At least, you admit that you have not seen the video, and that you are 
speculating.  But the fact remains that you don't know anything about the 
video's content.

 Barry, however, puts his faith on an article from Wikipedia, which he has 
questioned as being authoritative in the recent past.  Also, he has not seen 
the video itself.  Is this hypocrisy or what?

---In, <> wrote :

 Good find. I recognised Krauss and I know Michio Kaku from BBC documentaries, 
they do both have a penchant for talking up the weird aspects of particle 
physics so I could see where you'd get your ammunition from if you wanted to do 
this sort of thing. Bit cheeky though...

 I will still watch the film of course, I expect it's about the apparent "fine 
tuning" of the universe for life like us as that's a hot topic at the moment. 
And some people see it as evidence of design. It all comes down to the initial 
state during the big bang, if the interaction between charged particles was a 
few percent smaller no planets would ever have formed and if the expansion rate 
at the start had been only slightly higher there would be no stars. No stars 
means no elements heavier than hydrogen and consequently no life.

 This all gets spun by some into "proof" that the universe was designed for us. 
The wiggle room they have is that there isn't yet a good and accepted 
explanation of why the universe is like it is and not some other way. Seems 
obvious to me that if it was another way at the start we wouldn't be here to 
comment on it. Is it just a coincidence, or are some people reaching for the 
God of the Gaps to fulfill their own need for a creator?

 Speculation amongst people who don't need a god to explain things brings the 
solution down to: it's just randomly like that or we wouldn't be here. Our 
universe is part of a multiverse where every possible universe happens and we 
just live in the bit capable of supporting us. Or there may have been millions 
of universes that couldn't sustain life, or even matter, and fell apart leaving 
space for the "right" one to eventually come along with us to comment on it. Or 
something else no one has thought of yet.

 Whatever the answer is it's going to be something simple because it always is, 
you can't start inventing a need for complexity just to provide room for 
something you want. It's a silly way to carry on. But you can make a film about 
it being all a bit weird if you like...

 Just all a guess on what it's about, I shall watch it when it arrives and see 
what they're on about.


---In, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 BTW, it looks as if Salyavin was correct about the way this "The Principle" 
video was made, with the producers misleading the "experts" and even (see quote 
that follows from Wikipedia) the narrator as to what the nature of the show 
they were producing was. 

I happen to know the producer of the "What the Bleep..." videos, and know that 
they were made the same way, with the producers lying to the supposed onscreen 
"scientists" and "experts" about what their film/agenda was really about, and 
then taking their actual comments completely out of context within the film 
itself.  This is the sort of garbage that JohnR feels is authoritative. What a 
 Claims Following the release of the film's trailer, narrator Kate Mulgrew said that she was misinformed as to 
the purpose of the documentary.[7][8] Max Tegmark claims that DeLano "cleverly tricked a 
whole bunch of us scientists into thinking that they were independent 
filmmakers doing an ordinary cosmology documentary, without mentioning anything 
about their hidden agenda."[9] George Ellis has said that "I was interviewed for 
it but they did not disclose this agenda, which of course is nonsense. I don't 
think it's worth responding to -- it just gives them publicity. To ignore is 
the best policy. But for the record, I totally disavow that silly agenda."[9] Michio Kaku said 
that the film was likely "clever editing" of his statements and bordered on 
"intellectual dishonesty"[2] and Lawrence 
Krauss said he had no recollection of being interviewed for the film and would 
have refused to be in it if he had known more about it.[10][11] Julian Barbour claims 
he never gave permission to be in the film.
 The Principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The 
Principle is a 2014 American documentary film produced by Rick Delano and 
Robert Sungenis questioning the Copernican principle and discussing 
geocentricism. The film opened in Chicago on October 24, 2014. The film is 
narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features scientists such ...

 View on
 Preview by Yahoo


 From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" 
 To: "" <> 
 Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 7:17 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Mars had Life
   Heh. I knew you'd love this BS, jr. It's right up your alley, *including* 
attempts to redefine the universe as Earth-centric. It's like New Age 
Self-Importance Meets Medieval Cosmology Re-expressed As Woo Woo Physics.  :-)


 You seem to be under the impression, however, that we actually CARE about what 
YOU believe. I can't speak for Sal, but given the way that you've demonstrated 
your mind works over the years on this forum, nothing you believe could 
*possibly* interest me. Therefore I'll let you find the "real video" and report 
on it here to those as gullible as yourself.  :-)


 From: "jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife]" <>
 Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Mars had Life
   Salyavin and Barry,

 Both of you have jumped to conclusions, which is very typical with the way you 
think, about the content of this video.  As you have seen, the video is only a 
teaser or excerpt of the real video--which you have not seen.

 Therefore, you've made criticism about something you don't know anything about 
and have assumed what the content of the video is.  Both of you are not 
rational.  You are delusional.



---In, <> wrote :


---In, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 From: salyavin808 <>
 ---In, <noozguru@...> wrote :

 Gosh, that might really ruined Salyavin's day. :-D 

 Why? They possibly found life there in the 70's but they landed the rover in 
the wrong place and two of the three experiments they had on board to test for 
life weren't designed for the terrain they found themselves in.

 The one experiment that possibly did find life was discounted as they did it 
on a majority vote. All expeditions to Mars since then have worked on the basis 
that there is no life and they haven't repeated the original experiments to 
make sure.

 Why would discovering life anywhere ruin my day? I can't work that bit out.

You aren't going to get anywhere by asking questions of John, Sal. As I've 
pointed out many times and as you yourself have noticed, no possibility of 
actual dialogue exists with someone who is as gullible, feeble-minded, devoid 
of reasoning skills, and convinced of the Absolute Truth of the silly things he 
believes as he is. He's the kinda guy who would actually *believe* the 
horseshit in this video I found on FB:

 The Principle | Facebook
 The Principle | Facebook Why are leading 
atheists freaking out about this new documentary? Why are they trying to hide 
the evidence?

 View on
 Preview by Yahoo

You'll love this, Salyavin. You thought that *Hagelin* misuses science to 
present hokum as if it were science? Wait until you watch *these* supposed 
"scientists" jump through hoops to "prove" their notion of a God in this 
astounding exercise in self-importance. They're actually trying to go back in 
time to the notion of an Earth-centric universe. 

 Wow, it's a bit of a deliberately bombastic explosion of insinuation. I think 
there's a lot of out-of-context quotes here, and also a lot of media scientists 
with books to plug who probably didn't know they were being co-opted into some 
sort of religious thing.

What I like the most, however, is the notion of "leading atheists" freaking out 
that someone came up with in the teaser line for this video. What on earth do 
they think constitutes "leading atheists?" Do they think we non-theists have 
*contests* in which we sit around competing for first place, shouting "No, *I* 
believe less in the Invisible Man In The Sky than you do!?" :-)

 I don't know what evidence they are supposed to be hiding! It's pretty obvious 
this is an amazing place - possibly the only place with sentient life anywhere, 
that makes it special to me, but is there a religious principle behind it? I 
don't think so, and I'd be surprised if some of the scientists on there I 
recognised thought so. It's a poor physicist that concludes there is a god just 
because they don't have an immediate answer for something. It's easier than 
thinking for sure but accepting magic as an explanation isn't what they're paid 

 I suspect that the makers of this video have edited it highly suggestively and 
creatively. Just like people did with the recent NDE research and just about 
everything else I come across on the net. The conspiracy gathers pace!

But that's JohnR to a T, just another irrational theist imagining a "gotcha" in 
some imaginary battle against atheists that's happening only inside his own 
head. *Just* as he did when he hoped that his silly hokum about Mars would 
"ruin your day." 

Oh, I think that was Bhairitu! He must have misunderstood me if he wants egg on 
my face....




 On 11/04/2014 03:30 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
   The NASA chief also claimed it may have life now.  It appears that NASA is 
about to make an official statement regarding its findings on Mars based on 
data from the rovers.  Stay tuned.





Reply via email to