Which god? Atun? Re? Baal? Quetzacoatl? Rael?
Glad you asked.SkinWalker said:Which god? Atun? Re? Baal? Quetzacoatl? Rael?
Billy T said:Glad you asked.
We should call our god "BET" which short for Buffy's Extra Terrestrials. They inoculated the Earth with slime about 2 billions years ago. The first higher life forms to evolve from this slime were the ancestors of the deep sea worms now found only near a few deep ocean sulfur/ methane vents, but back a million years, when the atmosphere was mainly H2O steam, and the crustial plates were more active, their range was more global.
Back about 2.5 billion years ago when it was too dangerous to cool and colonize Earth, because large meteor impacts were more common, the BETs made Buffy in a relatively safe zone. Fact that Buffy gets little solar energy at 57 AUs from sun, BETs considered to be an asset - their fusion reactors waste heat radiators worked better, but normally they point away from the sun so we would not have detected the strong IR signature from that radiator, even if all the BETs had not died long ago and were nice enough to shut reactor down first. - Unlike those jerks who lived on the other planet they smeared with slime - a planet we now call the asteroid belt.
Buffy is no longer in its original perfectly circular orbit. (Apogee = 62AU & perigee = 52AU now.) but it still has the 47-degree inclination to the ecliptic.
You may have heard that "God is dead", and I think that the inhabitants of Buffy did die about half a billion years ago, but now that we have found their home and no doubt will try to visit it soon to learn what knowledge treasures they left for us to find, I think that had they lived, they would be proud of their creation, man.
All bow down and hail dead BET.
Also please send me you contribution for the BET memorial ASAP.
No, a BETite.jayleew said:What are you, Mormon?
the above says it all. i thought you and valich already settled this with your little shootout.Ophiolite said:The US Supreme Court did not reach any decision.
Billy T said:No, a BETite.
Are they trying to prevert BET's truths?
Ophiolite said:The US Supreme Court did not reach any decision. A single judge in Pennsylvania handed down the decision you have lampooned.
...then we invent some sort of "explanation" that gives the result we want.
ID explains complex features of the organisms.
Three (or maybe twelve) Intelligent Designing "guys" explain the complex features of organisms
I think it's that funny the basis of all creationisms, the analogy of adaptations with the product of a mind, can also be beaten with the analogy of natural selection operating as a mind. Our inventions don't come from nothing, all of a sudden. We usually "symbiotize" and ensemble known stuff in different ways and then mentally test the hypothesis of how it would work in the real world, in a not so far from random way.
When something really good comes out in our minds then we do the prototypes. Then adjustments in the prototypes, then eventually the real thing. Later, someone will come up with a new improvement, also figured in the same way it was done earlier, and then the invention evolves.
In nature all that happens in a dynamic way, rather than being mentally tested. It's pretty similar in the sense that both the mind and the analogue to mind create design, but the result of each other are not yet indistinguishable.
Yeah, it's not the best possible, but I prefer a doctor saying that perhaps someone died from some heart disease or whatever, even if he or she isn't 100% sure, just the best (even dull) guess, than saying it was by "intelligent murdering" - which in this case wouldn't be an human intelligent murderer, but something else, or "he died from magic".
c'est moi said:TI think the guy used the example of the mouse trap (why not use a real example?). Behe's response crushed him easily. Irreducible complexity is a real problem for evolution. It has nothing to do with the conclusions that Behe attached to it (ID, creationism).
So far, so good. What is more than a bit odd, however, is that some of the most ardent opponents of Darwinian evolution - for example, many fundamentalist Christians - are among the most ardent supporters of the free market. They accept the market's complexity without qualm, yet insist the complexity of biological phenomena requires a designer.