zapatos

It's not.

So far it seems a lot like the old site. Upgrades are a fact of life and overall generally lead to a better experience (Windows excepted). I also imagine that any kinks that show up early will be worked out in the near future. I vote "Yes", I like it.

None. I just can't get excited knowing ahead of time that it is not real.

No one is suggesting that going to move to the Moon or Mars has anything at all to do with overpopulation.

I'm just glad that someone other than me typed faster than they were thinking for a change!

You mean the inside?

I guess I don't know what you mean by a 'stable...environment for a very long time', as I imagine the earth to be filled with environments where the relative abundance of chemicals is stable, and remains that way for millions of years. Is the ocean that drastically different than it was a million years ago? Does its chemical composition swing rapidly? I'm not suggesting that existing life isn't another level of complexity that new life would have to deal with. I just don't see how it is an overwhelming factor. Thus far most arguments (mine included) seem to be based on what seems likely, and not based on any real data.

So if I take one bacterium and put it in an environment where it would have the resources to survive, but it is completely isolated from any other of its species, can you see no way for that bacterium to survive? Other than that bacterium being more advanced than a brand new life form, I don't see much difference in its likelihood of survival. But cherry trees spread all the time with no nets on the trees. We don't need a farm; we just need it to live.

And vice versa I suppose. I realize showing up in a new environment includes risks, but it happens every day with existing organisms.

I've heard that said many times but I'd like to know why it's true. Species move to environments that are already occupied yet they thrive. Surely the environment doesn't preferentially eliminate new life while allowing existing life.

How do you explain that many people (including me) hate EDM. Or is that the emotional response you were talking about?

It has to do with the anatomy of the eye. In low light, rod cells are picking up the light from the stars, and the rod cells are primarily located away from the center of the eye. Hence, looking slightly off center engages more rod cells, which picks up more light.

Evidence?

Your approach to what? Perhaps you could clarify for me what it is exactly that you wish to discuss.

You asked me what I thought and I told you.

Sounds like something that would be used as a discussion aid in a Bible class for children.

Sorry, but a further discussion of God needs to take place in a Religion or Philosophy thread, rather than here in Physics. Feel free to find an existing thread there or start one of your own. There are many people on this site who will be happy to join in, but be prepared as quite a few people will debate you with vigor.

For many of us, 'not knowing' is an excellent reason to not believe in something. I feel I would be being dishonest with myself by 'choosing' to believe in something that I didn't know to be true. I prefer to just admit I don't know.

Can you explain how God would 'be your Ockham's razor'? Was your God created, or did He always exist? If he always existed, then His existence describes a more complex model than a universe that has always existed, not a less complex model.

Your post is ridiculous because it uses a logical fallacy. In this case the fallacy is Guilt by Association. Your comparison of Trump to Hitler is an obvious attempt to make Trump appear evil simply because of shared attributes with Hitler. You could just as well have substituted 'The Pope' for 'Hitler' in your comparison, but it would have lessened the impact of your attack. I'm sure there are similar attributes between you and Hitler also, but it is unlikely that any valid criticism of you would benefit by such a comparison. Trump has enough faults that there is no need to try to make them appear worse than they are.

Don't give me that "please..." crap. You stated science could study the role of a creator. Dodging a very reasonable question related to that assertion is very poor form on your part showing your unwillingness to discuss this seriously. Don't bring it up if you don't want to talk about it.

An unequivocal response to whether or not you think there is, or will be, evidence of God for science to examine, would be helpful.

I read the articles you linked. It seems as if you are saying they show evidence of God. Do I have that correct?

For science to have a conversation about a creator, there must be evidence to work with. Are you suggesting there is or will be evidence of God?