- Joined
- Jan 11, 2023
- Messages
- 3,775
- Reaction score
- 3,649
No one will notice, as usual. Raging into the void on that one.I'm guessing origins uncensored is coming back soon![]()
No one will notice, as usual. Raging into the void on that one.I'm guessing origins uncensored is coming back soon![]()
The scary thing is, I think you actually believe your nonsense
Does it take a genius to figure out that replying to a question (from a human) with copy paste spam followed up with ad hom really isn't much?!..
That's our Tiger 4 u
^^
Half an hour without even a sentence from the poster on WTF its about.
Same as the video^^
Half an hour without even a sentence from the poster on WTF its about.
An interesting discussion broke out on another thread regarding the origins of humans and life in general.
I think this deserves its own thread.
The tapestry of human origins is woven with threads of inquiry, speculation and awe. A question as old as time is, where did we come from?
The traditional and deeply rooted beliefs in creationism posit a divine hand sculpting humanity, while the modern scientific discourse of evolution posits that life has arisen from natural processes.
Oooh.. I'm not banned here (yet)Others believe that our existence is the result of extraterrestrial interventions, with beings from distant galaxies planting the seeds of life on earth.
So, which one is true?
Here is the place to discuss it.
Oooh.. I'm not banned here (yet)
Okay, let's test your tolerance, lack of bigotry..
I'm reminded of our conversation yesterday in the General Chat thread (that I'm shamefully banned from) regarding aliens and your% assertion that they don't exist (which I believe is a religious belief) so you've kinda ruled that one (above) out, haven't you?
By the way, it (the theory) is known as panspermia.
Which isn't exactly the notion that Little Green Men put lifeforms on a rock and then pushed it towards Earth.
Also too, do you accept that evolution doesn't posit anything about the origin of life, so it isn't exactly relevant to a discussion on life's origin?![]()
Thanks for your reply, and I hope you've enjoyed your few days off.James. This is the kind of questioning post is perfectly welcome on this thread. So, thank you for posting it.
I am fully familiar with panspermia; and rest assured, my understanding extends beyond the 'Little Green Men' rendition.
Now here's where I start asking questions, what does "philosophical sidestep" mean?As for the evolution-versus-origins distinction, that’s indeed a classic point, but it’s also a bit of a philosophical sidestep.
I would argue that evolution, by describing the modification of early life forms, is implicitly tied to questions about their initial emergence. Origins and adaptations aren't mutually exclusive discussions; they’re pieces of a larger puzzle.
You claim, with complete authority, that aliens do not exist.As for aliens, my position is less a 'religious belief' and more a working hypothesis grounded in Occam’s razor and current evidence—though I’m always open to credible surprises. Until then, I'll gladly take the safer cosmic bet
Thanks for your reply, and I hope you've enjoyed your few days off.
I also hope we can continue this conversation (at least for a bit) in a contesting but reasonably civil manner..
Now here's where I start asking questions, what does "philosophical sidestep" mean?
It is a common misapprehension that evolution (of species) posits anything about the origin of life.
You claim, with complete authority, that aliens do not exist.
I'm saying that that's a/your religious belief.. but you're saying that it's a "cosmic bet"? What does that mean?![]()
Evolution is separated from the question of life's originWell, when discussing origins on an Origins thread, addressing the interplay between life’s beginning and its evolution is not only relevant but foundational.
By entirely separating evolution from the question of life’s origin, we risk what I’d call a 'philosophical sidestep'—an attempt to compartmentalise these concepts to avoid the broader, and often more challenging, implications.
This isn’t about merging the two into one theory but rather acknowledging the natural continuity between them. Evolution presupposes a starting point, and understanding that foundation is critical to any full explanation of how evolutionary processes could even begin.
Disengaging evolution from origins can feel like an intellectually comfortable shortcut.
Evolution is separated from the question of life's origin
Any word on cosmic bet?
I'm perfectly content that what I said is factual. So we can leave it at thatThe separation between evolution and the origin of life is recognised in terms of distinct scientific inquiries—abiogenesis focusing on life’s inception, and evolutionary theory on the diversification of life thereafter.
However, the two are of course, naturally intertwined when considering life as a continuum; evolution presupposes a biological framework upon which it operates, and exploring that framework’s emergence helps to contextualise evolution’s earliest mechanisms. So, while these fields are technically separated, they complement each other in understanding life’s full arc.
Your claim is 100%, without doubt, that aliens don't existAs for my ‘cosmic bet,’ I’d say it’s a cautious wager, given our current evidence. While some theorise life’s origins could involve cosmic contributions, like panspermia, I find the more immediate evidence of life’s terrestrial beginnings a less speculative grounding.
Still, should new evidence emerge and if you have evidence against my view, feel free to post it.
I'm perfectly content that what I said is factual. So we can leave it at that
Your claim is 100%, without doubt, that aliens don't exist
My evidence against that is that you don't have any evidence for it
First of all, the origin of life is unknownIt’s interesting to see you have a reluctance to engage with questions about life’s origin and the evidence that surrounds it, especially given the depth such discussions can offer to our understanding.
Please stop lyingAs for the 'cosmic bet,' my particular stance on extraterrestrial life is not an absolute claim
but a view based on current empirical evidence, or rather, the lack thereof.
The absence of proof isn’t proof of absence; it simply reflects the limits of our exploration so far. I prefer conclusions grounded in observed data. This isn’t about ruling out unknown possibilities but about respecting the weight of evidence—or the lack of it—when we make assertions.
First of all, the origin of life is unknown
Please stop lying
Post in thread 'General Chat.' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/general-chat.1021/post-117499
You say -Saying that I don’t think aliens exist isn’t lying. That’s what I think.
As I tried to explain to you, you are not proven wrong with the assertion -I also said that I’m happy to be proven wrong which tallies with my position above. I notice that you didn’t quote that post.
Post in thread 'General Chat.'
You say -
Aliens don't exist
Not -
I don't believe that aliens exist
Is the difference between an absolutism and a belief too subtle for you?
As I tried to explain to you, you are not proven wrong with the assertion -
Aliens do exist
Gearing up for the ban I seeJames, this conversation feels like more evidence that you might be on the spectrum.
Your tendency to hyper-focus on specific posts without fully absorbing the broader context is making it challenging to have a productive conversation. Even when follow-up explanations are provided, you repeatedly fixate on one word or sentence, which detracts from the overall discussion.
For us to move forward constructively, I’d encourage you to consider the conversation as a whole. Otherwise, I have to regard your contributions to this thread as counterproductive and that you are effectively spamming the thread like an autistic person.
What do they have to do with each other?Let’s try and get the conversation back on track….given your strong belief in evolution as the sole explanation for life’s complexity, how do you address the origin of matter itself or the fine-tuning of universal constants?
No, I don't believe that science will answer everything, to be quite honestIs there room in your view for questions evolution doesn’t answer, or do you believe science alone can eventually explain everything?