11 Jun 19
@sonhouse saidI have not said I cannot accept billions of years. I said I believe in thousands but acknowledge the possibility of billions, time is not the issue for me it’s the processes!
I think it is the impossibility of natural chemistry to be able to construct life is your main issue.
Why can't you accept Earth is billions of years old? To deny that is to deny a big chunk of human science.
If it was proven life started on earth in a mudflat hit by lightning or some such natural set of events, would you all of a sudden be convinced and change your stan ...[text shortened]... You would just dis the science involved and repeat GODIDIT, my ears are plugged I can't hear you....
You have fingers in your ears on anything challenging your world view!
@sonhouse said
BTW, here is a new article on limiting the amount of planets that may harbor life, in the goldilocks zone is not enough:
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-narrows-advanced-life-universe.html
Stephen C. Meyer Reasons for faith ~40 minutes
I'm going to review yours now.
This comes to a different conclusion and isn't limited to Chemistry but design, information, planets and so on.
You may say it is clearly a GODIDIT talk, I will not argue that with you on this one.
11 Jun 19
@sonhouse said"I think showing how rare and special our planet is only enhances the case for protecting it," Schwieterman said. "As far as we know, Earth is the only planet in the universe that can sustain human life."
BTW, here is a new article on limiting the amount of planets that may harbor life, in the goldilocks zone is not enough:
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-narrows-advanced-life-universe.html
Impressive.
12 Jun 19
@kellyjay saidImpressive but wrong. It's the only one THEY know about, but it is a huge universe. Suppose planets like ours are one in a trillion. With 100 billion stars in our galaxy and perhaps 100 billion galaxies that is 10^24 number of stars give or take a few trillion. So with that many stars, and lets say one in a hundred have planets and one in a trillion of THOSE have Earths, then There would be the chance of there being a hundred trillion planets just like Earth. Statistically speaking of course.
"I think showing how rare and special our planet is only enhances the case for protecting it," Schwieterman said. "As far as we know, Earth is the only planet in the universe that can sustain human life."
Impressive.
You have to admit I rigged the odds in favor of there NOT being Earth like planets.
Thing is, there are at least 2 planets in our solar system that either has life or could have in the past and maybe 3 if you count the very early life of Venus.
We know Venus is hell NOW but a few billion years ago it was a different planet before the runaway greenhouse took over.
There is not THAT much different about our sun, a bit larger than average but there are billions of Sol like stars in our galaxy alone.
So limiting the number of planets in the goldilocks zone just means it takes more to produce them and like I said there are trillions in the universe.
Good enough odds for ME.
12 Jun 19
@sonhouse saidYou want him telling us about all of those we don't know about? It seems you are big on what we don't know but is more than likely true, or what has not been proven but will be some day.
Impressive but wrong. It's the only one THEY know about, but it is a huge universe. Suppose planets like ours are one in a trillion. With 100 billion stars in our galaxy and perhaps 100 billion galaxies that is 10^24 number of stars give or take a few trillion. So with that many stars, and lets say one in a hundred have planets and one in a trillion of THOSE have Earths, the ...[text shortened]... more to produce them and like I said there are trillions in the universe.
Good enough odds for ME.
12 Jun 19
@sonhouse saidYour odds are made up, because you simply don't know. Just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean there has be life on any of them. We cannot get the odds on all the things that had to be just right for this one to have life, and you want to speculate about all of those we cannot see?
Impressive but wrong. It's the only one THEY know about, but it is a huge universe. Suppose planets like ours are one in a trillion. With 100 billion stars in our galaxy and perhaps 100 billion galaxies that is 10^24 number of stars give or take a few trillion. So with that many stars, and lets say one in a hundred have planets and one in a trillion of THOSE have Earths, the ...[text shortened]... more to produce them and like I said there are trillions in the universe.
Good enough odds for ME.
12 Jun 19
1 edit
@sonhouse saidYou know that was from your link right?
Impressive but wrong. It's the only one THEY know about, but it is a huge universe. Suppose planets like ours are one in a trillion. With 100 billion stars in our galaxy and perhaps 100 billion galaxies that is 10^24 number of stars give or take a few trillion. So with that many stars, and lets say one in a hundred have planets and one in a trillion of THOSE have Earths, the ...[text shortened]... more to produce them and like I said there are trillions in the universe.
Good enough odds for ME.
12 Jun 19
@kellyjay saidI was using odds as low as possible. One planet in a TRILLION? Come on, I bet the real odds are a lot better than that. One in a billion? One in a million? Look at the odds of the solar system, life perhaps on Mars, life for sure on Earth, life maybe on Venus even now in the upper atmosphere. Sure, a few perhaps and maybe's but if true the odds go way up just based on that.
You know that was from your link right?
I am talking strictly odds not who didit or why or when. The universe is just too large for there NOT to be life elsewhere besides Earth.
Do you deny there are for instance a few hundred billion stars in just our own Milky way?
12 Jun 19
@kellyjay saidI listened to half of it, have to make breakfast, wife is almost bedridden. So the main thing I would bring up is not that he is wrong but that our science is just too close to kindergarten for him to be using those dudes as examples of what is real and such in the universe. For instance, he talks about the 'singularity' when you go back in time further and further the universe gets smaller and smaller and ends up with a singularity. The problem with the singularity is simply we don't have the physics as of yet to say there was in fact an infinite density at ground and time zero.
[youtube]l_byj9X_dmM[/youtube]
Stephen C. Meyer Reasons for faith ~40 minutes
I'm going to review yours now.
This comes to a different conclusion and isn't limited to Chemistry but design, information, planets and so on.
You may say it is clearly a GODIDIT talk, I will not argue that with you on this one.
What newer physics is saying is there was no singularity that the contraction did not get that far that other physics takes over and does whatever it does that creates the universe, for instance some theories goes our universe came from a bigger universe or another universe where a black hole happened in that universe and basically squirted stuff into what became our spacetime, where there could be many such spacetimes and our universe in turn makes new daughter universes because of OUR black holes squirting into yet another new spacetime, like a different frequency allowing many radio channels.
I don't believe that or disbelieve that, just one of the theories floating around.
The main point of that is the newest theories say there was no singularity and at some point in this contraction going back in time something quite different happened that our physics is still just too early to have sussed out scientifically.
So that leaves the religious set with the door to still believe in a deity because they can say a deity created the whole universe and made the rules such that life is inevitable on any planet given liquid water and a halfway benign sun powering it.
I suppose that is still antithetical to the tenants of Christianity but it is a valid theological argument for god.
I just have to go back to my basic argument that men talking about the plus or minus about god have no idea what they are talking about since there is zero interaction directly with this alleged god.
If said god wants to come down and whack me on the head with a 2X4 to get my attention and goes, look Don, here is how it is....
Different situation.
But men going, TRUST ME, I KNOW ABOUT GOD.
Not going to happen.
12 Jun 19
@sonhouse saidI will wait till you watch it all
I listened to half of it, have to make breakfast, wife is almost bedridden. So the main thing I would bring up is not that he is wrong but that our science is just too close to kindergarten for him to be using those dudes as examples of what is real and such in the universe. For instance, he talks about the 'singularity' when you go back in time further and further the unive ...[text shortened]... it is....
Different situation.
But men going, TRUST ME, I KNOW ABOUT GOD.
Not going to happen.
12 Jun 19
@kellyjay saidOk, I watched it and also found this:
I will wait till you watch it all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
He is in the 'discovery institute' and is a vociferous pusher of intelligent design.
It was clear that was where he was going with this talk.
He might even be right but it is going to take a lot more science than we have now to prove it.
Just saying DNA is a code and in order to develop it needs a coder is not proof, it is a statement, and as such, his agenda.
He has a Phd but in the HISTORY of science, not a real science degree, but an expert knowledge of OLD science. Einstein, Kepler, Newton, Hubble and so forth.
He has a BS in physics and Earth science but got no further than that.
He is clearly intelligent but when intelligent people have an agenda, less intelligent people won't know that especially if they run into him like in a lecture for the first time and get hooked on his ideas.
That is how cults start. Intelligent people with an agenda taking advantage of weak minds.
And of course you cannot argue he does not have an agenda, it is obvious.
But it is still going to take a lot more scientific development to get out of our present level of kindergarten so to speak, could be another couple hundred years before we know the truth through the lens of science.
In the meantime all you have is religion, faith and such, an unchanging and unchangeable belief no matter what science discovers, if that science goes against the prevailing religion it will be pronounced fake science and the religion goes on unspoiled by the nasty truth discovered by this future science.
13 Jun 19
2 edits
@sonhouse saidDo you call yourself open minded, or do you have an agenda to repudiate anything that might acknowledge the possibility of God?
Ok, I watched it and also found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
He is in the 'discovery institute' and is a vociferous pusher of intelligent design.
It was clear that was where he was going with this talk.
He might even be right but it is going to take a lot more science than we have now to prove it.
Just saying DNA is a code and in order ...[text shortened]... ake science and the religion goes on unspoiled by the nasty truth discovered by this future science.
I don’t think having that agenda makes you less than, unless you want to reject another’s point of view because they have an agenda(world view) while you pretend you don't have one too.
If the arguments have merits that is more important than someone’s beliefs.
13 Jun 19
@sonhouse saidI made no attempt to hide anything about him or his talk, I even forwarded you that there would no disagreement from me on this is a GODIDIT talk. I thought he was good and bringing his points together. I will be honest here too I have his two books, but I have a small library so I have others too like the Blind Watch Maker. I don't mind reading those I disagree with, they may surprise me on things I have to alter my thinking over, or my stance becomes stronger in my mind if I see flaws in their points.
Ok, I watched it and also found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
He is in the 'discovery institute' and is a vociferous pusher of intelligent design.
It was clear that was where he was going with this talk.
He might even be right but it is going to take a lot more science than we have now to prove it.
Just saying DNA is a code and in order ...[text shortened]... ake science and the religion goes on unspoiled by the nasty truth discovered by this future science.
13 Jun 19
@kellyjay saidYou ignore my point. That we are too primitive scientifically to be making statements comparing programmers to the need for there to be a programmer in the sky since we have just barely gotten into knowing about DNA in the first place, it was only 1953 we even knew the structure of DNA much less the origins.
I made no attempt to hide anything about him or his talk, I even forwarded you that there would no disagreement from me on this is a GODIDIT talk. I thought he was good and bringing his points together. I will be honest here too I have his two books, but I have a small library so I have others too like the Blind Watch Maker. I don't mind reading those I disagree with, they m ...[text shortened]... to alter my thinking over, or my stance becomes stronger in my mind if I see flaws in their points.
I say we WILL know the origins but we are still in kindergarten and have to get to at least HS to figure it all out and that may take another three hundred years, no way of telling, that is assuming our civilization LASTS another 300 years before we are consumed by climate change and go into pure survival mode which would of course preclude any kind of advanced science or spaceflight.
So we may know eventually if we survive the next 100 years intact as a civilization.
If we don't and actually succumb to the forces of nature we will be back in the dark ages and back to GODIDIT forever and back to witch hunts and all the bad stuff of the dark ages.
I have always said I want not freedom OF religion, I want freedom FROM religion.
I want to see humans reason things out scientifically and philosophically without constantly referring to a deity for morality and such.
We are making up our own morality as we go along.
Like some countries it is totally moral to do female genital mutilation but we seem to be able to counter that with the realization it is totally wrong.
I say we can do that with every other human endeavor also, no need to have the crutch of religion.
It wouldn't be so bad if the religions kept to themselves but no, they have to pronounce themselves capable of killing those of other religions because their god told them to. Which is utter bull crap, PEOPLE tell them to kill, no god required for that. So that extends IMO to the whole of religion.