Half of European men share King Tut's DNA

[Plane]

Unicorns are not Narwhals. They have four legs.

Beetles are not dragons.

A jackalope is a rodent, not an African deer.

And there is no proof that God created anyone.

Picky picky, Each of these is real and proves the concept is not impossible . What were you asking proof to be?

BTW Jackrabits are not rodents they are more like a hare, the dik dik is an antelope the size of a jackrabbit , how much closer does it need to be?

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are correct, jackrabbits are hares. All rabbits and all hares are lagomorphs. A dik dik is of the genus bovidae, and has no antlers. The mythical jackalope has antlers.

I was not discussing concepts. I simply said that you cannot prove the nonexistence of even mythical creatures. Proving the existence is similar actual creatures is not the same thing.

[Plane]

You are correct, jackrabbits are hares. All rabbits and all hares are lagomorphs. A dik dik is of the genus bovidae, and has no antlers. The mythical jackalope has antlers.

I was not discussing concepts. I simply said that you cannot prove the nonexistence of even mythical creatures. Proving the existence is similar actual creatures is not the same thing.

    Gods fingerprints are on everything, but I guess that proving the existance requires more evidence than any criminal trial jury would require.

     Proving that Centaurs do not exist would be possible by proving that the horse size body couldn't be kept fed by a human size set of teeth.

      Is the concept a possibility or an impossibility?

[Xavier_Onassis]

YOU SEE God's fingerprints on everything, because you believe that God created everything. God makes few personal appearances.

I don't see any use in debating centaurs or any mythical animals.

[Plane]

YOU SEE God's fingerprints on everything, because you believe that God created everything. God makes few personal appearances.

I don't see any use in debating centaurs or any mythical animals.

  You brought them up!

   I should not win this easily that point.

    Some concepts can be proven impossible , some cannot.

      An Elf living for a few centurys would be no more impossible than tortorses or whales doing so.

      A Dragon is only diffrent in detail from a Crocadile or a petrodactal, that a beetle can toss superheated fluid proves only that an unlikly concept is not an impossibility.

       Zombies, as it turns out, have really been running around in Hati for a long time , but the details are not in agreement with the movies.

       Giant human shaped creatures would not work above a certain size , the laws of strength increase in squares and the laws of mass increase in cubes so a Goliath of twelve feet is plausable but not a giant much bigger, somewhere around fifteen feet tall true impossibility sets in.  Bipedal Dinosaurs do not resemble humans in shape well enough to demonstrate diffrently. Even with the dinosaurs there appears to have been a maximum practical and perhaps a minimum impossible size, they were exploreing the limits of that envelope.

       As a concept, an all encompassing intelligence without any knowable limit might seem unlikly to you, but what is supposed to be impossible about it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The usual reason why people say they believe in a Creator is that the universe is too complex to be created.

But a creator capable of creating the universe would be even MORE complex.

And would also have to be created.

A self-creating universe is easier for me to believe than a self creating or eternal creator.

[Plane]

The usual reason why people say they believe in a Creator is that the universe is too complex to be created.

But a creator capable of creating the universe would be even MORE complex.

And would also have to be created.

A self-creating universe is easier for me to believe than a self creating or eternal creator.

    Isn't that a paradox for you?
    Certain that something was self created.
    You hold the opinion that it is more likely free of thought than intelligent?
    It is complex either way, either caotic ,or too complex for us to understand the order.
     When we find regularity and order what is this evidence of?

     I think of the universe as a subset of Gods thought.
     I don't know if I am right , but I am if God thinks so.
     I need to ask him.

[Xavier_Onassis]

     I don't know if I am right , but I am if God thinks so.

As Rush Limbaugh once heard his tailor say, " That is a very big but."

     I need to ask him.

A good idea, but he seems to have been rendered speechless. Carry a fire extinguisher with you, so you can tell God in the guise of flaming shrubbery from other talking foliage, that might be Satan in disguise.

What is more likely? A self-creating Universe, or a self-creating Creator, who created it?

It seems to be one or the other, but of course, there are other possibilities:
(1) The Universe has always existed, and oscillates between the Big Bang and the Big Squeeze and has always done so.
(2) The Universe is God, which is rather like the first supposition, but with more morality and a defined purpose.
(3) God created the Universe out of Himself. Which seems to contradict that we were made in His image, since we certainly do not look like we could spare extra parts. God, despite the belief that we look like Him, chose to appear, not as an exceptionally perfect and large human, but as a burning bush, for undefined reasons.

I still see the existence of God  and his nature to be speculation.

[Plane]

   It is not speculation to God himself , who can indeed make himself felt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah


Of course you would just apply the fire extinguisher.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The proverbial burning bush, was burning, but not consuming the bush.
The fire extinguisher would put out any normal burning bushes you might chance to meet, even talking ones.

If it was not put out, then you would know it was the Real Deal Deity.

That, and perhaps the voice of James Earl Jones, Morgan Freeman, or George Burns.

[Plane]

The proverbial burning bush, was burning, but not consuming the bush.
The fire extinguisher would put out any normal burning bushes you might chance to meet, even talking ones.

   I would expect you, even so, to look for the trick or the scientific explanation.

    And that is not too bad, Moses himself was not really eager.

     Science is worth the effort , but it will never explain the world , the universe and everything.
     An expanding fraction against infinity is the best that can be expected.

      God starts from the other end of that process, having all understanding he must compress a lot to adress us.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Science is worth the effort , but it will never explain the world , the universe and everything.
     An expanding fraction against infinity is the best that can be expected.

=========================
Knowledge, including science, is its own reward.Of course we will never understand everything, but just look at how much we have learned in the last 50 years. The more we know, the better we can relate to the Earth and universe around us.

[Plane]

Science is worth the effort , but it will never explain the world , the universe and everything.
     An expanding fraction against infinity is the best that can be expected.

=========================
Knowledge, including science, is its own reward.Of course we will never understand everything, but just look at how much we have learned in the last 50 years. The more we know, the better we can relate to the Earth and universe around us.

This doesn't seem to be so.

The Human Race was in better communion with nature and more a part of it centurys ago with much less science.

I still like science , but it seems to be misused as often as not.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Human Race was in better communion with nature and more a part of it centurys ago with much less science.

========================================================
What is the proof of that? We know what life expectancy of ancient humans was. They lived short, brutish lives.
Dying of a bacterial infection and rotting into the soil  at the age of 28 is not my idea of "better communion with nature" in any way I would like to commune with it.

[Plane]

The Human Race was in better communion with nature and more a part of it centurys ago with much less science.

========================================================
What is the proof of that? We know what life expectancy of ancient humans was. They lived short, brutish lives.
Dying of a bacterial infection and rotting into the soil  at the age of 28 is not my idea of "better communion with nature" in any way I would like to commune with it.

  Six centurys ago we lived a lifestyle that the planet could have supported forever.

    We presently live a lifestyle that must change as we exaust resorce after resorce.