Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Evolution does not state that there should be life on Mars.
To my knowledge there is currently no life on Mars, and I haven't read any articles that have come to the conclusion that there was life on Mars in the past.If there is to be life on Mars at present one must make the supposition that life existed on Mars in the past. Even if one makes the assumption there was life on Mars prior to now, the concept of evolution does not imply that there must be life on Mars now. The current atmospheric and terrestrial compositions would not in my opinion sustain any life as we know it.
Evolution does not assert that something always survives, it asserts that the species and traits most suited to the environment survive.
" Evolution does not assert that something always survives, it asserts that the species and traits most suited to the environment survive."
Evolution does not assert that something always survives, it asserts that life is survival of the fittest, that's what you mean. You mean that life is all about getting to the top to survive, i thought life didn't have a meaning?
"Evolution does not state that there should be life on Mars.
To my knowledge there is currently no life on Mars, and I haven't read any articles that have come to the conclusion that there was life on Mars in the past." What has changed so much about Mars that would have gotten rid of life? Whatever it was must have taken ALOT of years to happen, so maybe the bacteria would have evolved into the changes, slowly but surely (It didn't happen did it?)
"Evolution does not state that there should be life on Mars." Yet it states that life has evolved on a planet full of Oxygen and Water, what makes water so special anyway?
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Evolution does not assert that something always survives, it asserts that life is survival of the fittest, that's what you mean. You mean that life is all about getting to the top to survive, i thought life didn't have a meaning?Oh dear, not this again. Once more the presumption that your views are the only views. Quote me on when I ever said life had no meaning.
What has changed so much about Mars that would have gotten rid of life? Whatever it was must have taken ALOT of years to happen, so maybe the bacteria would have evolved into the changes, slowly but surely (It didn't happen did it?)
Read my post again. You're assuming life existed on Mars prior to now, which has yet to be proven. You're assuming that catastrophic extinction does not exist. You're assuming that evolution always keeps pace with changes in the environment. Evolution does not assert that something aways survives.
Yet it states that life has evolved on a planet full of Oxygen and Water, what makes water so special anyway?
Incredibly oversimplified if you're suggesting that the only two differences between Earth and Mars are the presence of liquid water and the approximate 21% O2 proportion of atmospheric composition. If you want to know why water and oxygen are so important to life as we know it I'd suggest you take some classes in biochemistry.
I'll put "documentaries on TV about life on Mars" on my to do list, when you put taking a BSc on yours. 😉
Ok, I'll see if I can do that.
If there is no god, why should there be a reason? If we weren't made we clearly appeared by chance, unless there is something powerful to have started the purpose there is no specific purpose atall. Its like us, we make reasons for things to happen, or we try and figure out why it happened. As science itself proves, everything has a purpose.
Evolution also gives examples of purpose, you evolve to adapt to environment. The only glitch is the fact that there is no reason for all of it to have happened in the first place.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
If there is no god, why should there be a reason?
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
And also the changes that happend to Mars, no matter what in common it once had with earth, would have taken an extremely long time to happen. There is no craters on Mars that say Mars could have been knocked out of it's original orbit by a meteor. Otherwise, how could it change so quickly?
I don't know where you derive the assumption that Mars was once identical to Earth. That is fallacy. To humour you though a simplistic explanation: the planet core cooled relatively rapidly and it is further from the sun, water froze, lack of continental drift, atmosphere trapped terrestrially, leading to current atmospheric and terrestrial compositions.
Besides it doesn't matter how long a process takes that produces an environment inhospitable to all life. The resulting environment is inhospitable to all life ergo mass extinction.
Evolution does not dictate that something always survives.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ehm...Adam_PoE will give you an argument that because a human wrote 'day', it was a day of twenty-four hours. Which is a pretty weak argument (no offense).However, if one translates the original Hebrew, it seems that there are at least two words that translate to 'day', and the one used in Genesis happens to mean a day of twenty-four hours.
day n. The 24 hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
Do you mean to tell me that The Bible, which is supposedly the infallible word of God, uses the word "day" to mean something other than a period of 24 hours?
If that is your position, you would be hard pressed to prove it considering that the story in which God creates the world in six literal days and rests on the seventh is the basis for the seven day week.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Flawed logic. Think outside the square you live in for a change."Hellas Planitia, also known as the Hellas Impact Basin, is a roughly circular impact crater located in the southern hemisphere of the planet Mars. With a diameter of about 2,100 km, it is the largest impact structure on the planet. There are a multitude more craters. Mars has been heavily bombarded in the past. This isn't especially large as impact craters go but why would Mars need to be knocked out of orbit anyway?"
I don't know where you derive the assumption that Mars was once identical to Earth. That is fallacy. To humour you though a simplistic explanation: the planet core cooled relatively rapidly and it is further from the sun, water froze, lack of continental drift, atmosphere trapped terrestrially, leading to current atmospheric and terrestrial compositions.
Besides it doesn't matter how long a process takes that produces an environment inhospitable to all life. The resulting environment is inhospitable to all life ergo mass extinction.
Evolution does not dictate that something always survives.
1. Whoa, where are we going here? If anyones feelings mattered they would have a meaning, so you say our lives and feelings matter just as much as Pluto(not atall)? Which happend by chance, or you say so anyway.
2. I don't say it was the same as earth, but on that subject all the other planets are covered in meteorites, unlike earth where they are hardly ever seen in the sky.
3.Hellas Planitia would need to be big enough to knock Mars out of orbit because there can't be many other ways for the atmosphere to change so quickly.
4. "The resulting environment is inhospitable to all life ergo mass extinction." But according to evolution they can evolve into any environment. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html Just look at that `and maybe questions will be answered.
1. Form a coherent sentence. I have no idea what you're rambling about. You seem to lack an ability to see and comprehend a situation or concept through another's views. Besides if you want to debate whether Christianity has a monopoly over the concepts of souls, purpose and meaning make a new thread.
2. Again I don't exactly know what you're trying to imply. You say you realise that Mars and Earth are completely different situations and yet you keep trying to use Mars as an analogy for Earth. BTW planets are not covered in meteorites. 🤨
3. Again find out about the differences between Earth and Mars. Find out more about the current atmospheric and terrestrial composition of Mars. Also about the differences in size, gravity, distance to the sun. It wouldn't matter how long it took to reach that state if the state cannot sustain life. Besides you're still running under the assumption that there was life on Mars prior to the current situation which makes your entire line of argument supposition.
4. You're telling me what happens according to evolution when several times you've shown a lack of even a rudimentary understanding of evolution. I don't need some website published without any bias by the obviously independent (sarcasm in case you didn't notice 🙄 ) "Bible Baptist Church" to tell me about evolution. For the last time, evolution does not dictate that something always survives.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]day n. The 24 hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.Do you mean to tell me that The Bible, which is supposedly the infallible word of God, uses the word "day" to mean something other than a period of 24 hours?
If that is your position, you would be hard pressed to prove it considering that the story in which God creates the world in six literal days and rests on the seventh is the basis for the seven day week. [/B]
Eros is physical attraction (erotic). Philio is to enjoy something (paraphilia). Agape is love-love, the deep, unconditional love.
These would all be translated as 'love', however.
In the original Hebrew, there were more words that, when translated, would be 'day' in English.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1. Form a coherent sentence. I have no idea what you're rambling about. You seem to lack an ability to see and comprehend a situation or concept through another's views. Besides if you want to debate whether Christianity has a monopoly over the concepts of souls, purpose and meaning make a new thread.2. Again I don't exactly know what you're trying to imply. You say you realise that Mars and Earth are completely different situations and yet you keep trying to use Mars as an analogy for Earth. BTW planets are not covered in meteorites. 🤨
3. Again find out about the differences between Earth and Mars. Find out more about the current atmospheric and terrestrial composition of Mars. Also about the differences in size, gravity, distance to the sun. It wouldn't matter how long it took to reach that state if the state cannot sustain life. Besides you're still running under the assumption that there was life on Mars prior to the current situation which makes your entire line of argument supposition.
4. You're telling me what happens according to evolution when several times you've shown a lack of even a rudimentary understanding of evolution. I don't need some website published without any bias by the obviously independent (sarcasm in case you didn't notice 🙄 ) "Bible Baptist Church" to tell me about evolution. For the last time, [b]evolution does not dictate that something always survives.
[/B]
1. I am amazed you didn't get that. Maybe this might clarify it, Pluto doesn't matter atall and has no meaning, just like you and I.Pluto happend by chance, just like us. So it has no meaning, just like us. it doesn't matter if pluto blows up, supposedly just like us.
NO MEANING = NO MATTER = WHO CARES
2. Mars is, yet it was the first planet for people to believe life was on. It's still amazing that life doesn't exist on planets that are suitable.
I have to go, i will say more later.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
1. I am amazed you didn't get that. Maybe this might clarify it, Pluto doesn't matter atall and has no meaning, just like you and I.Pluto happend by chance, just like us. So it has no meaning, just like us. it doesn't matter if pluto blows up, supposedly just like us.
NO MEANING = NO MATTER = WHO CARES2. Mars is, yet it was the first planet for people to believe life was on. It's still amazing that life doesn't exist on planets that are suitable.
I have to go, i will say more later.
1. YOU MAKE NO SENSE. What does Pluto have to do with anything? You're entire strange line of questioning is based on your own assumption that if a person does not believe in your god that said person does not believe life has any meaning.
You then attempt to pass off your opinion as a statement of someone else's views without realisation that they are not someone else's views they are simply your own. You obviously lack the empathic faculties to see a situation from another person's point of view. Or you presume that your definitions and views of philosophical concepts are the only ones possible. The former is ignorance the latter is arrogance.
I state that one can believe life has purpose, or meaning, and one can subscribe to the idea that humans may have a soul, without believing in The Bible or Christianity. You ask which side of the argument I am on, presuming that one must believe in your god to believe in any of these concepts.
The argument is even more flawed in that not once have I even stated whether or not I believe in a god.
There's a meaning of life thread in the philosophy forum. I.e. other people have other views on what gives life meaning. This isn't the topic of this thread.
2. "Mars is"? Mars is what? What planets are suitable? What are you talking about? 🤨
YOU MAKE NO SENSE. What does Pluto have to do with anything? You're entire strange line of questioning is based on your own assumption that if a person does not believe in your god that said person does not believe life has any meaning.yet he is of the belief he has the gift of proving everybody else wrong and this is his way of doing so.......posting randomly swada
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1. YOU MAKE NO SENSE. What does Pluto have to do with anything? You're entire strange line of questioning is based on your own assumption that if a person does not believe in your god that said person does not believe life has any meaning.You then attempt to pass off your opinion as a statement of someone else's views without realisation that they are not someone else's views they are simply your own. You obviously lack the empathic faculties to see a situation from another person's point of view. Or you presume that your definitions and views of philosophical concepts are the only ones possible. The former is ignorance the latter is arrogance.
I state that one can believe life has purpose, or meaning, and one can subscribe to the idea that humans may have a soul, without believing in The Bible or Christianity. You ask which side of the argument I am on, presuming that one must believe in your god to believe in any of these concepts.
The argument is even more flawed in that not once have I even stated whether or not I believe in a god.There's a meaning of life thread in the philosophy forum. I.e. other people have other views on what gives life meaning. This isn't the topic of this thread.
2. "Mars is"? Mars is what? What planets are suitable? What are you talking about? 🤨
1. I might as well be talking to a brick wall, you have excluded what i just said from the rest of the things i've been saying. Pluto has no purpose, THAT's what it has to do with anything. And THAT is what we are supposed to have in common. Plus, If Pluto exploded noone should care, supposedly like us. Maybe how I am saying things is too complicated? Or maybe you just can't find a way to respond?
"You then attempt to pass off your opinion as a statement of someone else's views without realisation that they are not someone else's views they are simply your own. You obviously lack the empathic faculties to see a situation from another person's point of view. Or you presume that your definitions and views of philosophical concepts are the only ones possible. The former is ignorance the latter is arrogance."
And how do you know that others don't think that? It isn't 'my view' it's an explanation of what you just told me, and yet, if you can't think of a reply it might aswell be the only one possible. I just make my reply to your first ever argument against me more accurate, and so do you.
"I state that one can believe life has purpose, or meaning, and one can subscribe to the idea that humans may have a soul, without believing in The Bible or Christianity. You ask which side of the argument I am on, presuming that one must believe in your god to believe in any of these concepts.
The argument is even more flawed in that not once have I even stated whether or not I believe in a god."
The whole idea of a soul is for there to be a god (Yet the soul would mean just as much as haveing none to you anyway). Wow, the soul is SO important even though it has no reason to be there ATALL*sarcasm*
If anything like what you said existed in real life the soul might aswell not be there anyway.
2. "The argument is even more flawed in that not once have I even stated whether or not I believe in a god." You'd be really smart to argue against god when you believe in him. *sarcasm*