush meadow of greenery to graze in. We get the cow pats. What they have left behind and most of them topped off with a mighty fine crust around which a few flies play.

Lift the crust. With a long stick is recommended.

What you need to do is persuade people, in one of those re-conditioning centres you once proposed, not to bother their silly little heads about where we came from, why we are here, where we are going and what's it all about. They will insist on such meditations won't they. You do yourself.

Do that and promiscuity, lechery and debauchery will cease to have meaning and be replaced by "going to the recreation unit" Or "an evening at the Leisure Complex" . Or "I think I'll have a night in tonight". Admittance according to production targets league tables. The rate-buster heaving a sigh of relief that his "piece of ass", in Wilso prose, has a headache. The idle dead-beats getting the Giotto types in the Latin Quarter. A bit like now only made more formal and as neat, organised and functional as even the most pedantic scientific methodologist could possibly wish.

The largest dictionaries will probably record those emotive words, which mean nothing to me already, for a period of time but marked archaic.

And we can save on cyclotrons and fossil industrialists into the bargain.

You have to laugh really. Both Religion and Science feed from the same stream. An incapacity to live in the present. And even the place.

The horizons of time and space offer no temptation to enough people to show that being so tempted must be learned. Conditioned. It cannot be innate. In fact, when it is sheer laziness which overcomes any temptations it is surely truer to the human instinct.

If it is conditioned it can be de-conditioned. But not with the ruling elite of course. Their task in my atheist project is to look to the future with the lessons of the past in mind and also to prevent the population from ever getting up on the cross they are fastened on.

In a scientific world plebs who bother their silly little heads about where we came from, why we are here, where we are going and what's it all about would be subversive and ruthlessly exterminated by enforcers who enjoy exterminating.

Something else you've just learned eh? (PS, Ive got several patents on specific rare earth compounds and had to author MSDS's.) You are trying to act like youre providing me some new information.

Youd better run back to Google since there re entire classes of compounds that, as long as the EHpH conditions and "Soup" remains at or above a specific concentration level, will replicate themselves ad nauseum

PS, your "game over" crap is infantile .
When C and O2 form a compound and when water is created by combination , the reactions are LWAYS exothermic. I don't care where you bury them. As long as they are in contact there will be a predictable amount of energy released.



Youre hopeless .Your assertions actually show me that you don't have a smack of reading comprehension skill because almost everything you posted about this exoplanet was WRONG!

Stop making believe that you are inserting any zingers in your posts.You are speaking about 80% O.O.Y.A

Sorry about that. I forgot to select edit before adding my rider.

You make this assertion base upon what? Noone has even looked for life or life supporting chemicals or even water (we only have a small spectral return for SOME water). You've jumped so far to a conclusion that you've lft your time zone.
How do you even sleep at night with a belief system that is so infused with lies.? You act like you want to be considered a seeker of truth but you are constantly making up **** like this or asserting that
others have said things that they haven't, or you make irrelevant postings about everything but the subject at hand.

Ats ok, nobody read it anyway. Anytime you post one of your rants, it usually has only one thing on its schedule and that is usually poorly written .

Oh the irony.

Unlike spendi, Ive NEVER given off vibes that I was a good writer. Quite the opposite. Ive apologized profusely for my bad spelling and typos(I suppose Ive got to post that in my sig line but , naaah). I actually owe a great deal to editors in my workaday writing.

I am content, fm, with readers of my posts taking any view of them they wish just as you did with Imur's post when you imagined it was your bad spelling and typos he was referring to when he was actually referring to your one dimensionality and total lack of artistic endeavour.

Imur is too much of a gentleman to draw attention to your bad spelling and typos when you can't help them. It would be as crass as drawing attention to a senile geezer dribbling down his chin.

I don't think he was referring to you. s far as "gentleman" hee hee. Hes no diff than any of us. Otherwise he wouldna butt in.

Hee Hee Hee. 92 pages in and you finally agree with me. Now you've come far pilgrim.
Can ya skin a griz?

Simple logical inference. If there has been any recognisable life there, NASA would have announced it.
If there has been any ILF it would have some activities in the EM spectrum - TV shows distributed around the planet, some artificial satellites if not whole colonies and structures around the planet, some garbage collection system in the open space, incl. radioactive waste ... empirial destroyers circuiting around the planet, etc.


This is not true. The radio telescope has been searching through the entire spectrum of our galaxy for decades.


It is not some water. There is a whole ocean on the picture of the planet.


I am at least making some trials ... for some other people have never had obviously such a problem.


Nothing can compare to you in terms of this indicator.
I am looking for evidences. If you have constrained your search space by the 'rocks of the right type', I am looking for any logical inference that might be relevant to the theme. It is a matter of approach.

This would be very interesting information indeed if it were true. Unfortunately it's just made up data. We don't know what the atmospheric history of that planet is, and we don't know if there is life there at present or at any time in the past. We simply don't have that data.

Given that life developed on Earth very early in its history, if we identified a similar planet which remained sterile, we would very much like to know why there was a difference. Maybe someday we will have the data we need to answer those questions, but at the moment we don't.

Funds ros!! You forgot to mention how science can answer all questions if only sufficient funds were to be made available.

What sort of a spokesperson is it that forgets about the funds?

You call your assertion a "Simple logical inference". First you say the planets star is a "white dwarf" and that is udder bullshit. Then you post some crap about how life should be easily recognizable on a planet over 500 light years away. Are you really that daft"

So any lie is ok with you? I think you are more impressed with yourself than you need be. Why not just play your video games and payroll stubs.

something at 500 light years away would have had to send some EM signal over 500 years ago . SO you assert that humans, because they couldn't manipulate the spectrum 500 years ago were NOT intelligent life?

What if the planet is ALL water and life is highly developed cyanobacter or even molluscs ? How would they manipulate the spectrum?. If they couldn't would that therefore disqualify them as LIFE?

Youre getting farther from reality .

Wow. Just WOW.

And you expect us to take you seriously?


And your tinfoil hat makes it even harder to take you seriously.

O.K. red dwarf, but it doesn't matter what the star is at present. What matters is that the star has been in the past successively Starbirth Nebula, Planetary Nebula, Main Sequence Star, Red Giant and now Red Dawrf going to become White Dwarf eventually.
In other words the planet Kepler 186f has been within habitable zone for over 10 Bys, with beautiful sun going through all the cycles, and if your theory of the things has been true (that life appears out of chemistry and physics of the right type) it should have life by now.
We really don't know, but if it does not have life your theory of chemistry and physics making biology falls apart like a tower of cards.


An ILF at the age of 10 Bys should have some footprint in the space around it ... even if it has been extinct by now.


That is why I am so fond of the atheists. Everything that is in contradiction with their understanding that the development of the world is driving just so, on autopilot, without any navigation, without control ... and without any purpose is a lie. Do you know what is a lie? It is intentional false statement ... and your claim here is called manipulation. You are trying to suggest to the forum that nothwithstanding I perfectly know that you are absolutely right I am trying to present something else, for the other word is fallacy.
Even if it is fallacy, when somebody says that something is not true he should present some evidences (whatever) in support of his statement. Otherwise it becomes some claim thrown at random into the air ... which is not surprising.


This is your personal misunderstanding about my assumption. Our TV shows travel in space ... and with a proper decoding system could be viewed already at a distance of 50 lys.


If for a period of 10 Bys a planet that has always been within a habitable zone suceeded to develop only cyanobacteria and molluscs your theory of evolution is game over - for over 10 Bys a planet which is almost exact copy of the Earth succeeded to make only cyanobacteria. This would mean that evolution does not depend on the physical (and chemical) conditions, therefore it must be something else.


This happened when I started communicating with you.

O.K., this is evident. I haven't said that this is truth of the last resort. It is just some assumptions ... on the grounds of the visual picture published on internet, which I hope is not fake.
There are no data - O.K. Let's make some suggestions.
If Kepler 186f is really within an inhabitable zone it has been there for at least several Bys. Right? Time enough to develop life out of physics and chemistry ... or whatever it might be.
If there is ILF on Kepler 186f, it may fall withing one of the four cases (on the grounds of Dr. Michio Kaku's classification)?
Civillisation type 0 - digging C or methane of whatever from the ground and sending everything into the air. If this is the case & the ILF has extinct at this stage by now as a result of its miscalculations ... the atmoshere of the planet should be highly acidic. There may be even some biological residues here and there. If they have used local nuclear reactors for the energy supply - there must be traces of radiation and radioactive contamination all around the planet.
Civillisation type 1 - using the energy of its star. There must be a large number of solar and wind and water facilities for the purpose ... and a lot of garbage from such equipment on the planet.
Civillisation type 2- using the energy of the star system. It can travel probably from star system to star system and there must be some space terminals and navigation facilities in the neighbourhood ... and a lot of space garbage of any kind.
Civillisation type 3- using the dark energy of the universe. Can travel anywhere throughout the galaxy ... and eventually outside. If this is the case we should have seen them already on our iPads or TVs.

Civillisation type oo1 - the theory of FM - cyanobacteria that have remained underdeveloped on a planet for several Bys - if this is in contradiction with a lot of things.

Some people here are asking me do I believe that something can come out of nothing as if it is true?
If this assumption (that something can come out of nothing) proves really to be true, half of the laws of physics and chemistry have to be reconsidered ... fundamentally.

I suggest you look at those pictures on the internet again. All the ones I've seen say "artist's conception". Which basically means they're products of imagination, rather than fact.

Here's a good summary of what's known about Kepler 186f, and maybe more important, what's NOT known but is only hypothesized, from the folks at SETI.

Basically all we know is that there's a planet there and roughly it's size, and that it lies within the range where water IF THERE IS ANY THERE, could conceivably be liquid, which based on our current sample of ONE, the earth, is a prerequisite for life AS WE KNOW IT. Since the method for detecting kplanets is based on the dinimution of light from that sun as the planet transits it from our viewpoint, and that is only recently possible with planets of this size because of more sensitive telescopes than previously available, that's ALL we know. We knoe NOTHING about its atmosphere, if any. We know NOTHING about the presence of water there. We certainly know nothing about any trees there (which are hypothesized in one picture, which talks about its being "forested". That's sheer unsupported guessw

ork. Fepler 186f is NOT a "near twin" to Earth. They're calling it a "cousin".

The SETI folks think the next generation of telescopes may be able to tell us something about an atmosphere. But they're not here yet.

http://www.seti.org/seti-institute/kepler-186f-first-earth-sized-planet-orbiting-in-habitable-zone-of-another-star

You're engaging in irresponsible guesswork. And even when we know considerably more about Kepler, we'll still only have a sample size of two, so there's very little you can rule out. Or in. You will notice that Farmerman provided evidence that life doesn't have to be based on carbon, and there do exist self-replicating molecules. There exist amino acids in interstellar space, some of the potential building blocks of life. There's no a priori reason all sugars should be right handed. It looks at this point that there are a number of potential pathways life can have taken in getting its start, and we just don't have a large enough sample size to limit those possibilities. Kepler 186f, no matter how it turns out, won't prove a slam dunk for anything.