Jupiter makes the juices flow, dies pater yas poncy other planets, Jupiter controls what the sun can't handle!
There's life on every planet don't ya know...

Oh look, someone lost a sea turtle balloon from their parade.

How is anyone dumb enough to think this is from some other planet? Fuckin idiots, ay?

Think about it: right now, on some other planet or in some other universe, someone who lives on a ringed planet is watching a video about what their planet would be like with a crazy moon instead of boring old rings, and it's blowing THEIR mind.

Whether the earth revolves around the sun or the other way round depends on your frame of reference. And your obliviousness to the existence of other planets

@rougy
Oh, you mean the "When God created the heavens and the earth in six days" part?
You consider that scientific?

Keep in mind I'm not a Biblical literalist. But yeah. Insofar as it was written by a semiliterate goatherder thousands of years ago, yeah, our current scientific understanding matches the Christian conception of creation. It doesn't match the Buddhist one.

When you speak of life appearing relatively recently, you realize that you are only speaking of our own planet.
You can't say the same for other planets, nor can you say the same for other solar systems in other galaxies.

Oh, sure, it's possible (even likely) that life evolved (or created, take your pick) on other planets before Earth. But if you've studied cosmology, there's a large period of time that having any life at all existing would be rather dubious (without divine intervention, I suppose).

Having any period of time without life is bad for Buddhism, in fact.

I'm sorry, but to claim that the Big Bang theory proves Christianity correct and Buddhism incorrect is speculative at best, and very arrogant.

Prove? Did I say prove? I said supported once, and favors another time. Which is the appropriate level of confidence to use in this case. If you were held at gunpoint and forced to pick between Christian and Buddhist worldviews on the ultimate nature of reality, based on our current scientific understanding of the universe, a rational person would pick Christian.

(And if you'd say neither, you've fallen off the logic wagon a couple steps back.)

In short, you have no proof. You are drawing a conclusion based on limited facts, the same as me, the same as everybody else, and your conclusion is, at best, nothing more than a guess, or a wish.

Which is why I never used the word proof, but argued instead from the fact that the evidence favors life after death instead of extinction.

The facts are 1 to 0, as it were. You can certainly believe in what you'd like against the evidence (taking it on blind faith as it were), but you can't claim it's especially scientific to do so.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Mind expanding on that thesis?The Christian idea of a created universe with a finite beginning and the gradual emergence of life matches our current scientific understanding. The Buddhist conception does not.


Oh, you mean the "When God created the heavens and the earth in six days" part?

You consider that scientific?

When you speak of life appearing relatively recently, you realize that you are only speaking of our own planet.

You can't say the same for other planets, nor can you say the same for other solar systems in other galaxies.

You have to consider that the phenomenon that we call "life" is in itself a very specific chain of events, and that there are probably other forms of life somewhere out there that do not cohere to our definitions, but they are alive nontheless.

I'm sorry, but to claim that the Big Bang theory proves Christianity correct and Buddhism incorrect is speculative at best, and very arrogant.

In short, you have no proof. You are drawing a conclusion based on limited facts, the same as me, the same as everybody else, and your conclusion is, at best, nothing more than a guess, or a wish.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You are right, we would need to migrate to other planets - and I would expect that. But why do we have to think of ourselves as a virus? I hope that if we live up to 10K years, we'll get past the self-loathing that defines so much of life. When I hit 1,000 years- I expcect to be making confident, noble decisions that are good for the environment and my fellow humans.

I don't know. I saw it and overall thought it was an alright flick, but nothing to write home about.

The main things that dropped my rating of it were those that failed to provide an explanation. I'll try to be vague about it, but stop reading here if you haven't seen it yet.


If the story had stopped at the end of all humanity I might have liked it more, but the addition of the saviors made me ask a lot of questions like: Why? Why were they so interesting in being so helpful? Why did they choose just a select few? Why did they decide to choose who they chose? If they knew for 50 years that day was coming and they were so interested in helping, why not just spend those decades taking as many survivors as possible?

I know there are some answers that could be dreamed up to adequately answer those questions, but without the film providing any indication it's all just speculation. I think the difference in overall opinion of the flick varies greatly depending on your personal relationship with sci-fi. I'm also not an enormous fan of the notion that aliens are altogether the true God who drop us off on a planet for a million years until we're all about to die, then they take a few dozen to some other planet just to start it all over again for their continued amusement.

Gore is a self-anointed figurehead in what I deem one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on the human race. He deserves to be targeted as he targets others. He was a "C" student who originally took environmental classes because they were easier. His crockumentary has been seen by many more people than have read Lomborg's tome, and "An Inconvenient Truth" has been soundly thrashed for numbers 1-6 listed (except perhaps for plagiarism).

It's simply telling that Gore won't debate, when infinite resources are at his disposal for such an undertaking.

The greenvangelicals are beyond reason on the GW issue and the politicians love AGW because it gives them the omnipresence of God without placing any moral authority higher than their own. At last they have a way to link all their schemes in a unifying "circle of life".

The sun is responsible for heating up the earth as well as other planets which have no SUVs as of yet. Man tried to create his own paradise via 'Biosphere II' and nearly suffocated the inhabitants. If they can't mix the proper ratio of gases in a bubble, do you really think these international goofballs can "fine tune" a planet's weather?

don't worry im sure you can reinterpret a verse ore page in the bible to make it say life exists on other planets and its all gods plan, religions have manged to do this thousand of times before

So, this leads one to the only important question; on which day did God create life on other planets?

Sunday.

This is a fake. There is not a version of Star Wars on this or any other planet where someone is making a cell phone call on the Death Star.

This is a fake. There is not a George Lucas on this or any other planet that would permit this.

This is fake. There is not a movie theatre on this or any other planet that would give up concession revenue.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You'd hope that a super-advanced civilisation wouldn't just off itself en masse. So while the begin date for intelligent life could be anytime - you would hope that there isn't an end date.

Civilisations might reach a stage where they become hermitic. If you can create or simulate entire universes virtually - why bother exploring other planets. Vernor Vinge had the idea that at some point civilisations "ascend" to an unknowable god-like state that is so far advanced from life as we know as to be indescribable to us.