Aliens Don't Exist and If They Did, It's Irrelevant

[Churchwork]

God never asked you to blame him. How silly. The fact that people are wrong all the time does not address your problem you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

The reasoning for why a mind is needed to create a mind is because the lesser can never produce the greater. This has been said so many times. I think you deserve an infraction for wanting a reason when it was already given.

Again, you are accusing but where is the evidence to support your accusation as valid? You've not shown where I am not in concordance with the Bible. When I accuse I give a reason, but you do not. You're like Satan the great accuser who also doesn't need a reason. You take after your father the Devil. A chip off the old block.

Quoting the Bible is good since the proof is in the Bible, the very proof you are unable to overturn. Praise the Lord!

[Mystermenace]

God never asked you to blame him. How silly. The fact that people are wrong all the time does not address your problem you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

The naturalistic explanation is that they were wrong in their beliefs. I have already stated this. You need to infract yourself.

The reasoning for why a mind is needed to create a mind is because the lesser can never produce the greater. This has been said so many times. I think you deserve an infraction for wanting a reason when it was already given.

It has been said many times and I asked you to explain what analysis reached that claim but you ignored my request and consistently repeat it like it is self-evident. It is not. You need to infract yourself.

Again, you are accusing but where is the evidence to support your accusation as valid? You've not shown where I am not in concordance with the Bible. When I accuse I give a reason, but you do not. You're like Satan the great accuser who also doesn't need a reason. You take after your father the Devil. A chip off the old block.

I have shown where you are not in accordance with the truth and with science. You say that I do not give reasons but you do not present a single example of this. You need to infract yourself. That's three infractions, you need to ban yourself.

The policy that those who debate can shut down an opponent by banning them can best be described as cowardly and anti-intellectual. It exemplifies an environment that precludes an open-minded exchange of ideas.

If you can't handle debate then that should be made clear on the home page and don't invite debaters from other forums to join. Moderator-debaters are the nemesis of informed, articulate members who wish to engage in dynamic, unencumbered debate.

[Parture]

The naturalistic explanation is that they were wrong in their beliefs. I have already stated this. You need to infract yourself.

This is not a valid response for you need to account for how they could be wrong. Since you fail to do so and only self-assert, that's worthy of an infraction such as self-declaration.

It has been said many times and I asked you to explain what analysis reached that claim but you ignored my request and consistently repeat it like it is self-evident. It is not. You need to infract yourself.

Since many times it has already been said that we observe nothing in which the lesser can produce the greater that is the reason you keep avoiding. You deserve an infraction for circumventing.

I have shown where you are not in accordance with the truth and with science. You say that I do not give reasons but you do not present a single example of this. You need to infract yourself. That's three infractions, you need to ban yourself.

Since you are unable to reproduce your alleged claim, then you are just blowing smoke, again, deserving of an infraction for belligerency.

The policy that those who debate can shut down an opponent by banning them can best be described as cowardly and anti-intellectual. It exemplifies an environment that precludes an open-minded exchange of ideas.

You are not permanently banned, only temporarily banned for these repetitive errors. It is the hope that you will reflect on these mistakes you make over and over again to come to the table to discuss more openly next time. It is important that in a debate one party not become abusive as are you doing with these obstinate behaviors. To continue in such a debate persisting in these antics is cowardly on your part and unintellectual not only for you but anyone in discussing with you.

If you can't handle debate then that should be made clear on the home page and don't invite debaters from other forums to join. Moderator-debaters are the nemesis of informed, articulate members who wish to engage in dynamic, unencumbered debate.

You are note engaging or dynamic but a dullard. The debate is viable as long as you abide in the board etiquette. After all we wouldn't want a forum of just mindless zombies such as yourself for that is really boring.

[Kamerad]

When anyone says that an eye, for example, couldn't happen by chance, Dawkins responds in an offended tone, "Well, of course an eye couldn't happen by chance! Natural selection is the very opposite of chance!" But Dawkins doesn't mention that natural selection is impossible without some living thing that can replicate itself.

Dawkins actually says the opposite of that. Dawkins says that natural selection can occur with pretty much anything. He actually says that very early on in The Selfish Gene, if you've ever read it. For example, if there was a large hole, and above that hole there were some precariously perched rocks of various sizes made of some light volcanic rock, and the wind periodically knocked one down, the pile of rocks would be naturally selected to be a certain size because the rocks that were larger would bounce away. Because life is replicatory, chemicals would tend to select for life because life would only have to form once, and then it could use the other chance combinations to form more life. Nature would select for life because once life exists it replicates, and becomes greater. Baumgardner clearly understands neither natural selection nor basic statistics. Contradiction is a good name for that last section.

Contradiction: Those who believe in aliens claim aliens came to earth long ago but today they are no longer here which contradicts all the alleged alien sitings and abductions in our modern day, so I guess they think the evidence from thousands of years ago is better evidence than all the hoopla today.

Those who believe in Jesus claim that a 2000 year old book is the absolute truth, but it contradicts nearly all of the observations of modern science, so I guess they think the evidence from thousands of years ago is better evidence than all the hoopla today.

[Parture]

There is no evidence for life coming together from non-life all by itself. In fact, there is not even enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to make it possible if it were possible. This is our evidence. You have no evidence for your faith. Your hostility to God should not be grounds for evidence.

As to the testimonies of the disciples in the Book multiply attested in various group settings, you are unable to find a naturalistic explanation to account for their eyewitness testimony. You can't ask for a better proof than that that Jesus is God and raised Himself the 3rd day.

This agrees 100% with modern science. You're violating modern science, because modern science says if there is no naturalistic explanation then it must be true. The evidence today is even stronger than it was back then because today we know there are no such things as group hallucinations and people don't willingly die for something they know is a lie.

The first churches by the Apostles were set up on their eyewitness testimony of seeing Jesus in various group settings resurrected bodily.

Hallelujah!

p.s. That's a dumb comment to ask if aliens didn't exist how did they build things? That's like asking how does Santa Claus (Satan Lucas) deliver all the presents if he doesn't exist? You're not too bright are you?

[Kamerad]

There is actually substantial evidence behind the hypothesis that RNA formed naturally. I read in either Nat Geo or Scientific American about an experiment that was conducted that showed that a soup of chemicals could form RNA. It is not faith. It is a supported evidence.

K, a naturalistic explanation for the eyewitness reports. A cult leader named Jesus, was buried by mistake (this happens in third world countries all the time). One of the followers from his little cult came along to try to take the body for a little cult-shrine. He opens up the tomb and finds Jesus trying to stumble out. He screams and runs away, possibly for quite a long time. Jesus finds all his old culties and tells them some stuff. He starts feeling a little woozy and walks out into the desert, telling his followers he is going to be in heaven. He then dies in the desert, and his body is lost forever. His culties believe him and spread all this word to all their buddies in the city. It eventually spreads to the Romans, and they spread the word of a dead cult leader all around the world.
The better way to say that would be to say: Jesus was buried by mistake, everyone thought he was resurrected, he crawled into the desert and died. There is no evidence indicating that group hallucinations do not happen, and people could be willing to die for greed or any other number of base motives.
Plus, there is always the argument that the Bible is just a work of fiction. Full Length Film on the subject-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFsmmMTMCHU
The picture was making a point about a lot of the arguments I see. God exists because how else could He have made the universe?

[Parture]

Forming RNA intelligently is only done synthetically by us and not by natural causes. It requires intelligence. You're actually providing evidence for Intelligent Design. And you can't produce self-consciousness nor God-consciousness to create a being like God did from "dust" (Gen. 2.7) and breathing in the the breath of life by His Spirit.

What you are proposing is called the swoon theory, but that wouldn't convince anyone with his back scourged down to the bone, holes in his hands, feet, chest and head. On the 3rd day he wouldn't even be able to walk. And it was all the disciples who testified to seeing Jesus alive from the dead in not just one setting but various group settings, different scenarios and different number of Apostles together at the same time.

Jesus was sent to the tomb. Roman guards would be punished or killed if they let a crucified person live.

As to legends theory which you then propose, that doesn't work because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. If He didn't exist then nobody did. In fact, there are more sources of Him within 150 years of His death than for any 10 figures combined. If all you are doing is proposing some fictional work that is impossible too, because we have 40 writers over 1500 years in complete agreement. Fictional writings tend to have the characteristic of admitting they are fictional story telling, but you don't get that air with the Scriptures going through the real lives of John, James, Peter and Paul, etc. In fact, second generation Apostles such as Clement of Rome said he was friends with Peter and Polycarp said he was a student of John.

There are no group hallucinations cited in history. The DM-4 psychology manual has no group hallucinations in it. And nobody in history is found to have died for something willingly they knew was a lie. Your wild speculations are without support. Your theory would be akin to refusing to admit you are not a Christian to save your life when you clearly reject Christ.

You totally avoided the 4 Step Proof for God. Simply, since nature can't start up by itself nor always have existed, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Simple, so you are without excuse (Rom. 1.20). Actually, any discussion of DNA and RNA is mute because the uncreated is proven anyway.

[KAmErd]

Forming RNA intelligently is only done synthetically by us and not by natural causes. It requires intelligence. You're actually providing evidence for Intelligent Design. And you can't produce self-consciousness nor God-consciousness to create a being like God did from "dust" (Gen. 2.7) and breathing in the the breath of life by His Spirit.

What you are proposing is called the swoon theory, but that wouldn't convince anyone with his back scourged down to the bone, holes in his hands, feet, chest and head. On the 3rd day he wouldn't even be able to walk. And it was all the disciples who testified to seeing Jesus alive from the dead in not just one setting but various group settings, different scenarios and different number of Apostles together at the same time.

Jesus was sent to the tomb. Roman guards would be punished or killed if they let a crucified person live.

As to legends theory which you then propose, that doesn't work because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. If He didn't exist then nobody did. In fact, there are more sources of Him within 150 years of His death than for any 10 figures combined. If all you are doing is proposing some fictional work that is impossible too, because we have 40 writers over 1500 years in complete agreement. Fictional writings tend to have the characteristic of admitting they are fictional story telling, but you don't get that air with the Scriptures going through the real lives of John, James, Peter and Paul, etc. In fact, second generation Apostles such as Clement of Rome said he was friends with Peter and Polycarp said he was a student of John.

There are no group hallucinations cited in history. The DM-4 psychology manual has no group hallucinations in it. And nobody in history is found to have died for something willingly they knew was a lie. Your wild speculations are without support. Your theory would be akin to refusing to admit you are not a Christian to save your life when you clearly reject Christ.

You totally avoided the 4 Step Proof for God. Simply, since nature can't start up by itself nor always have existed, it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Simple, so you are without excuse (Rom. 1.20). Actually, any discussion of DNA and RNA is mute because the uncreated is proven anyway.

No, I am not providing evidence for intelligent design. Leaving a soup of chemical bases and them coming back and finding that they have combined to form RNA is not intelligently creating RNA. It is an experiment designed to discover how RNA forms in nature.

Again. My theory is based on the idea that the whole thing is exaggerated. Perhaps Jesus was not as badly treated as the apostles claimed. Perhaps the only real dangerous wound was the stab wound, and he managed to bandage it up with his burial shroud. Honestly, there are endless numbers of scenarios.

Just because he is heavily documented does not mean that he is a real person. One, the Christians did their best to completely wipe all other religious books and other paraphenalia off the face of the Earth, so of course he would be more documented. His followers destroyed all the other documents. They were so zealous they even tried to wipe out some of their own literature.

Saying that there must have been a creator applies to God as well. Surely something complex enough to create all of life has to have been created by something.

[Parture]

Hawking said, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." ('A Brief History of Time', 1988, p.127)

When Hawking speaks of "nothing" he is not referring to that which does not exist but the space of nothingness which itself still has particles.

Whereas those who prove the existence of God are referring to nothing as being that which doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist.

They synthetically created RNA, unable to produce it naturally or 200 amino acids needed to produce 1 protein molecule of which at least 1000 protein molecules are needed for the simplest life form. Since you can show none of these steps, you got nothing. All you can do is a little synthetic RNA. That's like throwing part of an engine and hundreds of car parts into a big mixing machine and hoping it comes out a Farari all by itself. Silly. You can throw a 1000 monkeys into a room with typewriters and not one of them will produce a Shakespeare play.

John places himself at the cross with Mary Magdalene and the mother of Jesus when Jesus died. Exaggeration from no death to death would be a plain out lie, yet people don't willing die for what they know is a lie. Jesus wouldn't look much like a risen Messiah all beat up, holes in his feet and hands at the cross, hole in his chest and back scourged down to the bone. Roman guards execute those on the cross. Jesus' knees didn't need to be broken because he suffocated to death and a spear gushed out water and blood from his chest cavity. He was not even strong enough to carry His cross to Calvary. Studies have been done a person can't survive on a cross more than 12 minutes unsupported by the legs because they suffocate to death. Try it but you won't live to tell about it.

Whatever book burning was done by whom and when is really irrelevant because the original books of the NT were all completed within the first century. Later books are irrelevant. You can quote the entire NT except for 11 verses from quotes of the early church fathers in the 2nd century. The evidence I have is all the books of the NT were written before 65 AD except for Revelation 95 AD.

Since the universe can't come from nothing nor always have existed, logically it must come from that which is outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. That which is uncreated is all-knowing and omnipresent. Nothing is greater. It is illogical to suggest something caused the uncreated. It's uncreated-always existed. That which always existed has no cause. It always existed. Slow crowd here today.

[stone]

Aliens Don't Exist and If They Did, It's Irrelevant

FACT #1: Based on our fastest capable speeds it would take 70,000 years to reach the nearest solar system. Even if we went at a fraction of that speed and collided with a small rock on the way the ship would be utterly destroyed. And the probability of life in any one solar system is so astronomically remote, the nearest system would not be merely 70,000 years away but at best billions of years away and more likely trillions of years away. So even if life did exist on another planet, it's irrelevant. Stick with your Bible.

This 'fact' contradicts the bible itself. You're saying that it would take 70,000 years for light to reach the closest solar system. The universe is much younger acording to the bible. how about the further stars... even longer? Billions, maybe trillions of years? all I am saying is this 'fact' does not show that aliens dont exist, it shows that the bible is wrong.