Conquer Club

Easy question. There are some planets out there that have been discovered with very similar features as the ones of the earth.
If we are cautious and say that only hundreds of thousands of planets can host life in similar conditions to the ones we find on our planet....
Do you think that the species found on those planets can be the same as the ones on ours?

inb4 100000 posts

I wonder if evolutionists can explain why Venus and Uranus move counterclockwise to the rest of the planets.

I think there might be the same species on other planets. Launguage would be different for any that speak. I also think it would be likely there are many other species.

Look at the diversity just between continents, marsupials only being found in Australia for example. All fixed.

I doubt there are many with what would be interesting extraordinary abilities, such as mind reading and telekinesis. I had to ask my wife for that last word. Too many Star Wars movies for me, everyone calls that The Force now.

2dimes wrote:
Look at the diversity just between continents, marsupials only being found in Australia for example.

Opossums (didelphidae) are marsupials. You should find some in Canada.

There are also some marsupials endemic of South America : for ex Dromiciops gliroides and some species of shrews (caenolestidae).

djelebert wrote:

2dimes wrote:
Look at the diversity just between continents, marsupials only being found in Australia for example.

Opossums (didelphidae) are marsupials. You should find some in Canada.

There are also some marsupials endemic of South America : for ex Dromiciops gliroides and some species of shrews (caenolestidae).

Marsupials used to be the dominant mammal species in SA until NA mammals had the ability to cross into SA millions of years ago. Placental mammals are just too efficient for most of the marsupials to compete with successfully (opossums being the exception). Science is fun if you don't deny it's existence.

Fair enough I guess. I'll just keep rolling since you're pretending not to see what I was writing.

It seems to bug you when people correct misinformation, but ignore speculation?

warmonger1981 wrote:I wonder if evolutionists can explain why Venus and Uranus move counterclockwise to the rest of the planets.

I would assume that they have a different orbital momentum. Seems like a problem of physics rather than evolutionary biology, though.

warmonger1981 wrote:I wonder if evolutionists can explain why Venus and Uranus move counterclockwise to the rest of the planets.

(a) No they don't. Venus has a different axial tilt, which means it's "Upside down"... it rotates effectively counterclockwise, it doesn't orbit counterclockwise.
(b) Uranus axial tilt is odd, in that it effectively is sideways to its orbit, and seems to "roll" along its orbit. It also orbits in the same direction as every other planet.
(c) What the hell has that got to do with evolution?

jonesthecurl wrote:

warmonger1981 wrote:I wonder if evolutionists can explain why Venus and Uranus move counterclockwise to the rest of the planets.

(a) No they don't. Venus has a different axial tilt, which means it's "Upside down"... it rotates effectively counterclockwise, it doesn't orbit counterclockwise.
(b) Uranus axial tilt is odd, in that it effectively is sideways to its orbit, and seems to "roll" along its orbit. It also orbits in the same direction as every other planet.
(c) What the hell has that got to do with evolution?

Yes... please explain what it has to do with evolution!
And also answer my question... if you believe in creationism, and let's say you accept the idea that there are some planets in far away galaxies with almost identical characteristics as the earth (similar rotation and orbital time, temperature, similar composition).
Do you think there would be a few identical species as the one you can find on earth? If not, why?

betiko wrote:Easy question. There are some planets out there that have been discovered with very similar features as the ones of the earth.
If we are cautious and say that only hundreds of thousands of planets can host life in similar conditions to the ones we find on our planet....
Do you think that the species found on those planets can be the same as the ones on ours?

Clearly you haven't studied your bible enough. Genesis 1:7 states "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so." Since the Bible is literally true there are no other planets. Above the firmament (also known as the sky) there is just more water. That's why it was so easy for God to flood the earth, he just opened the valves again.

Here's a picture to help you:


Since the entire creation is only approximately 6 000 years old, none of those stars are actually as far as the telescopes claim they are or else the light would never have reached earth!!!

Hey, there are creationists who believe in some stuff the nasa says, right?
Although i m pretty surprised, but a spanish friend of mine has turned into a religious nutcase who now believes everything in the bible is litterally true, and that there are some illuminati-mason-jew-rotschild-rockerfeller forces trying to stop us from seing the truth. For him the earth is flat and everything we are told is a lie. Needless to say, we all ask him to please shut the f*ck up and not to bring any of his crap on the table again... because obviously anything you say turns into a circular conversation where you just waste your time. That s the fucking internet that can mess with weak minds.. you can basically find videos of any nutcase theory you want on youtube.

i miss universalchiro...

betiko wrote:Hey, there are creationists who believe in some stuff the nasa says, right?
Although i m pretty surprised, but a spanish friend of mine has turned into a religious nutcase who now believes everything in the bible is litterally true, and that there are some illuminati-mason-jew-rotschild-rockerfeller forces trying to stop us from seing the truth. For him the earth is flat and everything we are told is a lie. Needless to say, we all ask him to please shut the f*ck up and not to bring any of his crap on the table again... because obviously anything you say turns into a circular conversation where you just waste your time. That s the fucking internet that can mess with weak minds.. you can basically find videos of any nutcase theory you want on youtube.

Creationism runs the gamut from "Bible/Kuran" is literally true to "there is a creator God who made the universe". As I already pointed out the Bible isn't "literally" true, only if you deny the written word and claim "that's not how the universe works, so that's obviously not what it meant." But that is what it meant (the tent conception of the universe), and people have always known that, until the 19th century. One of the major divisions in the early days of Christianity was between the Antiochene and Alexandrine schools of thought. In Antioch, they thought the Bible should be read metaphorically while the Alexandrines thought it should be read allegorically.

Theologically, bible literalism is untenable as well. Like, Jesus spoke in parables about hypothetical people. One could argue that he spoke about literal people, but then that shows that you've missed the point of the parables.

riskllama wrote:i miss universalchiro...

He used to frustrate me because I would show places where he wasn't interpreting the Bible literally yet he would claim that you still have to interpret the Genesis account in particular literally because of the absence of poetry (wrong) and he claimed the literary structure refers to God's rational mind, not man's rational mind in writing that way. But hey, at least he practices chiropractic, a pseudoscience like homeopathy.

the rivalry between him & josko was what got me hooked on the forums, was a pretty entertaining feud...

@betiko... why are you wasting your time with creationists?

Let me cheer up the day

betiko wrote:Easy question. There are some planets out there that have been discovered with very similar features as the ones of the earth.
If we are cautious and say that only hundreds of thousands of planets can host life in similar conditions to the ones we find on our planet....
Do you think that the species found on those planets can be the same as the ones on ours?

Can be or would be?

My assumption would be likely that we might find planet(s) w/ life (even if just organisms and plants etc) and theoretically could have some of the same species if the conditions supported it. Just as one might find differences in animal (variety of dog, etc) you might find something similar but different?

Don’t know if that answers your Q or not

betiko wrote:Easy question. There are some planets out there that have been discovered with very similar features as the ones of the earth.
If we are cautious and say that only hundreds of thousands of planets can host life in similar conditions to the ones we find on our planet....
Do you think that the species found on those planets can be the same as the ones on ours?

It's fucking 2017. Why are we still doing this. HAVEN'T WE LEARNED OUR LESSON?

Trolls have to eat too.....

History of flat earth theory: Orlando Ferguson's map of the flat Earth. He even uses Bible verses to prove its undeniable fact.

-------We are all Earthlings .....That is what we all should call ourselves...Now God created those other planets too...So those species who live on those planets, most likely have books written about how the Great One made everything......One day we will Crush the Earthlings that live light years away ,Their leader will shout..."The worm hole gate,will get 10 caleepids thicker "... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

IcePack wrote:

betiko wrote:Easy question. There are some planets out there that have been discovered with very similar features as the ones of the earth.
If we are cautious and say that only hundreds of thousands of planets can host life in similar conditions to the ones we find on our planet....
Do you think that the species found on those planets can be the same as the ones on ours?

Can be or would be?

My assumption would be likely that we might find planet(s) w/ life (even if just organisms and plants etc) and theoretically could have some of the same species if the conditions supported it. Just as one might find differences in animal (variety of dog, etc) you might find something similar but different?

Don’t know if that answers your Q or not

Well, for me if a twin sister of the planet earth exists somewhere in the universe... let's imagine something impossible.... an exact twin sister that has 0% chance of existing even at the scale of the universe; and assuming that life spawned at a similar moment of its creation.... There would be no way life on that planet could be any similar to the ones we have here.
I guess there would be some similarities in adaptation to certain ecosystems.... but basically, the way I see it, is that life evolves due to two things... the genotype lottery with a creature's offspring... and how well it fits to its environment.. or some close environment it can migrate to.
Also, there are some major climate changes during history that can anihilate dominant species and redistrubute the cards of evolution... So during a billion years of life evolution, the butterfly effect on evolution between two identical planets you started from has to be huge.... and the life forms should be completely different.

I understand that from a creationist stand point... you would have the same "kinds", but among these, different species from the ones we have on earth... which would make no sense.

On Earth alone we've been finding different species of life for a long time. Is the issue with the word "species" in terms of taxonomy?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/new-species-of-grass-snake-discovered-in-england

Symmetry wrote:On Earth alone we've been finding different species of life for a long time. Is the issue with the word "species" in terms of taxonomy?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/new-species-of-grass-snake-discovered-in-england

Yes. The Bible speaks of "kinds" and creationists are loathe to define "kinds" in taxonomic terms. Taxonomy itself is semi-ridiculous. There is no good definition for "species" so it really isn't saying much. In reality, a true cladistic would feature every organism on its own branch. The existence of species doesn't really fit into an evolutionary argument and creates a logical disconnect which creationists are willing to exploit.