WIP Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Now that you mention it, I think it's from him that I heard it too. Perhaps he doesn't know, and figures it's one of the many unattributable homilies or ideas that get repeated so often. You could be right; but people in the public eye should be a little more careful about where they get their ideas from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Why is everything we need provided? Any organism that needed something that wasn't provided did not survive. If it's alive today, it's alive because everything it needed to survive was "provided". Organisms that needed something that wasn't "provided" aren't around to need anything. The long list of creatures that have become extinct over the eons proves that not everything was "provided". Why is there life and death? Why is there a beginning and an end? Huble discovered that universes and galaxies also begin and end. Even out there, there is life and death. Science gave us something to behold. I see a beautiful earth from the photos taken from space. Why is earth the only planet in the vast universe that looks so vibrant and so very much alive? Teeming with life! Why does not it look like a barren rock? That only offers a hint…or miniscule traces of life? Why…why is it that with such vastness of discovered universes and space, not even one other heavenly body even come close to the way Earth looks? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17926 Bible-people often ask why this or that hasn't been discovered. The answer is often "because we're not done discovering." -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) Umm, the only reason we haven't found life on thousands of planets in other solar systems yet is because we don't yet have the necessary detection capabilities. Don't worry though, the instruments necessary to determine the existence of life on exoplanets are presently in design and will be working within 10-20 years. As I've stated, there's nothing wrong in being optimistic and wishful. We've been all alone for eons...of course it's exciting to find new life! We aren't. Go see my thread about new earth like planets being found in the science and technology section. As for the new "Earth-like" planets, this is how it's been reported (in a nutshell): NASA discovers hundreds of new Earth-like planets NASA has spotted hundreds of new planets outside our solar system, many of them similar to Earth, in a discovery that has renewed the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Six weeks of data gathered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's deep-space Kepler probe reveal five new solar systems within the Milky Way as well as 700 bodies that could be new planets, the agency confirmed Sunday. Scientists say 140 of those bodies are considered "Earth-like," meaning their composition could support the development of simple life-forms. Still, "it doesn't mean that there's life on them, it doesn't mean that there's atmosphere and water," says Paul Delaney, an astronomy professor at York University. "What it does mean is that we have objects now that are much more similar to the Earth than we have found to date," he told CTV News Channel on Monday. Until NASA's announcement, roughly 450 planets had been found outside our solar system in the past 15 years, Delaney said. Most of those planets are completely inhospitable for life, with surface temperatures in the thousands of degrees Celsius. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20100726/nasa-new-planets-100726/ This does not conclude that therefore, "we aren't." This is still using a "fine-toothed comb" ....that doesn't prove anything on top of that. Edited February 12, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) Existence of other solar systems is a given. No new news here. Chance of life existing in planets in those solar systems is no better than it is for earth to have life by chance! Chance of impossible chance recurring twice must be doubly impossible. All this does is support the requirement for Intelligent Design. Edited February 12, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 where there is water there is life...venus had liquid water as did mars, so likely life at one time as well...I believe there are a couple of moons of Jupiter that are suspected of having liquid water(oceans)if it's warm enough for water than life is very likely, actually it would be a surprise if there was none found... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Umm, the only reason we haven't found life on thousands of planets in other solar systems yet is because we don't yet have the necessary detection capabilities. Don't worry though, the instruments necessary to determine the existence of life on exoplanets are presently in design and will be working within 10-20 years. I didn't have time to post a comment on your thread about the small planet discoveries; but my thinking on this is that a rocky, earth-sized planet is not enough to make it a candidate for life....or at least for complex life. In Peter Ward/Donald Brownlee's book - Rare Earth, they throw a little cold water on the belief in a Universe teeming with life, by pointing out all of the extraordinary coincidences that have had to occur to make life possible on this planet. One being that not only is the Earth in the right place to be in a habitable zone around our Sun, but early in the formation of the Solar System, Jupiter and other gas giant planets had to pitch lots of water-bearing comets and asteroids at us to provide the water that make up our oceans. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the water that makes life necessary, because our Earth was too close to the Sun to have a significant amount of water. Other coincidences are that our Solar System began in an orbit much closer to the galactic center, and then, for reasons unknown migrated outward to its present location. Solar systems that form in the Galactic Habitable Zone do not have the heavy elements necessary for organic chemistry...and life. Ward and Brownlee get some flak from the extraterrestrial life positivists like Seth Shostak for discounting binary and multiple star solar systems that make up the majority of solar systems, as candidates for life. Their argument is that the extra stars make planetary orbits too volatile....I don't know enough about the physics involved to decide who's right here. They also cross off tidally locked planets, like that one that caused all of the excitement last year. I think they have a strong case here since a tidally locked world would have such a limited zone where life would even be possible, even after consider the extreme winds that theorists say would be buffeting such planets, if they contain atmospheres. But, when it's all said and done, I'm totally baffled why creationists prefer a vast, empty universe to a star trek universe with lots of life! If there is a creator making living creatures, why just one planet in a universe more than 13.7 billion light years across? The creationist stories are based on mythology created about three thousand years ago that envisioned a flat, circular Earth with a metal ceiling suspending stars from it....and above that was where God and the angels lived. Trying to place that square peg into the round hole of what's been learned from modern astrophysics requires some extraordinary mental gymnastics I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Nice story. Life is over once you die. I think most people would be better off if they would come to terms with the nature of our existence instead of creating fantasies about living forever. I'm not convinced that a lot of people even believe it that strongly....otherwise they wouldn't have to keep working so hard to try to convince themselves of it! Modern understanding of brain function informs us that the brain is responsible for everything we attribute to having a mind...there simply is no room for an immaterial soul to have any function or purpose. Consciousness is better understood as a process, than as a thing. The best explanation for animals having a capacity for consciousness is that it enables planning coordinated action, and from inputs received from the proprioceptor system, we develop a sense of concern and ownership for our bodyparts, which extends to a wish to preserve our existence forever if possible! Most people who have time to prepare for eventual death are able to come to terms and be at peace with themselves...and it makes no difference whether they believe in immortality or not...at some point they learn to let go, and it can often be more difficult at first for the people who claim to believe in souls and heaven, than it is for naturalists who make an earlier start at getting accustomed to the temporary nature of being alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) I didn't have time to post a comment on your thread about the small planet discoveries; but my thinking on this is that a rocky, earth-sized planet is not enough to make it a candidate for life....or at least for complex life. In Peter Ward/Donald Brownlee's book - Rare Earth, they throw a little cold water on the belief in a Universe teeming with life, by pointing out all of the extraordinary coincidences that have had to occur to make life possible on this planet. One being that not only is the Earth in the right place to be in a habitable zone around our Sun, but early in the formation of the Solar System, Jupiter and other gas giant planets had to pitch lots of water-bearing comets and asteroids at us to provide the water that make up our oceans. The Jupiter being a necessity for water or for preventing over-frequent asteroid/comet impacts later in planetary life theory has pretty much been shown to be incorrect with more recent models. Anyway, almost all planetary systems discovered so far have contained gas giants. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the water that makes life necessary, because our Earth was too close to the Sun to have a significant amount of water. Other coincidences are that our Solar System began in an orbit much closer to the galactic center, and then, for reasons unknown migrated outward to its present location. Got a reference for that? I have not previously read that the solar system formed near the galactic center. Solar systems that form in the Galactic Habitable Zone do not have the heavy elements necessary for organic chemistry...and life. Heavy elements are present in the vicinity of any supernova remnant. Ward and Brownlee get some flak from the extraterrestrial life positivists like Seth Shostak for discounting binary and multiple star solar systems that make up the majority of solar systems, as candidates for life. Their argument is that the extra stars make planetary orbits too volatile....I don't know enough about the physics involved to decide who's right here. They also cross off tidally locked planets, like that one that caused all of the excitement last year. I think they have a strong case here since a tidally locked world would have such a limited zone where life would even be possible, even after consider the extreme winds that theorists say would be buffeting such planets, if they contain atmospheres. Crossing off multi-star systems still leaves billions and billions of star systems in our galaxy. Also, that theory is pretty much wrong as well. This paper describes that planet formation is actually improved in binary star systems. Additionally, many many planetary systems have been found around binary stars, and the fact that these planets are still there billions of years after their stars' formation shows that the orbits are stable, otherwise the planets would long since have been flung away into interstellar space or collided with their stars. Anyway, I'd also posit that life is more prevalent than we can imagine right now. Just because our only reference frame is the Earth, does not mean that all life must be Earth-like. Life could exist without water, without oxygen or carbon dioxide, etc. There are many possible biologies that could evolve in different circumstances. Consider the arsenic-based life form they found here on Earth recently. But, when it's all said and done, I'm totally baffled why creationists prefer a vast, empty universe to a star trek universe with lots of life! If there is a creator making living creatures, why just one planet in a universe more than 13.7 billion light years across? The creationist stories are based on mythology created about three thousand years ago that envisioned a flat, circular Earth with a metal ceiling suspending stars from it....and above that was where God and the angels lived. Trying to place that square peg into the round hole of what's been learned from modern astrophysics requires some extraordinary mental gymnastics I suppose. Yeah, doesn't make much sense. Edited February 12, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) You could be right; but people in the public eye should be a little more careful about where they get their ideas from. Oh yes, I agree. And I wasn't actually defending him. I prefer the "live and let live" atheists. As I've said elsewhere, I'll debate the matter with a member of the faithful who wants to debate it. Or if the matter comes up organically, as an important part of a discussion. What I won't do is proselytize. I"m not quite arrogant enough to believe I should convert the faithful to atheism. Edited February 12, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 The Jupiter being a necessity for water or for preventing over-frequent asteroid/comet impacts later in planetary life theory has pretty much been shown to be incorrect with more recent models. Anyway, almost all planetary systems discovered so far have contained gas giants. I wouldn't mind hearing more about it; from what I heard, listening to a recorded lecture, it might not necessarily be because of Jupiter, but without asteroid or comet debris coming through, inner, rocky planets close to the sun, would not retain enough light elements during the evolution of a solar system like ours to have water or a significant atmosphere. Jupiter's most important function seems to be this vacuum cleaner effect, where it sucks in alot of space debris that might otherwise find its way to Earth. Part of the Rare Earth Hypothesis is the conjecture that such a planet is necessary to keep an inner planet that is a suitable candidate for complex life free from continual asteroid bombardments. Got a reference for that? I have not previously read that the solar system formed near the galactic center. I'm going to have to scratch that one until I can find the source. I can't find it in my documents, and all I found yesterday online were articles on how nebular clouds form solar systems; I'm not finding what I'm looking for, and I'm not sure whether the point about our solar system migrating outward was based on rigorous study. I'm assuming that the astrophysicist who made this point, had reasons why he feels heavy elements are not normally going to be in great abundance in the Galactic Habitable Zone, but I don't know what it was based on and assumed that there was some supporting evidence for it. Heavy elements are present in the vicinity of any supernova remnant. I recall reading many places that the first generation of giant stars provided most of the heavy elements in the Universe. Is there a question about how evenly they're distributed within galaxies such as our own? Would a solar system forming closer to the galactic center be in a denser region of space, with greater opportunities to absorb heavy elements from the remains of supernovas, than one coming together further out in a more outlying region of the galaxy? Crossing off multi-star systems still leaves billions and billions of star systems in our galaxy. Also, that theory is pretty much wrong as well. This paper describes that planet formation is actually improved in binary star systems. Additionally, many many planetary systems have been found around binary stars, and the fact that these planets are still there billions of years after their stars' formation shows that the orbits are stable, otherwise the planets would long since have been flung away into interstellar space or collided with their stars. I notice the abstract covers the formation of accretion discs, and argues that planets could form around each star without being interfered with by the binary companion. Maybe I need pictures for an example like this, because I'm still wondering whether a second sun is going to make close passes and irradiate planets circling the other star. Anyway, I'd also posit that life is more prevalent than we can imagine right now. Just because our only reference frame is the Earth, does not mean that all life must be Earth-like. Life could exist without water, without oxygen or carbon dioxide, etc. There are many possible biologies that could evolve in different circumstances. Consider the arsenic-based life form they found here on Earth recently. I heard that arsenic life was badly misrepresented in the press conference sponsored by NASA: Doubts Brew About NASA’s New Arsenic Life. Nevertheless, the main point made by the Rare Earth Hypothesis is that simple one-celled life can live under much greater environmental extremes than more complex, multicellular organisms. There is evidence for bacteria on Earth as far back as 3.7 billion years ago, yet it takes almost another 2 billion years before the Earth is ready for more complex life forms. So, it might be easy to find life elsewhere in the Universe; but the big question will be - can we find worlds that are perfectly arranged to support an abundance of complex multicellular life which could give rise to intelligent life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 But, when it's all said and done, I'm totally baffled why creationists prefer a vast, empty universe to a star trek universe with lots of life! There you go again fitting everything....and everyone.... in one little box neatly tied with a bow. Not all creationists think that way.... This is one creationist who is open-minded enough to consider that there could be other life forms out there. The possibility exists since the universe is so vast. After all God need not explain his every move to his creation. The possibility that there is none however also exists...until we find one. So the quest for ET continues. If there is a creator making living creatures, why just one planet in a universe more than 13.7 billion light years across? I can imagine it now that if and when we do find other life forms out there, jaws will drop when evolutionist scientists discover that these life forms are also walking around reading their own Bible! If they are more advanced than us the tete-a-tete with humans will go like this: ET: The parting of the red sea! Cool man! That guy who played the role didn't look anything like the original though. Man: Whaaaat? ET: And the Resurrection? Oh yeah man, we saw it live! On our hi-def tv! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 The Bible clearly states that there were plants before the Sun was 'created' (impossible) and the Sun was created after the Earth along with the Moon. You do know this a steaming pile of doo-doo, right? All elements other than hydrogen, helium and I believe lithium are 'created' in the atomic fires of stellar evolution and then blasted into the Cosmos via super novae. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) The Bible clearly states that there were plants before the Sun was 'created' (impossible) and the Sun was created after the Earth along with the Moon. You do know this a steaming pile of doo-doo, right? All elements other than hydrogen, helium and I believe lithium are 'created' in the atomic fires of stellar evolution and then blasted into the Cosmos via super novae. ha-ha-ha Edited April 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 ha-ha-ha Not a fan of the scientific explanation eh? I prefer it over the majic sky fairy waving his majic wand and PRESTO, the sun the moon and the earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) Just something to think about. Since the time of Einstein we have known that Time, Space and Matter are all inter-connected. If you had matter but no space - where will you put it? If you had matter but no time - when will you put it? Time, Space and Matter are a continuum. They have to come in existence all at once! Now here's where it's interesting, Genesis 1:1.... "In the beginning (TIME), God created the heaven (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)" It even gets better: TIME = past, present, future SPACE = length, width, height MATTER = solid, liquid, gas In the first ten words of the Bible, in Genesis 1:1 you have a trinity of trinities... only God can write a book like that! From Randy Rugles, author (Evolution: Fact or fiction) Edited April 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 "In the beginning (TIME), God created the heaven (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)" It even gets better: TIME = past, present, future SPACE = length, width, height MATTER = solid, liquid, gas In the first ten words of the Bible, in Genesis 1:1 you have a trinity of trinities... only God can write a book like that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 This has already been discussed in the form of logic and limit theory. If one assumes that something cannot come from nothing, then clearly some initial state must have existed. Definition of Nothing Could someone please explain to me why causality ought to apply to the origins of the universe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Just something to think about. From Randy Rugles, author (Evolution: Fact or fiction) A man who apparently knows absolutely nothing about cosmology and physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 A man who apparently knows absolutely nothing about cosmology and physics. Apparently you do. Cosmology/physics-wise, kindly explain where he was wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) Apparently you do. Cosmology/physics-wise, kindly explain where he was wrong? Okay: Time is a scalar quantity which combines with spacial dimensions to produce four dimensional space-time. Matter has more states than listed and high density situations matter and energy become significantly more complex than the three normal states of matter. It's like the guy picked up a third grade science textbook, and never went a bit further. Betsy, have you ever considered actually reading about physics, cosmology, biology and so forth from actual physicists, cosmologists and biologists? It's almost as if you go out of your way to avoid anything vaguely like an expert opinion. Edited April 3, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Apparently you do. Cosmology/physics-wise, kindly explain where he was wrong? The most obvious example (but certainly not the only one) is trying to present "matter = solid/liquid/gas" as some kind of "trinity". For one, there are many other states of matter besides those three: * 1 The three classical states o 1.1 Solid o 1.2 Liquid o 1.3 Gas * 2 Non classical states o 2.1 Glass o 2.2 Crystals with some degree of disorder o 2.3 Liquid crystal states o 2.4 Magnetically ordered * 3 Low-temperature states o 3.1 Superfluids o 3.2 Bose-Einstein condensates o 3.3 Fermionic condensates o 3.4 Rydberg molecules o 3.5 Quantum Hall states o 3.6 Strange matter * 4 High-energy states o 4.1 Plasma (ionized gas) o 4.2 Quark-gluon plasma * 5 Very high energy states * 6 Other proposed states o 6.1 Degenerate matter o 6.2 Supersolid o 6.3 String-net liquid o 6.4 Superglass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 The most obvious example (but certainly not the only one) is trying to present "matter = solid/liquid/gas" as some kind of "trinity". For one, there are many other states of matter besides those three: * 1 The three classical states o 1.1 Solid o 1.2 Liquid o 1.3 Gas * 2 Non classical states o 2.1 Glass o 2.2 Crystals with some degree of disorder o 2.3 Liquid crystal states o 2.4 Magnetically ordered * 3 Low-temperature states o 3.1 Superfluids o 3.2 Bose-Einstein condensates o 3.3 Fermionic condensates o 3.4 Rydberg molecules o 3.5 Quantum Hall states o 3.6 Strange matter * 4 High-energy states o 4.1 Plasma (ionized gas) o 4.2 Quark-gluon plasma * 5 Very high energy states * 6 Other proposed states o 6.1 Degenerate matter o 6.2 Supersolid o 6.3 String-net liquid o 6.4 Superglass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter Who woulda thunk Betsy was a numerologist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 betsy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE_OehRLH3s May a trilobite crawl into your sleeping bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) The most obvious example (but certainly not the only one) is trying to present "matter = solid/liquid/gas" as some kind of "trinity". For one, there are many other states of matter besides those three: * 1 The three classical states o 1.1 Solid o 1.2 Liquid o 1.3 Gas * 2 Non classical states o 2.1 Glass o 2.2 Crystals with some degree of disorder o 2.3 Liquid crystal states o 2.4 Magnetically ordered * 3 Low-temperature states o 3.1 Superfluids o 3.2 Bose-Einstein condensates o 3.3 Fermionic condensates o 3.4 Rydberg molecules o 3.5 Quantum Hall states o 3.6 Strange matter * 4 High-energy states o 4.1 Plasma (ionized gas) o 4.2 Quark-gluon plasma * 5 Very high energy states * 6 Other proposed states o 6.1 Degenerate matter o 6.2 Supersolid o 6.3 String-net liquid o 6.4 Superglass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter Wow! I thought the correction will be about space, time and matter. What's the three classical states? Solid, liquid, gas. Anyway The Bible isn't an in-depth science book! It was giving the basics. In the first 10 words of The Bible. Edited April 4, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Speaking of Genesis! This reminds me about Adam's rib. Another interesting info.... Do you know that the rib is the only bone that can regenerate? So God must really know what He was doing when He took one from Adam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.