What do you mean?

I assumed he meant he was rational.

Paper. :)

Ha, ha! Maybe I'm not, as I'm the one talking about a omnipotent superbeing. Beating someone over the head with the theology stick won't convince anyone of anything. Forcing it on anyone is missing the point. I was raised an Episcopalian, Catholic light -- all the ceremony and half the guilt. That being said, all that I've learned since then, scientifically speaking, can't be ignored. When I was talking about clouds of organic compounds in deep space, that's exactly what I meant. It's been known that ultraviolet rays or electricity passed through a promoridal mix of gasses will spontaneously generate amino acids. There is apparantly a similar proccess with the clouds of interstellar gasses. So many in the scientific community are saying that it seems the universe is designed [for lack of better term] for life. But, it's champagne and caveats at that point, as they don't want to come accross as saying it's 'designed'. Evolution does a pretty good job of explaining how we got here. What I'm interested in is how we get from complex amino acids to self-replicating molecules.

What I was asking about was what you meant by saying you were one of the nutters. Because the ensuing post was decidedly un-nutterly. Asking those questions is precisely what science is all about. The primary issue is that scientists don't fill gaps in their knowledge with magic. If it is hard to understand how something happens, saying "God did it that way" answers nothing, and is in no way science.
That's the thing about self-replication. If it's possible, and the universe is big enough, it WILL happen. Being surprised that conditions appear favorable is a bit like a puddle being surprised that it fits perfectly in the hole it's in, and concluding that the hole was dug with that puddle in mind. That would certainly be possible, but it is in no way necessary or implied.

Ok, so it does happen, we find life some place else. What then? Kill it? Farm it? Eat it? What if it's badder than us? What if it's.....Muslim? :confused:

Oh come on. Nobody actually READS National Geographic. You take out the pull out maps, and then head straight for the bare breasted pygmy women photoessay.

I vote eat it. Unless it's got monster parts, then kill it.
Watched NOVA last night. Apparently a true alien won't have a face like the faces we see here on earth (Two eyes, two nostrils and one mouth below) because if it does have a face like ours we must share a common ancestor--it's what the dude on the show said anyway. He seemed pretty sure of himself. :alien:

Actually, I'd guess that it would be more likely to have a similar face than to be edible. External features are succeptible to convergent evolution (while bats and birds do share an ancestor, it wasn't one that flew) and the basic face is reasonably efficient. It would be unlikely, but not impossible for an alien to have the eyes/nostrils/mouth roughly in that orientation.

Hence the vernacular: National Pornographic

Based solely on these two statements, and nothing more, I would like to take this very belated opportunity to invite 'bluesdave' to kiss my hairy American ass.

That is all.

That is as good an explanation of the anthropocentric principle as I have ever seen. Nicely put, HM.

I can't take credit for anything but the phrasing. I believe I first heard the idea from Dawkins.

But thanks!

::wonders why the 6.5-year resurrection::

Darryl
http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/fil...35f0fac7a2.jpg

Or Brian?


http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/24/245346.jpg