Atheistoclast wrote:Last time I checked, the planets were not in any danger of colliding with each other.

Atheistoclast wrote:Last time I checked, the planets were not in any danger of colliding with each other.

Nautilidae wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Last time I checked, the planets were not in any danger of colliding with each other.

Do things need to be in danger of colliding with each other in order to be chaotic? If being in harmony is not being in danger of colliding with each other, then my father's Chevy Suburban and a Toyota in Canada are in perfect harmony.

Adkinsjr wrote:Intelligent design is incoherent. Basically proponents of ID have to argue that the Universe is finely tuned for life, except when it isn't finely tuned for life-- Asteroids, comets, weather, disease, etc.

They rejoice when it's found that "Junk" DNA turns out to have a function, but if you point out "Junk" debris and planets floating around our solar system, suddenly intelligent design is not concerned with function. The designer just decides to make a planets with nothing on them. For instance he makes Jupiter with 63 moons. Then he decides to make Saturn, he decides to put some rings around it, he puts 62 moons into orbit around it....

amused wrote:The basic setup is still very elegant. A rock big enough to hold an atmosphere, mostly covered in water, slinging itself around a big ball of fire at a safe distance to keep temperatures about right. All of that suspended in a vast space so it won't bump into anything. Yes, there are some anomalies that are less than ideal, but overall the setup is elegantly simple. And even the random asteroid has had some positive effects.

I don't think *any* of the gods we've created so far come close to accurately describing whatever it is that might have set this in motion. But I do appreciate a good bit of machinery when I see it.

Douglas Adams wrote:Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.'

Atheistoclast wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Last time I checked, the planets were not in any danger of colliding with each other.

Do things need to be in danger of colliding with each other in order to be chaotic? If being in harmony is not being in danger of colliding with each other, then my father's Chevy Suburban and a Toyota in Canada are in perfect harmony.

Oh, for pity's sake, we can predict the movement of the planets and all that goes on in our system....there is no chaos and disorder.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Last time I checked, the planets were not in any danger of colliding with each other.

Do things need to be in danger of colliding with each other in order to be chaotic? If being in harmony is not being in danger of colliding with each other, then my father's Chevy Suburban and a Toyota in Canada are in perfect harmony.

Oh, for pity's sake, we can predict the movement of the planets and all that goes on in our system....there is no chaos and disorder.

Net Traveller wrote:one of my arguments has always been "if the solar system is fine tuned for life than why out of nine planets is there only life on one?" and that doesnt even count the various moons, I mean Jupiter has what? six moons doesn't it? If our solar system was fine tuned for life than all those moons should have various habitats and life forms on them but they dont.

Net Traveller wrote:one of my arguments has always been "if the solar system is fine tuned for life than why out of nine planets is there only life on one?" and that doesnt even count the various moons, I mean Jupiter has what? six moons doesn't it? If our solar system was fine tuned for life than all those moons should have various habitats and life forms on them but they dont.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Net Traveller wrote:one of my arguments has always been "if the solar system is fine tuned for life than why out of nine planets is there only life on one?" and that doesnt even count the various moons, I mean Jupiter has what? six moons doesn't it? If our solar system was fine tuned for life than all those moons should have various habitats and life forms on them but they dont.

Of course, the moons and planets could support life one day, as well as being a source for raw materials.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Net Traveller wrote:one of my arguments has always been "if the solar system is fine tuned for life than why out of nine planets is there only life on one?" and that doesnt even count the various moons, I mean Jupiter has what? six moons doesn't it? If our solar system was fine tuned for life than all those moons should have various habitats and life forms on them but they dont.

Of course, the moons and planets could support life one day, as well as being a source for raw materials.

Adkinsjr wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Net Traveller wrote:one of my arguments has always been "if the solar system is fine tuned for life than why out of nine planets is there only life on one?" and that doesnt even count the various moons, I mean Jupiter has what? six moons doesn't it? If our solar system was fine tuned for life than all those moons should have various habitats and life forms on them but they dont.

Of course, the moons and planets could support life one day, as well as being a source for raw materials.

True, but even the most hospitable planets and moons are not very hospitable. Futurists speculate about colonizing Mars, but it's an overwhelmingly difficult and far-fetched task. Mars hasn't been designed for us to live there; We would have to transform the planet ourselves. The work hasn't been done for us by the "designer."

Plus, what the hell are we going to do with quasars, pulsars, white dwarfs, red giants, black holes, asteroids, comets, etc. ?

I guess asteroids and comets may have raw materials on them, but I don't think humans will be going anywhere near pulsars, quasars, or black holes.

Wuffy wrote:

Adkinsjr wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Net Traveller wrote:one of my arguments has always been "if the solar system is fine tuned for life than why out of nine planets is there only life on one?" and that doesnt even count the various moons, I mean Jupiter has what? six moons doesn't it? If our solar system was fine tuned for life than all those moons should have various habitats and life forms on them but they dont.

Of course, the moons and planets could support life one day, as well as being a source for raw materials.

True, but even the most hospitable planets and moons are not very hospitable. Futurists speculate about colonizing Mars, but it's an overwhelmingly difficult and far-fetched task. Mars hasn't been designed for us to live there; We would have to transform the planet ourselves. The work hasn't been done for us by the "designer."

Plus, what the hell are we going to do with quasars, pulsars, white dwarfs, red giants, black holes, asteroids, comets, etc. ?

I guess asteroids and comets may have raw materials on them, but I don't think humans will be going anywhere near pulsars, quasars, or black holes.

Heck just trying to step foot off the planet is one of the worst things we can do with the intense radiation out there.

Atheistoclast wrote:...there is no chaos and disorder.

newolder wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:...there is no chaos and disorder.

A compound pendulum's swing shows how wrong 1's rectally extracted assertions can be.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL8GjNdx1Js[/youtube]