BaldingSoHard
Banned
Taking what personal, exactly?
The fact that we haven't found another Earth like planet?
The fact that it's taking longer than 50 years to unlock every secret the universe has? (
)What does that have to do with Atheism?
WSJ article:Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
- Thread starter valet
- Start date
Taking what personal, exactly?
The fact that we haven't found another Earth like planet?
The fact that it's taking longer than 50 years to unlock every secret the universe has? (
)What does that have to do with Atheism?
READ THE ARTICLE. in the 60's scientist said NO MORE GOD(thats an atheist theory) based on the criteria for another earth being out there some where. Since the criteria was so minimal. they figured the probability of there being another earth is very high with this small amt of criteria. its now 2015 and the criteria for earth is much much larger then it was back in 1960. Which makes it a lot less likely that we will ever find another earth. The difference between the 1960(atheist theory) is that randomness trumps God. meaning yes another earth will pop up eventually because these things some what randomly occur but at some point like all patterns they repeat themselves. Well the intelligent design folks are saying using your logic and what scientists know today, the theory of a random patter that will keep creating earths is not a solid theory anymore. perhaps we are THEE only earth there is in the universe. and if thats the case then it leans more to their being a designer behind this thing we call earth, the universe, then randomness.Taking what personal, exactly?
The fact that we haven't found another Earth like planet?
The fact that it's taking longer than 50 years to unlock every secret the universe has? (
What does that have to do with Atheism?
Yes i will keep repeating this until yall get it.
BaldingSoHard
Banned
I can safely say you have no idea what a theory is.
It also sounds like you're one of those guys who don't know what science really is.
One article from an atheist scientist = science is atheism. That's... cute.
You're also discounting the fact that we've discovered (literally) billions more planets since the 60's. We're discovering more planets each week. So yes, the criteria becomes more strict but the pool of possibilities has increased exponentially and continues to do so. Math is a thing, do it and see what the outcome looks like (we both know you can't/won't, but if you wanted to you would start by quantifying the odds of finding a planet capable of supporting life and multiply that by the number of planets in the known universe).
Anyway, lemme help you out.
You probably think that science and atheism go hand in hand... Hint:
They don't
You probably also think that religion and evolution are at odds.... Hint:
They aren't
Lemme know if you've got any more questions.
Last edited:
slow down plaiboi, i didnt say science = athiest. i said the moment some scientist or someone uses science to create an article back in the 60's where it says NO GOD. that is an atheist view point. Thats not science just talking science. Thats what we're talking about here. The article, which referenced and old article from the 60's saying something along those lines.I can safely say you have no idea what a theory is.
It also sounds like you're one of those guys who don't know what science really is.
One article from an atheist scientist = science is atheism. That's... cute.
You're also discounting the fact that we've discovered (literally) billions more planets since the 60's. We're discovering more planets each week. So yes, the criteria becomes more strict but the pool of possibilities has increased exponentially and continues to do so. Math is a thing, do it and see what the outcome looks like (we both know you can't/won't, but if you wanted to you would start by quantifying the odds of finding a planet capable of supporting life and multiply that by the number of planets in the known universe).
Anyway, lemme help you out.
You probably think that science and atheism go hand in hand... Hint:They don't
You probably also think that religion and evolution are at odds.... Hint:They aren't
Lemme know if you've got any more questions.
now that we have that understood. why are we talking about religion and evolution? Thats not what the article is about. Its simply about the odds of another earth being here. nothing more, nothing less. now of course the guys in the article(current one) are all for Intelligent design. What it seems is you guys keep trying to debate with those guys beliefs but not the actual article. which is why i keep repeating my self.
and to say religion is not at odds with evolution that all depends on your interpretation of both. But again, thats not what the article is about. So i'm not going to get into that discussion. we've done that here 100's of times for better and for worse .lol.
and to your formula. no one discounted the fact that their are more planets. That formula goes both ways. You say the more planets we find, the more chances are that we'll find another one just like ours. just based on "the odds"
See that theory is based on. the more you have "their MUST BE" no their doesnt have to be another one. who told you that? No one. not even math says that there HAS to be another like planet. thats untrue. I've told you guys this before. This stuff is all about patterns. the deeper in math/science you go. the LONGER the patterns of numbers and findings. Thats why they start using symbols and letters to abbreviate these patterns.
lets keep it simple.
4.1122334455....
You can ASSUME, the next two digits will be 66. But you dont KNOW that for a fact and you never will until the number proves that to be the next two digits on its on. For all we know the next two digits could be 11 again then what?.
This is why you cant just say well since space is so darn huge with so many stars, planets etc. THere HAS to be another earth, their just has to be. No there doesnt. and listen i'm not saying there is or isnt. the hell if i know. lol. if yall find one. holla at a bruh.
But back to the article. The idea of "NO GOD" was brought about in the 60's article due to the low criteria we had on deck a the time. it was like scientists were saying "awww... this ish is easy, all you need is a little water, salt, and bam Earth baby." 50 years later scientist are now on that
its going to take baking soda, 3 or 4 eggs, olive oil, peanut oil..a litle oregano..shoot..there a lot of stuff that goes into making this thing called earth just right cause if you dont get it jusssssst right its a wrap.This is bakery(space that is). you see one german chocolate cake in the window. You walk in and see a bunch of little bundt cakes, pound cakes, 7up cakes, pies, cupcakes, etc. when before all there was we could see was a 7 up cake and a pound cake and that good ole German Chocolate cake.
just because you can now see more baked goods does not mean there will be another German Chocolate cake some where in the bakery. That might just be the only one. And if thats the case, it does lean more towards an actual baker being in the back some where cooking all of it up. because he/she(them) would have said let me throw up a german chocolate right quick just to show people how good of a baker i really am.
As great as these planets are, as great as this universe is. the greatest thing we can all agree on is the LIFE and not just any LIFE. Human Life. I know there's some idiot from Peta that thinks differently. but we're talking about the rest of us. Humans, where we think, react, learn, etc. Thats some next level baking right there.
The only thing science knows for sure is that there are other baked goods in the back .they dont know if there's another German Chocolate cake back there.
I've always wondered why there is a large detachment when the numbers get larger and larger. The same Math which can be summed up with as regards to the likely chance of the universe being here (yet here we are):
"Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?"
Are some of the same people that would accuse someone of cheating if they got 3 royal flushes in a row despite the chances are MUCH less than what are shown for the universe to exist.
"Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?"
Are some of the same people that would accuse someone of cheating if they got 3 royal flushes in a row despite the chances are MUCH less than what are shown for the universe to exist.
Propaganda
Superstar
@rapbeats i don't know why you're so hung up on "another earth". given all the extreme conditions that life exists on our world, it shows it doesn't have to be a planet exactly like ours that could be habitable. you're also hung on the numbers in the piece, which have been shown to be faulty for numerous reasons, numerous times by numerous people since the article has come out. not to mention, the author of it, who isn't even a scientist, is attaching his own conclusion to what the science is saying because he's a bible-thumper. the few other scientists he quoted hardly represent the majority, either, since i know you're gonna venture down that route.
we've barely even scratched the surface in terms of planet hunting/finding and despite your claims, we already HAVE found earth-like planets...not many but they're out there. and there's estimates running into the tens of billions of planets which would fit that description that could be in the milky way alone.
we've barely even scratched the surface in terms of planet hunting/finding and despite your claims, we already HAVE found earth-like planets...not many but they're out there. and there's estimates running into the tens of billions of planets which would fit that description that could be in the milky way alone.
BaldingSoHard
Banned
slow down plaiboi, i didnt say science = athiest. i said the moment some scientist or someone uses science to create an article back in the 60's where it says NO GOD. that is an atheist view point. Thats not science just talking science. Thats what we're talking about here. The article, which referenced and old article from the 60's saying something along those lines.
now that we have that understood. why are we talking about religion and evolution? Thats not what the article is about. Its simply about the odds of another earth being here. nothing more, nothing less. now of course the guys in the article(current one) are all for Intelligent design. What it seems is you guys keep trying to debate with those guys beliefs but not the actual article. which is why i keep repeating my self.
and to say religion is not at odds with evolution that all depends on your interpretation of both. But again, thats not what the article is about. So i'm not going to get into that discussion. we've done that here 100's of times for better and for worse .lol.
and to your formula. no one discounted the fact that their are more planets. That formula goes both ways. You say the more planets we find, the more chances are that we'll find another one just like ours. just based on "the odds"
See that theory is based on. the more you have "their MUST BE" no their doesnt have to be another one. who told you that? No one. not even math says that there HAS to be another like planet. thats untrue. I've told you guys this before. This stuff is all about patterns. the deeper in math/science you go. the LONGER the patterns of numbers and findings. Thats why they start using symbols and letters to abbreviate these patterns.
lets keep it simple.
4.1122334455....
You can ASSUME, the next two digits will be 66. But you dont KNOW that for a fact and you never will until the number proves that to be the next two digits on its on. For all we know the next two digits could be 11 again then what?.
This is why you cant just say well since space is so darn huge with so many stars, planets etc. THere HAS to be another earth, their just has to be. No there doesnt. and listen i'm not saying there is or isnt. the hell if i know. lol. if yall find one. holla at a bruh.
But back to the article. The idea of "NO GOD" was brought about in the 60's article due to the low criteria we had on deck a the time. it was like scientists were saying "awww... this ish is easy, all you need is a little water, salt, and bam Earth baby." 50 years later scientist are now on that
This is bakery(space that is). you see one german chocolate cake in the window. You walk in and see a bunch of little bundt cakes, pound cakes, 7up cakes, pies, cupcakes, etc. when before all there was we could see was a 7 up cake and a pound cake and that good ole German Chocolate cake.
just because you can now see more baked goods does not mean there will be another German Chocolate cake some where in the bakery. That might just be the only one. And if thats the case, it does lean more towards an actual baker being in the back some where cooking all of it up. because he/she(them) would have said let me throw up a german chocolate right quick just to show people how good of a baker i really am.
As great as these planets are, as great as this universe is. the greatest thing we can all agree on is the LIFE and not just any LIFE. Human Life. I know there's some idiot from Peta that thinks differently. but we're talking about the rest of us. Humans, where we think, react, learn, etc. Thats some next level baking right there.
The only thing science knows for sure is that there are other baked goods in the back .they dont know if there's another German Chocolate cake back there.
Goddamn I'm not reading that shyt.
Who the f*ck is saying that?You're the one changing the argument, we're stating and have only been stating ID is the most probably cause (by far) of the genesis of the universe, you keep mentioning god figures more than anyone else, you atheist you
The person I quoted invoked God. You're making a different argument, but when people talk about an intelligent designer, they typically mean their personal god.
Yeah, I understand what it means. I just happen to think it's foolish because you're simply redefining god's work as you see fit. You cannot demonstrate god's existence, you just DEFINE god into existence. You just ASSERT nature is god's handiwork. There's no reason to think this is true.
Yes, but before evidence, no one was justified in thinking outer space was a thing. They might have been right, but without tangible evidence, you cannot be justified in thinking a claim is true. God is the same.... and please don't say the Bible is evidence of god.
Again, god throws lightning bolts...You have to PROVE shyt you say... not just assert it true.
Because absolute nothing doesn't exist... and maybe never has.
Well I don't believe this, so I guess I'll just ignore the rest.
No they don't, that's an assumption you're making, and a very incorrect one. Most serious proponents of ID are scientists just like yourself
who invoked God? some of us say God just to cover intelligent design. nothing more. at least in this discussion on this article. if we're looking at it from a purely science standpoint. you dont look thru the bible or any other "holy book" so you cant state a claim on who the intelligent designer(S) are/is. you just say God = designer(s). for arguments sake.
now sure at some point we can get into that atheist vs believers argument. where we invoke WHICH god, blah blah blah.
we have not found "earth like" planets. yes i've heard someone write an article about that. then the scientist come back and correct them...well not technically like earth and all of what earth is about/made up to be but similar in this or that."
the similarities as far as we know TODAY are not nearly enough to call the planet truly earth like. as in sure no humans may live there. but someone else may live there with green bodies and one leg and 3 arms. yet they still think have feelings ,etc.
What if we found every planet in the universe. and we studied them all. and we found that there are 100 planets that support some form of life. but the highest form 99 of these planets support go up to roaches. thats it. The only planet in the universe that supports human life is our planet. and thats still supposed to be some kind of Oopsy or coinkydinky...random occurrence? sure it could be. but is that the conclusion you would still come to if the above were the case. The only reason i mentioned "another earth" is cause thats basically what the article was talking about.
again, you start bringing up what others have said about the article. and their numbers and the scientist they quoted not being mainstream. WHO CARES. they were talking about a set up criteria that was thrown out there in the 60's. they are now talking about the data we have now today. comparing the two. there is less chance for another earth popping up in the future. Which kills the original 60's article that uses the small criteria they had for earth when they say there is no god. thats all this is about. stop using what other scientists have said about this article. this article is talking about what some particular scientists said in that 60's article. and they are running with that and that alone. there are some scientists that would say "Yo,.... i never said that back in the 60's." and that may well be true. So they dont apply to this article.
You've totally twisted the term "earth-like" into something completely different/ridiculous
One, I'm not a scientist. And how do you define a "serious proponent". And how do you demonstrate that most of them are scientists?
You JUST quoted me answering this question.
I'm not even sure what the hell you're talking about. I can't even read this drivel.
