mistermack

The water molecule being in the glass is enormously improbable. But it's just a numbers phenomenon. If you have a probability of one in a thousand, but there are billions of things happening every second, then the long shot becomes less surprising. With the Universe, the actual conditions might look an unlikely combination. But if there were billions of possible combinations, then they were all unlikely, so whichever combination of conditions actually existed, it was always going to be unlikely. The conditions that ARE existing produced a Universe as we know it. If they were different, then the Universe would be different. It's our assumption that what exists is somehow SPECIAL that's misleading. It's like saying that the molecule in the glass is somehow special, and therefore everything must have been designed, so that that molecule ends up in that glass. That's the fundamental error of the fine-tuning argument.

Of course, humanoids wouldn't be new. Jesus of Nazareth was half man half alien, two thousand years ago. He looked human, but had very alien powers, including walking on water, turning water into wine, and multiplying solid objects like loaves and fishes. And regeneration after apparent death. The Greeks had gods that were humanoid too, but they were just superstitious stories.

Super-Earth Planet Likely Made of Diamond | Space

Finding signs of life outside of the Solar System would be interesting, but irrelevant, as far as we are concerned. A bit like finding that the centre of Jupiter was made of diamond. Very interesting, but you could never have any contact with it. The time-frames for travel to other stars is pretty mind-blowing when you start to look at the practicalities. So the extra-terrestrial life that might be of more than academic interest is pretty much confined to the Solar System. Since we regularly get bits of Mars landing on Earth as meteorites, it's not impossible that life here was seeded from earlier life on Mars. Or from elsewhere unknowns. It could even be that life was floating around dormant in rocks from previous star systems, that eventually formed the Solar System as we know it. We think that life started about 4 billion years ago, here on Earth, but it could have started 10 billion years ago, or more, on much earlier planets. That's why they are so exited about the recent asteroid samples brought back to Utah. There might be primitive life in them, from earlier worlds. That's also a reason to be nervous about the samples. They don't stress the possibility publicly, but there could be something in it that could be lethal to current life on Earth. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.

What I would say to the pastor is, how much influence do advertisers have, compared to pastors? Pastors get little children, and DEMAND their attention, they don't invite it, like an advert. And they REQUIRE that little children accept and believe their message, they drill that message into them as the absolute truth. It's religious pastors, in combination with parents, who are the biggest robbers of free will today. Because they forcibly indoctrinate defenceless children, whereas adverts just try to tempt you. Of course, advertising works, but compared to religious indoctrination, it's puny.

When did you ever? I have no idea whatsoever what you are saying in that post, and that's about par for the course.

I think the Pastor might be telling the truth, but Google might be bending it. After all, you seeing ads is their bread and butter.

That's an example of how statistics and lies can be interchangeable. The critical word is "seen". Nobody is likely to see 10,000 ads in a day, or even 4,000. Because you see with your brain. Your eyes might encounter a lot of ads, but how many does your brain actually see?

I can't see the attraction of erasable. In days gone by, yes, it would save you starting again, if you weren't happy with something. Nowadays, you can compose it in word, do all your checking and alterations, and then write it out when you are 100% happy. Or you could write it out, correct it using correction fluid, and then scan and print the final version. Or a combination of both.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/powerlisting/images/2/29/GAN21961.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20201016181456

Well, IF he was guilty, and I "intelligently" designed him, then it would be my fault, not his. Intelligent design in the religious sense is proposed as an answer to the mystery of the existence of the Universe, and the origin of life. The anthill isn't that much of a mystery.

Very loosely for the purposes of discussing aliens. I would start with a body of sixty plus kilos, with four limbs (very common) no tail (pretty common), thin neck with big head (pretty rare), and habitually bipedal (extremely rare). I'm not saying it's likely. It's very unlikely. I'm just speculating what conditions would be needed for human-like aliens to evolve.

The only creatures on Earth that I can think of, that have, or have had, a humanoid form, are related to us pretty closely through having a common ancestor not long ago, in evolutionary terms. So even here on Earth, there has only been one line of creatures that evolved in that way. So the chances of a similar form evolving on an alien world and developing to our level are truly tiny. You would need a planet like Earth, with all it's special features, in the goldilocks zone, protected by a magnetic field, and you would need photosynthesis to evolve, and produce forests of tree-like things on dry land. And for that planet not to be hit too often by meteorites while the aliens were evolving. And not too much volcanism. And similar gravity, and a similar greenhouse gas atmosphere. With plenty of water in oceans. Basically, you need another Earth for aliens who look like us.

I got curious about erasing, so I checked out youtube, which is I think the best go-to for stuff like this. You don't get deluged in adverts, like a search engine does. This I found straight away, and it pretty much told me what i didn't know about erasable fountain pen ink. It works on standard paper, but it's special ink, and special erasing fluid, that's applied by felt-tip. A bit like bleaching, but probably more hi-tec. But it works pretty well.

I think most humans would wish the same, me included, although I wouldn't wish for hell to be real. The religious stories are built on that wish, for there to be something more than this brief existence we get. But as we get older, a lot of us come to realise more and more that wishing for something doesn't make it happen, or true. Those who mould and build religions play on that wish, and design their offering to appeal to it. There were and are some very clever people pushing religion, and they know what buttons to push.

That's why, for thousands of years, people were convinced by the appearance of design, that there must be a designer. That's why Darwin and Russel made the greatest leap ever in science, in showing how you can have the appearance of design, without a designer. It's not design without a designer, it's the appearance of design, without a designer.

Relatively.

No it doesn't. It doesn't design at all. It gives the appearance of design.

In what way?

It's a critique of the notion of design. Your comment is not a serious critique of my critique. It contains no argument whatsoever.

I've never seen intelligent design argued for in a calm, logical way. I'm wondering if anything of the sort is out there? Is there anyone out there, pushing ID, who is worth reading or listening to, even if you disagree? Or maybe I'm too biased. I try not to be, but the ones that I've seen proposing ID have always made me wince, within seconds of starting speaking, with the first totally illogical claim.

And that's about it. That was in the OP, and I think people have got the message that it appears that way to you. But most of the people reading this will require proper evidence and logical interpretation, not the sort of stuff you're posting. Evidence has to stand up against the most severe criticism, performed in a logical scientific way. The truth can easily do that, because it's true. Wishful thinking fails all over the place. But it only needs one fail of fact or logic for it to fall apart. Your big logical fail right from the start was that a few contrived "coincidences" mean something. In mysterious ways. If any scientist proposed that, in a scientific paper, they would be laughed out of the job. That's why people laughed at your OP on a science forum. They try to think critically, and can't help laughing at being offered rubbish thinking. To be honest, I don't think the OP would even go down well from the pulpit, it's so lacking in any kind of common logic.

I just had a look, Amazon does stock fountain pen ink that they describe as "washable, erasable". But that's all they say, they don't give any details on how you go about erasing it. Youtube would probably give the answer. Online double-sided pen ink cartridges, universal pen refills, compatible with all common fountain pens, even Lamy pens - 5 spare cartridges - Erasable, washable, colour royalblue, 17036/12 : Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories I would personally trust the ingredients as safe. Life's too short to research everything you use, you have to chance it these days. But it's unlikely that they use anything hazardous. Manufacturers have access to extensive test information on the ingredients that they use.