earth is near the center of the universe- How you ask? All red shifts from other galaxcies are equal-distance!
you can not ignor the facts.
Earths goldy locks zone, galactic habital zone , being between the spiral arms, the earth is in the best placement for scientific discoveries in the galaxy; sounds like someone is on our side.( Evidence of a creator God.) Jehovah-jireh- old testiment which means, 'God my provider'
again you show your own ignorance as it was Christian Creationist Scientists that developed most of the methods of modern science, and Christians that began universities in the US.
@frankomanno The cambrian explosion what? Alright man, I feel like I'm talking to a witch doctor and attempting to explain that his ritual dance isn't going to cure anything. I never said that Christians never contributed anything, in fact most accept evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for the diversity of life. Creationists on the other hand are quote mining liars who misinform the gullible and don't know anything about the objectivity of science.
@frankomanno To adapt your "understanding" of the cosmos & life to a preconceived religious narrative prevents the objectivity which is fundamental in the pursuit of knowledge. ie Creationists cannot grasp the true beauty of the mechanisms responsible for the diversity of life. But, more specifically the claim that our vantage point is "special" is incorrect. The expansion of the Universe (space-time) appears the same from all locations.
@parttimehuman - you expose your own religious bias by your statements - first the assumption that 'naturalism' is based on science and not faith; and then also by your assumption that if one went out in to space far enough the observer would see the same thing they see here - it's becoming more apparent as more measurements are made that we are in a 'special' place - ignore it if your faith demands it.
@frankomanno You're projecting. Religious people tend to make the claim that science=faith in order to conduct the mental gymnastics required to convince themselves that the playing field is level when it most certainly is not. If you knew anything about the scientific method you would know that.
To believe that this spec of dust among countless other specs and trillions of stars
is the reason for all of the universe is beyond delusional and frankly disturbingly arrogant.
@parttimehuman You're pretty funny - life comes from life is what is observed and is testable and observable in the real world, yet evos claim that life came from non-life; then they backtrack later and say origin of life isn't part of evolution (because they fail) but then abiogenesis is still told as fact in textbooks and on 'science' programs on tv. Evolution fails at square one in science and logic, and is more religious from square one than creationism.
@parttimehuman as to the last part of your statement about 'spec of dust' - as the video shows, for complex life as we know it to exist on a planet requires so many things to be 'just right' that even in our galaxy of an estimated 100 billion stars, there's still only 1 trillionth of a chance of there being a planet capable of sustaining intelligent life - based on current scientific knowledge. Even evo promoter Carl Sagan once suggested we may be alone.
@frankomanno You are the fading echo of primitive men. Men who believed the Earth was fixed, immovable and flat. Men who believed that evil spirits caused disease and sickness. Men whose speculations have been proven incorrect countless times. Yet you carry the torch, indoctrinated and fearful of the gods like so many ancient men. Remove the chains, it's okay.
Sagan
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
@parttimehuman since you're passing around compliments I'll reply in kind - it's total insanity to believe that loss of information results in molecules to man evolution, and never is increasing complexity observed (macroevolution), only variation within kind according to the DNA code. It takes a lot more faith to believe something came from nothing than from a higher source, The first law of thermodynamics.
@frankomanno If you like, I'd be willing to listen to your explanation as to why the fossil record never contains modern life in the same sedimentary layer as ancient primitive life. ie no cats or goats in the Burgess Shale along with trilobites other phyla. The true history of this planet can be read like a book.
By the way, given how many exoplanets are being found, NASA estimates there could be as many as 100 million habitable planets in the MIlky Way alone.
@parttimehuman - obviously you've hardly ever read any creation science literature, so I can't believe you will provide an intelligent conversation on the subject. Different animals lived in different areas, just as they do today, and some more able to escape death depending on their environment and abilities. To say the fossil record shows a slow change from simple to complex organisms is naive as all life is 'complex' as is now known.
@frankomanno Creation science literature? I believe you mean fiction, yes?
They have no theory, they believe in an incantation spell. Basically you are saying that you believe in magic over natural processes. Creationists try and fail to dispute scientific progress. It's a fools errand. None of them are biologists or geologists or paleontologists.
@parttimehuman and again in true evo fashion, you call names and make accusations and then can't back anything up. Why don't you go visit scienceagainstevolution or trueorigin instead of talkorigins sometime? And yes, I've read up at the talkorigins evangelical site already.
@frankomanno Names? Evade? No sir. I said you're "the fading echo of primitive men." not really a crude insult. Okay I'll look at those websites and you watch "The foundational falsehoods of creationism" here on youtube. But I'm sure you won't.
@parttimehuman - frankomanno, leave it alone...some will never know science when they see it, anymore than expecting them to see 1+1 = 2 and not 3 or whatever their minds choose it to be...and lets face it, a parttimehuman only can have the answers we all need, lol.
Cosmologists were thrilled about this, it helped show them where to look for life, and where not to look.
For all of the idiocy it has spawned, I do applaud Gonzales for his work on the habital zones. It'll be very helpful if ever we're capable of interstellar travel.
His ideas were taken well beyond the scope of the data. His ideas tell us where to look and what to look for when looking for extraterrestrial life. Some, however, have interpreted it to mean that "surely so many variables make life impossible, and that any life must be the result of some benevolent passing deity." I call it idiocy because they spout this as though it were a surety without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
We'd need further data on planets to test each of the variables. The problem is, we detect the presence of planets by their gravitational effect on a star, which makes all but the largest of planets difficult to find.
In other words, time will tell, but until then, any claims on extraterrestrial life are pure speculation. It's far more reasonable to say "I don't know" at this point than "aliens do/do not exist."
Really it just never ceases to amaze me how condescending the materialists get when presented with any argument that undermines their worldview.
They like to hem and haw over evolution, but when presented with evidence from astronomy they make the same exact complaints.
Their real problem is with the concept of a God, not with the science. No matter how compellling the scientific evidence they will never accept it because they do not want to be accountable to a Divine Being.
This isn't science, it's the Intelligent Design version of cosmology. The old cosmic knobs on god's desk tripe.
Twist one knob, we all die. It's true.
Twist two or more and you might just balance things again and create conditions favorable to a whole new kind of life. Any child can see this if he tries.
Food bland? Add salt. It's not hard to grasp, it's just scary for believers to try.
Even in the universe we have, saying life can ONLY be like earthly life is ridiculous.
Actually that's not true at all. Remember that wishful thinking doesn't do you any good. You have to look at the facts.
There is in fact a very narrow range of values that the physical constants of the universe could have to allow for life. This isn't some type of Russian Roulette where different values yield different types of life. I don't have the space to illustrate this but even atheistic physicists concede this fact. Research the topic on the Internet to learn more.
@wgbutler777 This doesn't do anything to prove god, it just means that the conditions for life are rare. Even so, astrophysicists hypothesize that there are many other earthlike planets that likely have developed life.
TheSeventhSon, actually many in the scientific community now think that Earth may be the only habitable planet in the entire Universe, because of the uncommon and exceedingly rare characteristics it has to support life.
In his book, "God the Failed Hypothesis", Victor Stenger uses this exact reasoning to argue against the existence of God! How ironic that you use the exact opposite scenario (there are instead many earthlike planets) to argue against the existence of God!
@wgbutler777 Uh, that is pretty much not true. Most people accept the idea that there are likely many earth like planets due to how large space is and how little we've even observed. It is likely life has evolved under different constants.
TheSeventhSon - If that's true then I suggest you contact Victor Stenger and tell him that his book and his whole justification for atheism is based on a flawed concept.
On the other hand, if you are willing to review the actual facts you could start with an Internet search on "Rare Earth Hypothesis" and "Fermi Paradox".
@wgbutler777 Victor Stenger's book appears to be arguing that the universe is not fine tuned. I'm not seeing anything in the reviews about how he thinks earth is the only planet with complex life. Nevertheless I'll have to read it myself. Sounds interesting.
In addition to those theories, there's the Copernican principle.
@TheSeventhSon What DOES, however, prove the exitence, nay, the necessity for a creator or supreme being is the principle that something which at one point did not exist could not have caused its own existence. A creator or supreme being is a metaphysical necessity given the nature of the universe as it exists. Now, the nature of that creator or supreme being is another issue entirely.
If it were a metaphysical necessity, there wouldn't be atheistic philosophers, now, would there?
No doubt you're familiar with the cosmological argument, judging from your statement. The problem with this is that it relies on the assumption that an infinite regression is impossible. It also relies on linear causality, which need not be the case. It also relies on the premise that time actually existed before the universe, which need not be the case.
@wgbutler777 You're a moron. If I didn't want to be held accountable for my actions, I would just accept Christ so that I could go to heaven. Instead, I do not believe in god. People can provide arguments, but they need evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a god responsible for everything. Complexity does not mean that god did it. Thanks for generalizing and assuming you actually understand the scientific mindset.
TheSeventhSon, your reply makes no sense whatsoever. After getting in the usual gratuitous insult which atheists are so well known for, you make a series of completely unrelated, nonsensical statements which have no logical coherance whatsoever.
Often when atheists have no intelligent arguments to make they revert to childish behavior and snide remarks. Thanks for again affirming the stereotype.
@wgbutler777 You were saying that atheists do not want to be held accountable to a higher being. I am saying that that is nonsense. My desire to not accept the concept of an intelligent being would imply that I am actually aware that said being exists and I'm just willfully ignorant of that. That is not the case. I simply reject the idea of god.
TheSeventhSon, of course atheists have different motives but it is true many, if not most, atheists don't want to be held accountable for their actions to a Supreme Being and they candidly admit that this is the case. As a former atheist myself, that was my main motivation.
Others because of psychological issues or because they have experienced trauma in life. There are other reasons of course, but the ones I've mentioned explain alot about the angry behavior we see in many atheists.
@wgbutler777 The atheists I know simply reject god, so you're making a very general statement that's apparently only valid for your experiences. Like I said, if I didn't want to be held accountable, I would just accept Christ since that is effective in forgiving sins.
"Angry behavior". Hah, atheists make up very little of our prisons. The atheists that I know are probably some of the happier people that I know. Once again, very general statements.
TheSeventhSon, there is more to being a Christian than just "Accepting Christ". It is also necessary to repent and forsake your sinful behavior. This is the part of Christianity that most secularists (including atheists) have a problem with. They want to keep doing their own thing.
Atheists such as Aldous Huxley have freely admitted that they desire for atheism to be true so they can indulge in sexual behavior without limitations.
@wgbutler777 Sorry, but I wish that I actually could believe in a god. I live a rather moral life, there are no desires that keep me from believing in god. So that's cool that other people do that, but that's not me and it's not a lot of people I know that are atheists.
Have you heard of Enceledes? It is within *our* solar system. Has no significant cosmic rays, and seems to have liquid water. Life on earth may have evolved to take advantage of carbon dioxide and oxygen simply because they were there.
Now imagine what might be possible in a universe with ... wait for it ... 100. billion. galaxies. not stars. no. galaxies.
I find it offensive how this video tries to hijack science to defend the indefensible, after 1000s of years trying to discredit science.
I agree with you in principle. Life 'seems' very difficult to sustain, and that would suggest that *maybe* we are rare. For a scientist to conclude anything beyond that is just silly/stupid.
Also, I noticed all of the conditions you mention are quite egocentric. If life on earth needs these things, certainly all other life must as well? I'm not sure i buy that.
Here's an analogy. You find yourself on an airplane, flying through the sky. You look around and think 'The fact that we're flying is simply incredible. Hmm, I can't see any airplanes out the window. Wow, we must be on the only airplane in the whole universe! We're amazing' and then later by implication, 'the entire universe must have been put here so we could exist and fly in this airplane. Why else?!?'.
The conclusions are simply preposterous. They do not merit even respect.
I'm specifically calling the 'scientists' in this video 'morons' because they aren't being very scientific. How on earth can you know that life is on a 'razor's edge'? Have you seen other lifeforms? Have you been to other universes? Have you been to other planets and found life not to exist there? Which one? Which planet do you live on? They are claiming information to which they can't possibly have access. And they're using it to make really bold claims. That's not science.
I find the interviewed subjects to be highly speculative. There is so much about astronomy that we don't know. It is a true modern frontier.
I find the use of these people's interviews, combined with the suggestive complexity and unlikelihood of our position in the universe... well I find it all to be rather imprudent.
We're always discovering things we don't expect, which seem unlikely or counter-intuitive. Such as young stars at the center of the galaxy, exactly opposite of the expected!
What's to be offended by? God wants people to kiss his behind so they can avoid eternal hellfire, part of his plan of infinite wisdom and love, and so they can receive the ultimate gift: eternity in his presence.
And if they happen not to, for whatever reason, God and the angels will be laughing and mocking. Great times.
stunningly moronic. can you goofballs understand the difference between cause and effect?!?
of course you would expect life to evolve in the habitable zone! its like saying because you expect to find penguins in arctic regions, the arctic was created for penguins to exist.
the point of the video is to say, this planet is very special. out of what we have found in the universe, we are in the right spot, perfectible distant from the sun, with a moon and so on. that creates life, is it by chance, that out of all the universe that scientist have seen we are the only ones that could produce life, or is it by design.
thats the work of my father ..HIS NAME IS YHWH, we all should worship the mighty hand of the CREATOR
christiannandres 1 year ago 2
earth is near the center of the universe- How you ask? All red shifts from other galaxcies are equal-distance!
you can not ignor the facts.
Earths goldy locks zone, galactic habital zone , being between the spiral arms, the earth is in the best placement for scientific discoveries in the galaxy; sounds like someone is on our side.( Evidence of a creator God.) Jehovah-jireh- old testiment which means, 'God my provider'
muktuklou 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
again you show your own ignorance as it was Christian Creationist Scientists that developed most of the methods of modern science, and Christians that began universities in the US.
frankomanno 1 year ago
Comment removed
frankomanno 1 year ago
@partimehuman - the cambrian explosion continues to be a major embarrassment to the theory of evolution.
frankomanno 1 year ago
@frankomanno The cambrian explosion what? Alright man, I feel like I'm talking to a witch doctor and attempting to explain that his ritual dance isn't going to cure anything. I never said that Christians never contributed anything, in fact most accept evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for the diversity of life. Creationists on the other hand are quote mining liars who misinform the gullible and don't know anything about the objectivity of science.
parttimehuman 1 year ago
@parttimehuman Yep, it's fun trying to argue with limited character counts and a bunch of trolls who ignore facts, cya.
frankomanno 1 year ago
If all scientists were as willfully ignorant and fundamentalist as the creators of this video then we would still know nothing of the cosmos.
parttimehuman 1 year ago
@parttimehuman - give a 'for instance'
frankomanno 1 year ago
@frankomanno To adapt your "understanding" of the cosmos & life to a preconceived religious narrative prevents the objectivity which is fundamental in the pursuit of knowledge. ie Creationists cannot grasp the true beauty of the mechanisms responsible for the diversity of life. But, more specifically the claim that our vantage point is "special" is incorrect. The expansion of the Universe (space-time) appears the same from all locations.
parttimehuman 1 year ago
@parttimehuman - you expose your own religious bias by your statements - first the assumption that 'naturalism' is based on science and not faith; and then also by your assumption that if one went out in to space far enough the observer would see the same thing they see here - it's becoming more apparent as more measurements are made that we are in a 'special' place - ignore it if your faith demands it.
frankomanno 1 year ago
@frankomanno You're projecting. Religious people tend to make the claim that science=faith in order to conduct the mental gymnastics required to convince themselves that the playing field is level when it most certainly is not. If you knew anything about the scientific method you would know that.
To believe that this spec of dust among countless other specs and trillions of stars
is the reason for all of the universe is beyond delusional and frankly disturbingly arrogant.
parttimehuman 1 year ago
@parttimehuman You're pretty funny - life comes from life is what is observed and is testable and observable in the real world, yet evos claim that life came from non-life; then they backtrack later and say origin of life isn't part of evolution (because they fail) but then abiogenesis is still told as fact in textbooks and on 'science' programs on tv. Evolution fails at square one in science and logic, and is more religious from square one than creationism.
frankomanno 1 year ago
@parttimehuman as to the last part of your statement about 'spec of dust' - as the video shows, for complex life as we know it to exist on a planet requires so many things to be 'just right' that even in our galaxy of an estimated 100 billion stars, there's still only 1 trillionth of a chance of there being a planet capable of sustaining intelligent life - based on current scientific knowledge. Even evo promoter Carl Sagan once suggested we may be alone.
frankomanno 1 year ago
@parttimehuman - I don't believe you know anything about the 'scientific method' or you wouldn't be posting such ignorant statements.
frankomanno 1 year ago
@frankomanno You are the fading echo of primitive men. Men who believed the Earth was fixed, immovable and flat. Men who believed that evil spirits caused disease and sickness. Men whose speculations have been proven incorrect countless times. Yet you carry the torch, indoctrinated and fearful of the gods like so many ancient men. Remove the chains, it's okay.
Sagan
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
parttimehuman 1 year ago
@parttimehuman since you're passing around compliments I'll reply in kind - it's total insanity to believe that loss of information results in molecules to man evolution, and never is increasing complexity observed (macroevolution), only variation within kind according to the DNA code. It takes a lot more faith to believe something came from nothing than from a higher source, The first law of thermodynamics.
frankomanno 1 year ago
@frankomanno If you like, I'd be willing to listen to your explanation as to why the fossil record never contains modern life in the same sedimentary layer as ancient primitive life. ie no cats or goats in the Burgess Shale along with trilobites other phyla. The true history of this planet can be read like a book.
By the way, given how many exoplanets are being found, NASA estimates there could be as many as 100 million habitable planets in the MIlky Way alone.
parttimehuman 1 year ago
@parttimehuman - obviously you've hardly ever read any creation science literature, so I can't believe you will provide an intelligent conversation on the subject. Different animals lived in different areas, just as they do today, and some more able to escape death depending on their environment and abilities. To say the fossil record shows a slow change from simple to complex organisms is naive as all life is 'complex' as is now known.
frankomanno 1 year ago
@frankomanno Creation science literature? I believe you mean fiction, yes?
They have no theory, they believe in an incantation spell. Basically you are saying that you believe in magic over natural processes. Creationists try and fail to dispute scientific progress. It's a fools errand. None of them are biologists or geologists or paleontologists.
parttimehuman 1 year ago
@parttimehuman and again in true evo fashion, you call names and make accusations and then can't back anything up. Why don't you go visit scienceagainstevolution or trueorigin instead of talkorigins sometime? And yes, I've read up at the talkorigins evangelical site already.
frankomanno 1 year ago
@frankomanno Names? Evade? No sir. I said you're "the fading echo of primitive men." not really a crude insult. Okay I'll look at those websites and you watch "The foundational falsehoods of creationism" here on youtube. But I'm sure you won't.
Confirmation bias is no joke.
parttimehuman 1 year ago
@parttimehuman - frankomanno, leave it alone...some will never know science when they see it, anymore than expecting them to see 1+1 = 2 and not 3 or whatever their minds choose it to be...and lets face it, a parttimehuman only can have the answers we all need, lol.
kevinmelvillesimpson 3 weeks ago
"Grueling acceptance?" Why should they say that?
Cosmologists were thrilled about this, it helped show them where to look for life, and where not to look.
For all of the idiocy it has spawned, I do applaud Gonzales for his work on the habital zones. It'll be very helpful if ever we're capable of interstellar travel.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight Which idiocy did his work spawn? I'm curious.
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley
His ideas were taken well beyond the scope of the data. His ideas tell us where to look and what to look for when looking for extraterrestrial life. Some, however, have interpreted it to mean that "surely so many variables make life impossible, and that any life must be the result of some benevolent passing deity." I call it idiocy because they spout this as though it were a surety without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight What evidence might you consider sufficient?
KnightofMotley 1 year ago
@KnightofMotley
We'd need further data on planets to test each of the variables. The problem is, we detect the presence of planets by their gravitational effect on a star, which makes all but the largest of planets difficult to find.
In other words, time will tell, but until then, any claims on extraterrestrial life are pure speculation. It's far more reasonable to say "I don't know" at this point than "aliens do/do not exist."
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
Really it just never ceases to amaze me how condescending the materialists get when presented with any argument that undermines their worldview.
They like to hem and haw over evolution, but when presented with evidence from astronomy they make the same exact complaints.
Their real problem is with the concept of a God, not with the science. No matter how compellling the scientific evidence they will never accept it because they do not want to be accountable to a Divine Being.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
@wgbutler777
This isn't science, it's the Intelligent Design version of cosmology. The old cosmic knobs on god's desk tripe.
Twist one knob, we all die. It's true.
Twist two or more and you might just balance things again and create conditions favorable to a whole new kind of life. Any child can see this if he tries.
Food bland? Add salt. It's not hard to grasp, it's just scary for believers to try.
Even in the universe we have, saying life can ONLY be like earthly life is ridiculous.
thisisanaccount100 2 years ago
@thisisanaccount100 fool
prettyemofreak 2 years ago
Actually that's not true at all. Remember that wishful thinking doesn't do you any good. You have to look at the facts.
There is in fact a very narrow range of values that the physical constants of the universe could have to allow for life. This isn't some type of Russian Roulette where different values yield different types of life. I don't have the space to illustrate this but even atheistic physicists concede this fact. Research the topic on the Internet to learn more.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
@wgbutler777 This doesn't do anything to prove god, it just means that the conditions for life are rare. Even so, astrophysicists hypothesize that there are many other earthlike planets that likely have developed life.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
TheSeventhSon, actually many in the scientific community now think that Earth may be the only habitable planet in the entire Universe, because of the uncommon and exceedingly rare characteristics it has to support life.
In his book, "God the Failed Hypothesis", Victor Stenger uses this exact reasoning to argue against the existence of God! How ironic that you use the exact opposite scenario (there are instead many earthlike planets) to argue against the existence of God!
wgbutler777 2 years ago
@wgbutler777 Uh, that is pretty much not true. Most people accept the idea that there are likely many earth like planets due to how large space is and how little we've even observed. It is likely life has evolved under different constants.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago 2
TheSeventhSon - If that's true then I suggest you contact Victor Stenger and tell him that his book and his whole justification for atheism is based on a flawed concept.
On the other hand, if you are willing to review the actual facts you could start with an Internet search on "Rare Earth Hypothesis" and "Fermi Paradox".
wgbutler777 2 years ago
@wgbutler777 Victor Stenger's book appears to be arguing that the universe is not fine tuned. I'm not seeing anything in the reviews about how he thinks earth is the only planet with complex life. Nevertheless I'll have to read it myself. Sounds interesting.
In addition to those theories, there's the Copernican principle.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
@wgbutler777 only habitable planet in the entire Universe
You have no idea how Huge the universe is, do you?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@TheSeventhSon What DOES, however, prove the exitence, nay, the necessity for a creator or supreme being is the principle that something which at one point did not exist could not have caused its own existence. A creator or supreme being is a metaphysical necessity given the nature of the universe as it exists. Now, the nature of that creator or supreme being is another issue entirely.
Peace,
-Greg
greglam 1 year ago
@greglam
No, that is a logical leap on your part. That proves that the nature of how the universe was formed is not entirely understood.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@greglam
If it were a metaphysical necessity, there wouldn't be atheistic philosophers, now, would there?
No doubt you're familiar with the cosmological argument, judging from your statement. The problem with this is that it relies on the assumption that an infinite regression is impossible. It also relies on linear causality, which need not be the case. It also relies on the premise that time actually existed before the universe, which need not be the case.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@wgbutler777 You're a moron. If I didn't want to be held accountable for my actions, I would just accept Christ so that I could go to heaven. Instead, I do not believe in god. People can provide arguments, but they need evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a god responsible for everything. Complexity does not mean that god did it. Thanks for generalizing and assuming you actually understand the scientific mindset.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
TheSeventhSon, your reply makes no sense whatsoever. After getting in the usual gratuitous insult which atheists are so well known for, you make a series of completely unrelated, nonsensical statements which have no logical coherance whatsoever.
Often when atheists have no intelligent arguments to make they revert to childish behavior and snide remarks. Thanks for again affirming the stereotype.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
@wgbutler777 You were saying that atheists do not want to be held accountable to a higher being. I am saying that that is nonsense. My desire to not accept the concept of an intelligent being would imply that I am actually aware that said being exists and I'm just willfully ignorant of that. That is not the case. I simply reject the idea of god.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
TheSeventhSon, of course atheists have different motives but it is true many, if not most, atheists don't want to be held accountable for their actions to a Supreme Being and they candidly admit that this is the case. As a former atheist myself, that was my main motivation.
Others because of psychological issues or because they have experienced trauma in life. There are other reasons of course, but the ones I've mentioned explain alot about the angry behavior we see in many atheists.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
@wgbutler777 The atheists I know simply reject god, so you're making a very general statement that's apparently only valid for your experiences. Like I said, if I didn't want to be held accountable, I would just accept Christ since that is effective in forgiving sins.
"Angry behavior". Hah, atheists make up very little of our prisons. The atheists that I know are probably some of the happier people that I know. Once again, very general statements.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
TheSeventhSon, there is more to being a Christian than just "Accepting Christ". It is also necessary to repent and forsake your sinful behavior. This is the part of Christianity that most secularists (including atheists) have a problem with. They want to keep doing their own thing.
Atheists such as Aldous Huxley have freely admitted that they desire for atheism to be true so they can indulge in sexual behavior without limitations.
wgbutler777 2 years ago
@wgbutler777 Sorry, but I wish that I actually could believe in a god. I live a rather moral life, there are no desires that keep me from believing in god. So that's cool that other people do that, but that's not me and it's not a lot of people I know that are atheists.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
Have you heard of Enceledes? It is within *our* solar system. Has no significant cosmic rays, and seems to have liquid water. Life on earth may have evolved to take advantage of carbon dioxide and oxygen simply because they were there.
Now imagine what might be possible in a universe with ... wait for it ... 100. billion. galaxies. not stars. no. galaxies.
I find it offensive how this video tries to hijack science to defend the indefensible, after 1000s of years trying to discredit science.
rsmonge 2 years ago
I agree with you in principle. Life 'seems' very difficult to sustain, and that would suggest that *maybe* we are rare. For a scientist to conclude anything beyond that is just silly/stupid.
Also, I noticed all of the conditions you mention are quite egocentric. If life on earth needs these things, certainly all other life must as well? I'm not sure i buy that.
rsmonge 2 years ago
Here's an analogy. You find yourself on an airplane, flying through the sky. You look around and think 'The fact that we're flying is simply incredible. Hmm, I can't see any airplanes out the window. Wow, we must be on the only airplane in the whole universe! We're amazing' and then later by implication, 'the entire universe must have been put here so we could exist and fly in this airplane. Why else?!?'.
The conclusions are simply preposterous. They do not merit even respect.
rsmonge 2 years ago
I'm specifically calling the 'scientists' in this video 'morons' because they aren't being very scientific. How on earth can you know that life is on a 'razor's edge'? Have you seen other lifeforms? Have you been to other universes? Have you been to other planets and found life not to exist there? Which one? Which planet do you live on? They are claiming information to which they can't possibly have access. And they're using it to make really bold claims. That's not science.
rsmonge 2 years ago
I find the interviewed subjects to be highly speculative. There is so much about astronomy that we don't know. It is a true modern frontier.
I find the use of these people's interviews, combined with the suggestive complexity and unlikelihood of our position in the universe... well I find it all to be rather imprudent.
We're always discovering things we don't expect, which seem unlikely or counter-intuitive. Such as young stars at the center of the galaxy, exactly opposite of the expected!
abyssquick 2 years ago
Yep, you're right. Antarctic. My mistake.
rsmonge 2 years ago
Yep, rsmonge thats not your only mistake, and by the way the comb you misplaced was in your back pocket the whole time.
Now educate me, what was that about Enceledes?
blindeyesfull 2 years ago
I do agree with you about their knowing, too much of what they are saying is theory. But I take offence with your last statement.
sking0369 2 years ago
What's to be offended by? God wants people to kiss his behind so they can avoid eternal hellfire, part of his plan of infinite wisdom and love, and so they can receive the ultimate gift: eternity in his presence.
And if they happen not to, for whatever reason, God and the angels will be laughing and mocking. Great times.
rsmonge 2 years ago
stunningly moronic. can you goofballs understand the difference between cause and effect?!?
of course you would expect life to evolve in the habitable zone! its like saying because you expect to find penguins in arctic regions, the arctic was created for penguins to exist.
i want to scream this is so stupid.
rsmonge 2 years ago
the point of the video is to say, this planet is very special. out of what we have found in the universe, we are in the right spot, perfectible distant from the sun, with a moon and so on. that creates life, is it by chance, that out of all the universe that scientist have seen we are the only ones that could produce life, or is it by design.
salvatoreleonegta3 2 years ago
Don't mean to nitpick, but penguins are only found in the antarctic region and other places in the southern hemisphere only.
Maxfli82 2 years ago