CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
machines are not capable of doing everything a person can.
For example, Some missions have the chance of losing connection to a ground base which can control machines, if a human operator is needed for a machine's operation then the whole mission is at risk. Having a human up there improves the chance that something won't go wrong on critical missions.
yes, trips should be cost effective and that means that some trips at least, should be manned.
we owe much to space exploration, and it still has much to give. It should indeed be invested in.
We can send many, many unmanned missions for the same price as one manned mission... until we are able to send humans great distances quickly and bring them back quickly I'd rather spend our limited resources on sending as many unmanned missions out to explore all the moons, asteroids etc as possible.
There are other more important missions then random spatial space exploration. By the way most spatial space exploration is by necessity and efficiency going to be done with unmanned ships, at least for a long while.
The world benefits more from exploring how things behave in space.
We can send many, many unmanned missions for the same price as one manned mission... until we are able to send humans great distances quickly and bring them back quickly I'd rather spend our limited resources on sending as many unmanned missions out to explore all the moons, asteroids etc as possible.
What would be the point of exploring moons, asteroids, and other celestial objects? It wouldn't teach us anything about our planet. Scientists are desperate to find life out in space to prove their origin theories. That's what they are wasting our money on. We have telescopes in space and on the ground. We have wasted enough time and money.
What would be the point of exploring moons, asteroids, and other celestial objects?
To gain knowledge of the formation of said moons, asteroids and celestial objects.
It wouldn't teach us anything about our planet.
Is our planet not a celestial object now?
Scientists are desperate to find life out in space to prove their origin theories. That's what they are wasting our money on.
So you're content to twiddle your thumbs on Earth in ignorance of our vast universe. Typical of superstition, to never aspire towards knowledge. That's why the rise of Christianity saw a millennium of stagnation known as the middle ages, and the Islamic middle east regressed for centuries when its religion took over.
We have telescopes in space and on the ground. We have wasted enough time and money.
Which are still limited, and which do not give us the security of another planet should an asteroid hit us.
To gain knowledge of the formation of said moons, asteroids and celestial objects.
This doesn't answer the relevance to us.
Is our planet not a celestial object now?
It is unique and special. No other planet is as complex.
Typical of superstition, to never aspire towards knowledge.
You mean aspire to more absurd assumptions?
That's why the rise of Christianity saw a millennium of stagnation known as the middle ages, and the Islamic middle east regressed for centuries when its religion took over.
The Ptolemaic model was created during the rise of Islam.
Which are still limited, and which do not give us the security of another planet should an asteroid hit us.
It is relevant to us because we are the ones seeking that knowledge.
Assumptions don't equal knowledge.
Prove it.
Like I said you have to show me a planet that is as equally complex is ours. If not then you just assume and have no real stance.
I said it before, I'll say it again:
Typical of superstition, to never aspire towards knowledge.
What I said before, assumptions don't translate to knowledge.
Wrong. He was alive centuries before Islam.
His theory and model were used all the way until Copernicus, this includes the rise of these religions.
I already made that suggestion: visit other planets, move society outward
Go from habitable to inhabitable? Or do you have a magic machine that will convert an entire planet to be livable. If you do then you are far too deep into your own crazy ideals.
Your statement doesn't follow what I said, and it is demonstrably untrue anyway since everything we reason with is based on assumptions, including math.
Like I said you have to show me a planet that is as equally complex is ours. If not then you just assume and have no real stance.
I don't have to. I can use our knowledge about planetary formation, and life formation to predict that planets with life must exist elsewhere in the universe. This is, in fact, the established position in science. If you wish to dispute it, substantiate your claim by demonstrating how Earth is unique in the universe.
What I said before, assumptions don't translate to knowledge.
Assumptions are the bedrock of reason.
His theory and model were used all the way until Copernicus, this includes the rise of these religions.
Which wasn't your original claim. It also isn't on the topic.
Go from habitable to inhabitable? Or do you have a magic machine that will convert an entire planet to be livable. If you do then you are far too deep into your own crazy ideals.
It isn't magic, just a combination of engineering and environmental sciences. You create atmospheres on the planets you wish to inhabit.
Space exploration has the potential of discovering the yet undiscovered facts about space. It has a great potential of resolving mysteries that surround the outer space. It may bring about a dramatic change to our lives.
Through the exploration of space, we may find new minerals, new precious materials. We may end up finding new human-like species in the outer space. We may find new living beings that are better developed and better evolved than we are. Exploring space may lead us to the discovery of an all-new world. An unexpected progress and advancement that the living beings in space might have made, may take us by surprise.
Earth isn't going to be around forever. If mankind wants to survive we will eventually have to move somewhere else. First we colonize the moon, then Mars, and work our way out of our solar system. When the technology will catch up, I can't say.
YES!! Oh how cool would it be to be able to go into space yourself? If you can imagine, what percentage of humans will ever have the chance of going into space? (Our generation). I've been to a space camp before (yes I know, how nerdy of me) in grade 6 and we were able to experience walking on the moon (with the aid of a large contraption thing, but it was still neat) and being in zero gravity (again with a large contraption, but it was weighted on the other side of a large climbing wall so you felt literally like you weighed zero pounds. It was neat!)
Space exploration is the next big thing that we might as well do? Why stay cooped up on Earth for the rest of eternity? Why not try to do a little exploration around the town if I may call it that.
Why stay cooped up on Earth for the rest of eternity?
Because our planet is the only inhabitable one. There is no where else that could support life. No life has been found anywhere else. People continue to debate life on Mars, but to date life in any form has not been found. Get used to this planet it's the only one we got.
Because our planet is the only inhabitable one. There is no where else that could support life.
In our solar system alone, Mars and Venus could support life with appropriate terraforming. In the galaxy, Gliese 581 d is an earth-like planet and it isn't very far away, only 20.3 lightyears.
No life has been found anywhere else. People continue to debate life on Mars, but to date life in any form has not been found.
There is a difference between not having life and having the possibility to support life.
Get used to this planet it's the only one we got.
No, it isn't. I for one don't want our species to end in the next ages of Earth's life, taken out by an asteroid or expanding star.
In our solar system alone, Mars and Venus could support life with appropriate terraforming. In the galaxy, Gliese 581 d is an earth-like planet and it isn't very far away, only 20.3 lightyears.
At 20.3 lightyears or roughly 7 parsecs there can't be a determination of a planets inhabitability. They only assume based on its proximity to its star. You can't tell me life is there when we can't even resolve the surface of the dwarf planet Pluto.
By the way Mars is far to cold to ever support carbon based life and far to desolate. Venus has too hot of a surface temperature in excess of 700 Kelvin not to mention the sulfuric rich atmosphere.
At 20.3 lightyears or roughly 7 parsecs there can't be a determination of a planets inhabitability. They only assume based on its proximity to its star. You can't tell me life is there when we can't even resolve the surface of the dwarf planet Pluto.
It is a reasonable inference based on its distance from Gliese 581. It is within the habitable range from its parent star.
By the way Mars is far to cold to ever support carbon based life and far to desolate. Venus has too hot of a surface temperature in excess of 700 Kelvin not to mention the sulfuric rich atmosphere.
Mars is believed to have liquid water, and Venus could support a climate conducive to our life. Both planets could be habitable given an investment towards terraforming, improving the atmosphere of Mars and removing atmosphere from Venus.
It is a reasonable inference based on its distance from Gliese 581. It is within the habitable range from its parent star.
Mars and Venus are both in the habitable zone. None of these planets has any sign of life. So proximity is not enough to determine life, it is only one of many factors that could support carbon based life.
Mars is believed to have liquid water
Exactly, believed to have water. They make this assumption based on a smiliarity between our river valleys and the rifts on Mars. No ice water has been found, just frozen nitrogen on the poles.
Venus could support a climate conducive to our life.
There is no way it could. Even if you ignore the 700 Kelvin surface temperature and rich sulfuric atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure near the surface would destroy any living creature. Not to mention the complete lack of liquid water.
Mars and Venus are both in the habitable zone. None of these planets has any sign of life. So proximity is not enough to determine life, it is only one of many factors that could support carbon based life.
Mars and Venus were not always as they are now. Mars is believed to have had liquid water, and Venus had an atmosphere which made itself thicker and more poisonous. Still, one out of three is not bad odds. Especially considering how many planets exist in the universe.
Exactly, believed to have water. They make this assumption based on a smiliarity between our river valleys and the rifts on Mars. No ice water has been found, just frozen nitrogen on the poles.
There is no way it could. Even if you ignore the 700 Kelvin surface temperature and rich sulfuric atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure near the surface would destroy any living creature. Not to mention the complete lack of liquid water.
That is why I said COULD. Future conditional, as in conditional on our terraforming it in the future. We would have to strip its atmosphere, introduce water, etc.
You have no proof to what it was before. You are using historical science based what you think it was before.
Mars is believed to have had liquid water
Exactly, you believe it did. This does not mean you have evidence that it actually did.
Still, one out of three is not bad odds. Especially considering how many planets exist in the universe.
All that you demonstrated is that our planet is very unique.
You might want to read more
I don't need to read anymore about the supposed water on Mars. The fact here is no water has been found.
That is why I said COULD. Future conditional, as in conditional on our terraforming it in the future. We would have to strip its atmosphere, introduce water, etc.
You are citing a fictional concept one that is impossible.
All that you demonstrated is that our planet is very unique.
Because our planet is the only one with a star? An atmosphere? Water? Chemical elements? It isn't. I keep making a simple request: explain how Earth is unique in the universe despite being made of elements and having properties that are not unique to it.
I don't need to read anymore about the supposed water on Mars. The fact here is no water has been found.
So you don't want to correct your mistakes, you just want to make one big faith-based assumption that magic made the earth, and therefore it is special.
It is now accepted that over thirty meteorites have been found that came from Mars. These Mars meteorites have provided scientists with a wonderful opportunity to analyze the rocks of Mars. Some of them contain evidence that these rocks were exposed to water when on Mars.
In 1983 it was suggested by Smith et al. [145] that meteorites in the so called SNC group (Shergottites, Nakhlites, Chassignites) originated from Mars, from evidence from an instrumental and radiochemical neutron activation analysis of the meteorites. They found that the SNC meteorites possess chemical, isotopic, and petrologic features consistent with data available from Mars at the time, findings further confirmed by Treiman et al. [146] a few years later, by similar methods. Then in late 1983, Bogard et al. [147] showed that the isotopic concentrations of various noble gases of some of the shergottites were consistent with the observations of the atmosphere of Mars made by the Viking spacecraft in the mid-to-late 1970s.
You are citing a fictional concept one that is impossible.
Because our planet is the only one with a star? An atmosphere? Water? Chemical elements? It isn't. I keep making a simple request: explain how Earth is unique in the universe despite being made of elements and having properties that are not unique to it.
What other planet has an atmosphere like ours. What other planet has observed liquid water? If you want to argue about Europa (which is a moon, but nevertheless a celestial object) then let's go there.
Chemical elements
The Jovian planets all contain chemical elements, yet none contain life.
I keep making a simple request: explain how Earth is unique in the universe despite being made of elements and having properties that are not unique to it.
It has life!! My request to you is show me another planet that has life. My evidence is our planet, and yours is...?
So you don't want to correct your mistakes, you just want to make one big faith-based assumption that magic made the earth, and therefore it is special.
What mistakes are those? I am honest about my faith. You aren't honest about yours. Your theories have no proof and you don't have the guts to own up to that fact. Just be honest.
So you are saying that meteorites if in fact are from Mars do not contain any contamination? That a meteorite that impacts our planet at an immense velocity and extreme temperature won't fuse with any of our elements. You can't be that naive can you?
Because...? It's within the capacity of physics.
Of who's physics? It's certainly not anything we are capable of doing.
What other planet has an atmosphere like ours. What other planet has observed liquid water? If you want to argue about Europa (which is a moon, but nevertheless a celestial object) then let's go there.
Venus has an atmosphere, which is what I stated "an atmosphere." Mars at one point had liquid water.
The Jovian planets all contain chemical elements, yet none contain life.
However they are too far from the sun. Planets composed of these elements exist within the proper range. Gliese 581 d is an example of this.
It has life!! My request to you is show me another planet that has life. My evidence is our planet, and yours is...?
Life is not composed of anything that is only found on Earth. Its precursor conditions are not unique to Earth. So what is your point? That life requires a planet with certain chemicals, a certain distance near the sun, an atmosphere... common conditions in our universe.
What mistakes are those? I am honest about my faith. You aren't honest about yours. Your theories have no proof and you don't have the guts to own up to that fact. Just be honest.
So you are saying that meteorites if in fact are from Mars do not contain any contamination? That a meteorite that impacts our planet at an immense velocity and extreme temperature won't fuse with any of our elements. You can't be that naive can you?
The experts have agreed that those meteorites contain evidence of martian water. This means that after asking the obvious questions you posed, they tested and found otherwise that it wasn't contamination.
Of who's physics? It's certainly not anything we are capable of doing.
There's a difference between what we can presently do, and what is possible according to physics. One day we will have the technology.
Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Yes. Firstly, we have to find a better place than Earth, then we let all homos live in the Earth. Lastly, we blow Earth up after we took all the resources.
First of all christjesus you cant live in the earth you can only live on the earth,and second of all that was pretty arrogant of you to say that u should let all the homos live on the earth and take it resources before blowing it up......By the way what makes you better than the homosexual commuity....... I do support space travel we shouldn think that were the only complicated life form in the whole galaxy even the great mind of steven hawking belives that therse other life forms in the galaxy.
"Yes. Firstly, we have to find a better place than Earth, then we let all homos live in the Earth. Lastly, we blow Earth up after we took all the resources."
If you're that desperate to get rid of "homos" do what they did in the "hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" tell them the earth is going to be destroyed and send them of in an "evacuation" spaceship.
Space exploration whets the human appetite for adventure. There are many brave souls around the world who wish to take risks in life. They love adventure, they love accepting challenges, and they love making the impossibilities possible. Space exploration satisfies this human desire of adventure.
I think there should be a Space program , but I do not think we as Humans will be able to fulfill the Dream of others in space ( Aliens) for a long long time , strictly due to time travel problems, unless they pull a rabbit out of sciences hat.. and one never knows ... I would have never believed many of the electronics we have now growing up as a kid..
"unless they pull a rabbit out of sciences hat.. "
In the last 50 years alone we have advanced an incredible rate, by the time you are retiring we could already be colinizing space(but I personally wouldn't move away from good old Britain).
1957
1. Satellites: Russia launches Sputnik, opening the space race. America responded with the 1958 launch of Explorer 1, the first satellite to produce a significant scientific return—namely, the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt. The first successful weather satellite (TIROS 1) and the first communication relay satellite (ECHO) were launched in 1960. The space race and the satellite revolution kicked scientific and technological progress into high gear—and created greater demand for science news coverage.
1960
2. ‘The Pill’: First oral contraceptive is introduced. The Food and Drug Administration's approval of Enovid-10 ushered in the era of "the Pill." Few medications have had such a widespread impact on society and social norms.
3. The laser: First working laser is put into operation. Theodore Maiman's optical-light ruby laser followed up on earlier research by Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow, who developed the first maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) in 1954. The 1964 movie “Goldfinger” may have portrayed it as a killer ray, but the device came to have user-friendly applications ranging from eye surgery to DVD players to supermarket checkouts.
1961
4. Cracking the DNA code: Biochemist Marshall Nirenberg and his colleagues publish the first of a series of papers laying out how DNA's genetic code is translated within the cell. The cracking of the code built upon Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA's double helix almost a decade earlier, and opened the way for the genetic revolution to come.
5. Plate tectonics: Geologists Harry Hess and Robert Dietz propose that seafloor spreading and subduction are basic parts of the mechanism for plate tectonics - a finding that led to the rapid acceptance of the tectonic theory behind Earth's large-scale geologic changes. The study of paleomagnetism led scientists to conclude that Earth's magnetic poles periodically reversed, providing an important geological dating method.
1962
6. The environmental movement: Marine biologist Rachel Carson's masterwork, Silent Spring, is published. The environmental concerns voiced in the book helped spark a grassroots movement that led the federal government to create the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and phase out the use of DDT in 1972.
7. Quasars: The first quasar—quasi-stellar radio source—is discovered by Dutch astronomer Maarten Schmidt. Scientists eventually determine that quasars are compact regions in the center of active galaxies that mark the presence of a supermassive black hole. The discovery was a key turning point in our understanding of galactic development and structure.
1964
8. Quarks and all that: The quark model of particle physics is proposed. The ideas put forth by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig touched off a decades-long quest to find the subatomic particles that matched the theory, including the J/Psi particle (found in 1974), the W and Z bosons (1983) and the top quark (2004-05). The quest continues today at America's Fermilab and Europe's Large Hadron Collider, where scientists hope to detect the Higgs boson, the last particle predicted by the Standard Model.
9. Big bang's afterglow: Cosmic microwave background radiation is discovered by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, an achievement that earned them a Nobel Prize in 1978. The background radiation serves as the fossil imprint of the big bang and has helped astronomers determine the geometry of the universe. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), launched in 1989, was a landmark space mission that followed up on Penzias and Wilson's discovery by mapping variations in the background radiation.
1967
10. Heart transplants: First human-to-human heart transplant is performed. Dr. Christiaan Barnard's operation in South Africa prolonged his patient's life by only 18 days, but helped set the stage for rapid progress in medical transplantation techniques. Stanford heart surgeon Norman Shumway was an early pioneer in transplant medicine, and Denton Cooley and Domingo Liotta made a significant contribution in 1969 with the first human implantation of an artificial heart.
1969
11. Moon landing: Humans make first landing on the moon. The Apollo series of moon surface missions, beginning with Apollo 11's Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, marked the climax of the decade-long U.S.-Soviet space race and also led to fresh scientific insights into the origins of Earth and the moon.
12. Internet: First node is connected on ARPAnet, the predecessor to the modern Internet. What began as an research project to develop a nuke-proof communication system ended up revolutionizing academic exchange - and eventually modern society. Twenty years after the Internet's birth, CERN's Tim Berners-Lee brought the global network to a higher level with the invention of the World Wide Web.
1970
13. Oncogenes: First cancer-causing gene is discovered in a chicken retrovirus. In 1976, J. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus described the mechanism by which proto-oncogenes mutate and give rise to cancer—a discovery that earned them the Nobel Prize in 1989.
1972
14. Medical scanners: First CT scanner is created. Computerized tomography X-ray scanners not only revolutionized medical imaging, but also presaged other imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance (MRI and functional MRI) as well as positron emission tomography (PET). Such techniques have been put to wide application in medical diagnosis and neuroscience, and even archaeology and paleontology.
15: Recombinant DNA: Stanford biochemist Paul Berg creates the first recombinant DNA molecule, pointing the way to genetically modified organisms and gene-based medical therapies. The technique proved so powerful and controversial that it led to a 1975 conference at California's Asilomar Conference Center, where scientists voluntarily agreed on research restrictions. The Asilomar conference itself stands as a milestone in scientific accountability.
1974
16. Human ancestors: Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson discovers the 3.2 million-year-old fossil skeleton of a human ancestor dubbed "Lucy" in Ethiopia. The australopith find serves as the best-known milestone in a long line of hominid discoveries also including the Laetoli footprints in Tanzania (1976), the Toumai skull in Chad (2002) and Ardipithecus in Ethiopia ("Ardi" found in 1994, characterized in 2009).
17. Countering the ozone threat: Chemists F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina propose that chlorofluorocarbons may affect Earth's ozone layer—a hypothesis that was borne out over the following decade, particularly with the identification of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. Concerns about CFCs led to a phase-out of their production mandated by the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The Rowland-Molina research and its impact set a precedent for the current debate over greenhouse-gas emissions.
1976
18. Pictures from other planets: NASA's Mars Viking probes land on Mars and send back the first color pictures from another planet. The twin missions follow up on the Soviet Venera 9 and 10 missions, which transmitted black-and-white images from Venus in 1975.
1977
19. Deep-sea life: Biologists discover a rich ecosystem surrounding deep-sea hydrothermal vents along the Galapagos Rift. The discovery dramatically changed scientists' views on the conditions required for life on Earth, sparked new ideas about the potential undersea origins of life and led astrobiologists to consider the possibility of life in extraterrestrial settings such as the subsurface oceans of Europa (a moon of Jupiter) and Enceladus (a moon of Saturn).
20. Farthest frontier: NASA launches the twin Voyager probes, following up on the Pioneer interplanetary missions with a grand tour of the solar system. Both craft flew past Jupiter and Saturn. Voyager 2 flew past Uranus and provided the first up-close look at Neptune. Voyager 1 is now the farthest-flung object ever made by humans. Both Voyager spacecraft probes carried a "Golden Record" with recordings of Earth imagery, sounds, speech and music.
1978
21. Test-tube babies: The first baby conceived through in-vitro fertilization is born in England. The method is a boon to couples with fertility problems. Since then, an estimated 3.5 million "test-tube babies" have been born using assisted reproductive technology. But the method is not without controversy, as illustrated by the furor over the birth of octuplets to "Octomom" Nadya Suleman in 2009.
22. Data encryption: MIT's Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman describe the RSA public-key encryption method, which draws upon prime factorization to provide a means of secure communications. The encryption method serves as the foundation for applications ranging from military communications to Internet commerce.
1980
23. Farewell to smallpox: The World Health Organization announces that smallpox has disappeared worldwide. The infectious disease killed untold millions over the course of centuries, and its eradication through widespread vaccination was a crowning achievement in public health.
24. Killer asteroid: Luis and Walter Alvarez propose that a cosmic impact was responsible for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The hypothesis provided a focus for further scientific study into the causes of great extinctions. Cosmic impacts as well as the effects of climate change have come to be seen as the primary factors behind ancient die-offs.
25. Cosmic inflation: Inflationary big bang theory is put forward by Alan Guth to explain seeming contradictions in the scientific model for the universe's creation. Subsequent observations supported inflation as the leading explanation for what happened immediately after the universe's origin to create the seeds of cosmic structure.
1983
26. HIV identified: French doctors isolate the virus that causes AIDS. The discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus marked the beginning of a continuing effort to develop treatments for a disease that was at the time seen as a death sentence.
27. Evo-devo: Researchers at the University of Basel and Indiana University independently discover homeobox DNA sequences within genes, which regulate patterns of development in a wide spectrum of organisms. Such work helped lead the way to evolutionary development ("evo-devo") studies that shed light on how different species are interrelated.
1984
28. DNA decoders: Polymerase chain reaction technique for DNA analysis is developed by Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel Prize in 1993 for the discovery. PCR analysis has become the foundation of modern genetic research, touching on fields ranging from medicine and evolutionary biology to criminology.
29: String theory: The first superstring revolution begins. Theorists suggest that string theory—the idea that the most fundamental constituents of matter can be thought of as minuscule strings vibrating in multidimensional space—could resolve the inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics. The first superstring revolution (1984-85) set the precedent for the second superstring revolution (1994-97). Even today, string theory sparks debate over whether it could be a "theory of everything" ... or a "theory of nothing."
1985
30. Nanotechnology: Buckminsterfullerene is created in the lab by Robert Curl, Harold Kroto and Richard Smalley. The soccerball-like C60 molecule was the first of several artificial carbon constructs that paved the way for innovations in nanotechnology such as carbon nanotubes. Other nanotech innovations, such as gold nanoparticles and quantum dots, appear to have medical applications - but nanotechnology has raised medical concerns as well.
1986
31. Catching up with comets: Europe's Giotto mission observes Halley's comet up close. For the first time, humans were given a glimpse at the source of one of the most dramatic displays in the heavens - and, according to some theories, a primordial source for the stuff of life. Cometary studies continued with 2005's Deep Impact mission, which fired a "bullet" into the heart of a comet, and the Stardust mission, which brought samples of comet dust back to Earth in 2006.
32. High-temperature superconductors: The first high-temperature superconductor is discovered by Karl Mueller and Johannes Bednorz. The achievement earned them the Nobel Prize in 1987. High-temperature superconductors could eventually be used for more efficient power transmission and vehicle propulsion.
1994
33. Witnessing a cosmic crash: Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 smashes into Jupiter during one of the most widely watched astronomical events of the century. This was the first time astronomers predicted a planetary impact in advance. The event also had an impact on our own planet, pushing along efforts to catalog near-Earth asteroids and assess the threat they may pose.
34. Quantum computing quest: U.S. mathematician Peter Shor demonstrates a theorem for a procedure that could be used to crack the RSA cryptographic code using a computer based on quantum interference phenomena. Such a quantum computer was discussed in 1980 by Paul Benioff, and a year later by Richard Feynman. Since then, researchers have worked to construct quantum computing devices. In 2007, Canada-based D-Wave said it built the first practical quantum computer, but other researchers doubted whether the device was truly a quantum computer. In 2009 Google announced that D-Wave’s technology was being incorporated into its new image recognition system.
1995
35. Math milestones: More than 350 years after Fermat's Last Theorem was proposed, British mathematician Andrew Wiles proves the claim that xn + yn = zn works for whole integers only if n is less than 3. The hard-won proof earns Wiles a $50,000 prize. Eight years later, reclusive Russian mathematician Grigory Perelman proves another long-running puzzle, the Poincare conjecture - but turns down a $1 million prize as well as the Fields Medal, mathematics' highest honor.
36. Alien planets: Astronomers detect the first extrasolar planet circling a normal star, 51 Pegasi. The discovery built upon 1992's detection of "pulsar planets," and pioneered techniques that have been used to find more than 400 extrasolar planets to date. The findings have led scientists to conclude that planets are much more common in the universe than previously thought.
1996
37. First cloned mammal: Researchers announce the birth of Dolly the Sheep, the first mammal to be cloned from the adult cell of another animal. The achievement was followed by a string of other cloned species - ranging from dogs and cats to champion racing mules and rhesus monkeys. Dolly also touched off a long-running political and religious debate over human reproductive cloning.
1997
38. Big bounce on Mars: Mars Pathfinder probe lands on Mars, marking a new era of interplanetary exploration two decades after Viking. Pathfinder blazed a trail for the even more wildly successful Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity (which were both launched in 2003 and landed, like Pathfinder, cushioned by airbags). The Pathfinder mission also served as an early milestone in public interest in science as mediated by the Internet.
1998
39. Dark energy: Two teams of astronomers studying distant supernovae determine that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, supporting a theoretical twist that Albert Einstein once called the "biggest blunder of my life." The discovery of the acceleration factor has sparked one of the biggest mysteries of contemporary cosmology: What is dark energy?
40. RNA interference: Biomedical researchers Andrew Fire and Craig Mello publish a study showing how small RNA molecules influence genetic pathways in C. elegans worms, opening up a new field of research into RNA interference. RNAi-based therapies could address a wide variety of illnesses, including AIDS, cancer, Huntington's and Alzheimer's disease.
41. Human embryonic stem cells: First human embryonic stem cells are isolated. Such cells can transform themselves into virtually any tissue in the body, raising hopes for new cell-based therapies. Because embryos were destroyed in the process of extracting the cells, the process touched off a years-long ethical and political debate, highlighted by federal funding limits in 2001. In 2007, two teams of researchers used genetic modification to transform ordinary skin cells into cells that appear to function like embryonic stem cells. The use of these reprogrammed cells, known as induced pluripotent stem cells or IPS cells, may resolve the ethical concerns.
2001
42. Human genome decoded: The publicly funded Human Genome Project and privately funded Celera Genomics simultaneously publish the first working drafts of human genome in the journals Nature and Science, respectively. The genomic code was refined in succeeding years, providing a rich resource for studying the genetic origins of disease as well as tracing linkages in evolutionary biology.
43. Age of the universe: Using data from the Hubble Space Telescope, the Boomerang balloon flight and other data, astronomers determine the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years—an estimate further refined by data from the space-based Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.
44. Targeted cancer therapy: The Food and Drug Administration approves imatinib, marketed under the name Gleevec, as the first in a class of drugs that target the chemical mechanism behind the spread of cancer.
2005
45. Titan revealed: Europe's Huygens lander descends through the smoggy atmosphere of the Saturnian moon Titan and sends back the first pictures of Titan's hydrocarbon rivers as well as its icy and possibly tarry surface. Huygens rode to Titan aboard the international Cassini orbiter, which continued to study Saturn and its moons. Another highlight of the Cassini mission was its observations of Enceladus' geysers of water ice, which led scientists to suggest the ice-covered moon possessed a subsurface liquid ocean and perhaps marine life forms as well.
46. Planets realigned: Astronomers discover an icy world in the Kuiper belt that is larger than Pluto, forcing the International Astronomical Union to draw up a much-debated definition of the term "planet" a year later. The definition reclassified Pluto and the newfound world (later named Eris) as dwarf planets, distinct from the solar system's eight major planets.
47. T. rex tissue: Paleontologists recover soft tissue from within the fossilized bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex, upending assumptions about the limits of fossil preservation. Analysis of the tissue turns up the signature of proteins similar to those found in the bones of chickens and ostriches, solidifying the linkage between dinosaurs and present-day birds.
2006
48. Invisibility shield: Building on a formula proposed a year earlier, two teams of researchers announce the creation of "cloaking devices" that can cancel out the radiation reflected by an object and shield it from detection. Such devices are not as all-concealing as Harry Potter's cloak of invisibility, however. They are made from metamaterials that must be tailored for specific wavelengths and dimensions.
2008
49. Tasting Martian water: NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander touches down in Mars' north polar region and samples the planet's water ice for the first time. Mission scientists say images of the probe's own lander legs appear to show droplets of liquid water stirred up during the landing. Phoenix's findings furnish the latest chapter in the decades-long scientific assessment of Mars' potential for life in ancient times.
2009
50. Water on the moon: NASA sends a probe called Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS, crashing into the moon. Weeks later, scientists report that an analysis of the impact debris confirms the existence of "significant" reserves of water ice. The mission followed up on indications from earlier probes (Clementine, Lunar Prospector, Chandrayaan 1, Cassini) and even from Apollo lunar samples. Some speculated that the findings could lead to a fresh round of lunar missions, but as the decade came to a close, NASA's plans for future exploration were still under review at the White House.
To be honest I don't see why we're sitting around waiting for super highly-advanced aliens to come share their technology with us? That wouldn't happen at all, look at Europe and what they did when they found a continent with nearly no technology.Africa was divided up and shared around, they ended up as colonies because they had no flag and the populations reduced to slaves, the hugely expensive diamonds and minerals were just mined and shipped of to Europe without the natives getting a penny.
Now imagine aliens doing that to us, they arrive at our planet claim we're not a true civilization because we dont have a national tea towel or something. They take us all as slaves and claim we're simple animals as 1) we dont speak their language and 2) we look different. It turns out that pebbles are a rare and extremely expensive object in their solar system so they take them all get insanely rich on galactic credits or some other space currency and we dont see a thing.
Look, how much does it take right now to send a probe to mars? How much did the ISS take? Millions if not billions. Instead of chucking stuff that fails half the time, why not spend the money in developing an economically viable engine or reducing green house gas emissions?
If and when the space elevator get's built, the cost of putting things into space will drop around 99.9909%. It currently takes around $22,000 to put a single pound into orbit, but the elevator could do the same in less than $2.
Look, how much does it take right now to send a probe to mars? How much did the ISS take? Millions if not billions. Instead of chucking stuff that fails half the time, why not spend the money in developing an economically viable engine or reducing green house gas emissions?
This is a false dichotomy. That we either fund space exploration and research or the reduction of green house gasses. We can do both, actually.
Nasa and space exploration in general is responsible for many technological improvements which improved our understanding and ability to 'fix' what is going on on earth.
You don't understand your own previous statement. You said that exploring space gave us advantages. I said our discoveries here gave us advantages in space. These inventions were produced here on our planet to explore the universe. We didn't gain the intelligence from matter in space. We built this inventions with the own physics we know and study here.
You don't understand your own previous statement. You said that exploring space gave us advantages. I said our discoveries here gave us advantages in space. These inventions were produced here on our planet to explore the universe.
These technologies were developed for space-related missions but later found use on Earth for commercial products.
We didn't gain the intelligence from matter in space. We built this inventions with the own physics we know and study here.
The technologies were developed in response to our investment in space exploration. If we did not have such an interest in space, it is unknown if we would have had the motivation to develop them. Remember that necessity is the mother of invention.
These technologies were developed for space-related missions but later found use on Earth for commercial products
Exactly, how much time did these products stay hindered and secret because of space exploration. We are wasting some of our greatest minds on the exploration of the universe. Either way these tools/inventions were created here with our physics.
The technologies were developed in response to our investment in space exploration. If we did not have such an interest in space, it is unknown if we would have had the motivation to develop them. Remember that necessity is the mother of invention.
That's right we don't know. But I argue with economic drive these discoveries would have been made.
Exactly, how much time did these products stay hindered and secret because of space exploration. We are wasting some of our greatest minds on the exploration of the universe. Either way these tools/inventions were created here with our physics.
All I really get from this paragraph is a deep fear of knowledge.
That's right we don't know. But I argue with economic drive these discoveries would have been made.
I agree with that statement. The fact that 90% of our universe can't be explained by natural science. The dark matter and dark energy pose quite a problem. Especially if you don't believe in God.
I agree with that statement. The fact that 90% of our universe can't be explained by natural science.
I think we're doing quite nicely explaining it. Space exploration itself is vital to our specie's continued existence. Disasters across space which destroy planets and civilisations happen all the time, and this is why we need to seed the galaxy with intelligent life.
The dark matter and dark energy pose quite a problem. Especially if you don't believe in God.
"God" is never an answer to a question. It is a placeholder for ignorance.
No you are assuming what is going on in the universe. You aren't explaining what is going on just projecting your presuppositions.
Disasters across space which destroy planets and civilisations happen all the time, and this is why we need to seed the galaxy with intelligent life.
You assume their are civilizations to be destroyed. This is not observable.
Space exploration itself is vital to our specie's continued existence.
No it certainly is not required. Perhaps the only monitoring of the Sun for coronal mass ejections would be vital to our infrastructure. Most of the catastrophes witnessed in space have no effect on us.
"God" is never an answer to a question. It is a placeholder for ignorance.
Ha! That being said by the one who believes there are other civilizations being destroyed. Look at the universe anything to what we have witnessed and you will see that is not true. Quit spouting off tired old phrases that you hear from your atheist buddies.
No you are assuming what is going on in the universe. You aren't explaining what is going on just projecting your presuppositions.
We have theories which explain the formation of the universe, the formation of solar systems, stars and planets, of life and evolution. We are working on theories to explain the origin of the universe. This is our knowledge, and it is great.
You assume their are civilizations to be destroyed. This is not observable.
We exist. We are proof that life does not require special planets or stars. Asteroids have hit the surface of our planet numerous times throughout history, causing massive extinctions. Given the size of the universe this must happen everywhere, an uncountable number of times.
No it certainly is not required. Perhaps the only monitoring of the Sun for coronal mass ejections would be vital to our infrastructure. Most of the catastrophes witnessed in space have no effect on us.
Nearby supernovas, quasars, passing massive celestial bodies, and asteroid impacts can all wipe us off the planet. These are not rare in the universe and happen every few million to tens of millions of years. We have about 500 million years left on this planet before the sun changes so that we are not in a very habitable zone. In five billion years Earth won't exist at all. Space is a vast place, and seeding life would take us hundreds of millions of years.
Ha! That being said by the one who believes there are other civilizations being destroyed. Look at the universe anything to what we have witnessed and you will see that is not true. Quit spouting off tired old phrases that you hear from your atheist buddies.
My inferences are reasonable because we have knowledge which allows us to make them. You are just guessing "god" because you have no answers. Don't elevate your suggestions of magic to the same level as knowledge.
We have theories which explain the formation of the universe, the formation of solar systems, stars and planets, of life and evolution. We are working on theories to explain the origin of the universe. This is our knowledge, and it is great.
Your theories are built upon untestable and unobservable science. This is not knowledge but it is assumptions. You assume how the universe formed. Yet you can't explain the very origin of matter, energy, and time. These are assumptions they are not even in the same realm as scientific law.
We exist. We are proof that life does not require special planets or stars.
I argue that our planet is very special and extraordinary. There have been no other planet that even compares to ours.
Given the size of the universe this must happen everywhere, an uncountable number of times.
False, there actually is a formula for that theory. Try looking it up.
Nearby supernovas, quasars, passing massive celestial bodies, and asteroid impacts can all wipe us off the planet.
False again, Quasars are all recorded at an insurmountable distance from us. Supernovas occur within the older globular clusters (that is no where near us). Do you even know the immense amount of distances between celestial objects?
These are not rare in the universe and happen every few million to tens of millions of years.
This is based on what, our observations in that amount of time? Nope it is just assumption.
We have about 500 million years left on this planet before the sun changes so that we are not in a very habitable zone. In five billion years Earth won't exist at all. Space is a vast place, and seeding life would take us hundreds of millions of years.
So false it isn't even funny. According to your secular scientists the Sun is still on the main-sequence and will be for another five billion years (of course that is an assumption as well). And you are talking about times that greatly exceed even our existence.
My inferences are reasonable because we have knowledge which allows us to make them.
False, you have assumptions. None of your theories are testable or observable.
You are just guessing "god" because you have no answers. Don't elevate your suggestions of magic to the same level as knowledge.
My answer is the authority of God. He was there when the universe began, so I would rather trust in His account then some assumptuous man.
Your theories are built upon untestable and unobservable science. This is not knowledge but it is assumptions.
No, it is creationist propaganda. They are theories, which means that they passed the rigors of scientific reasoning, which means they are based on evidence, logic, and laws.
You assume how the universe formed. Yet you can't explain the very origin of matter, energy, and time. These are assumptions they are not even in the same realm as scientific law.
The big bang is not an assumption. It is a theory. Try again.
Also, do us all a favour and complete the following sentence: "The mechanisms that god used to create matter, space, and time were _____ "
I argue that our planet is very special and extraordinary. There have been no other planet that even compares to ours.
Prove it. I follow parsimony, you do not.
False, there actually is a formula for that theory. Try looking it up.
You did not negate my statement. There are billions of billions of planets out there. Life seems to just require the right solar distance, time, liquid water, and organic compounds. These are common things in the universe.
False again, Quasars are all recorded at an insurmountable distance from us. Supernovas occur within the older globular clusters (that is no where near us). Do you even know the immense amount of distances between celestial objects?
Of course, the simple answer is that supernovas and quasars (I forgot neutron stars) put out huge amounts of energy that could fry our little planet from distances of light years. It's likely that we won't encounter them, because of our location in the galaxy, but they are a possible threat depending on future orbit paths. For example, we are colliding with Andromeda, which means that its massive gravitational objects may affect our planet in the distant future.
This is based on what, our observations in that amount of time? Nope it is just assumption.
Based on our planet's history of extinction events.
I didn't even touch upon natural disasters which occur on Earth itself. Ice ages, climate change, supervolcanoes, not to mention worldwide epidemics and atomic wars.
So false it isn't even funny. According to your secular scientists the Sun is still on the main-sequence and will be for another five billion years (of course that is an assumption as well). And you are talking about times that greatly exceed even our existence.
There is no reason that our species couldn't exist for billions of years given certain requirements like an imposed evolutionary stasis. If we can't do that, we will continue to father child races for all those eons.
False, you have assumptions. None of your theories are testable or observable.
You keep saying that but I am not convinced you even know what constitutes theory and science.
My answer is the authority of God. He was there when the universe began, so I would rather trust in His account then some assumptuous man.
What you actually said was:
My answer is the authority of primitive man (they invented your god, after all). They were not there when the universe began, but I would rather trust in their account than some scientists.
What you said, if we actually follow your assumptions, was:
My answer is magic. I would rather trust in magic than reason.
They are theories, which means that they passed the rigors of scientific reasoning, which means they are based on evidence, logic, and laws.
Theories have not fully passed the scientific method. That is why they are not laws. What I have told you about origins is they are built upon assumptions. The theory (as it is not a law) is built upon assumptions to what had occurred at the beginning of the universe. The original primordial energy/matter is not there for us to test and observe. And your theorists can't even come up with its original creation.
"The mechanisms that god used to create matter, space, and time were _____ "
He spoke them into existence. God created our physical laws.
Prove it. I follow parsimony, you do not.
Well that explains your lunacy. But the burden to prove is on you. We know the complexities and unique functions of our planet. Its up to you to find another planet equally as complex. If you can't then you just assume one such planet exists.
we are colliding with Andromeda, which means that its massive gravitational objects may affect our planet in the distant future.
That isn't necessarily so. When galaxies collide (according to secular theories) the gravitational effects of individual bodies will be very minimal. More of the 'action' will take place in the nucleus. Not in the spiral arms or disk. Especially in the barred spiral galaxies like the two in question here.
I didn't even touch upon natural disasters which occur on Earth itself. Ice ages, climate change, supervolcanoes, not to mention worldwide epidemics and atomic wars.
Your getting closer to actual science here.
There is no reason that our species couldn't exist for billions of years given certain requirements like an imposed evolutionary stasis. If we can't do that, we will continue to father child races for all those eons.
If you really believe in evolution then you know that a stasis is impossible. That sounds like a contradiction.
You keep saying that but I am not convinced you even know what constitutes theory and science.
Let's look shall we:
Definition of SCIENCE
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
For a theory to be an actual theory in science it has to be testable and observable. If not then it is just an assumption. You can't test or observe the origin of the universe.
What you actually said was:
Do not change my words to negate them. I believe in God the creator of all things. You believe in alien civilizations to which none have ever been recorded. At least in the Bible we have observed interactions with God on a massive scale. You have the resurrection, parting of the Red Sea, and the worldwide Flood. All of these events have been witnessed and observed by the people who lived through it.
On a personal note: Stop watching Syfy and start researching real astronomy.
Theories have not fully passed the scientific method. That is why they are not laws.
That is not how science works. Theories never become laws. Theories are models designed to explain and predict observations and data. They incorporate laws into their framework. Laws are simple descriptions of nature, which are conditionally true.
What I have told you about origins is they are built upon assumptions.
Everything is based upon assumptions. It is impossible to reason or conjecture or use logic without making assumptions. Mathematics uses assumptions, we call them axioms. You'd better try making an actual case for yourself rather than stating reality.
The theory (as it is not a law) is built upon assumptions to what had occurred at the beginning of the universe. The original primordial energy/matter is not there for us to test and observe.
Science tests its assumptions. That is what separates it from religion, which makes assumptions and calls it dogma, never to be questioned.
What do you think particle accelerators and telescopes exist for? The telescopes allow us to see back in time, to the first moments of the universe's existence, and the particle accelerators exist to test hypotheses about the formation of matter from its most basic parts.
And your theorists can't even come up with its original creation.
Again, the difference between science and religion is the admission of ignorance. Scientists do not claim to know what caused the big bang, they only suggest possibilities, and they also admit that it is a very difficult problem to solve. Nobody knows how the universe started. I will repeat that, since you like to assume knowledge where you have none: nobody knows what caused the universe. Including yourself. Religions on the other hand make guesses, your religion guesses that an infinitely complicated being used magic words to make reality. It doesn't know that, and neither do you. You just guess, and hope, that you do.
He spoke them into existence. God created our physical laws.
Those are not mechanisms. They are assertions with no depth behind them. Examples of mechanisms are evolution by natural selection, thermodynamics, genetics, etc. These all contain elaborately documented, tested and insightful mechanisms.
But the burden to prove is on you.
Look up the burden of proof. It is the established position in science that life's needs are not unique to Earth. You are making a claim that negates this established position, and therefore must substantiate your claim.
Its up to you to find another planet equally as complex. If you can't then you just assume one such planet exists.
It is a reasonable deduction based on the qualities of our planet, and how common that is in our massive universe. What makes Earth unique? Distance from the sun? Gliese 581 c and d are in that zone at their star, and the star is a mere 20.3 light years from us, out of a universe billions of light years across. Compositional elements? Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, etc. are common elements in the universe, which are not exclusive to Earth.
That isn't necessarily so. When galaxies collide (according to secular theories) the gravitational effects of individual bodies will be very minimal. More of the 'action' will take place in the nucleus. Not in the spiral arms or disk. Especially in the barred spiral galaxies like the two in question here.
That is why I said that it MAY be a problem. It isn't certain, however what worries me is the asteroid belt. High-gravity objects passing could draw an asteroid into our path.
If you really believe in evolution then you know that a stasis is impossible. That sounds like a contradiction.
It actually isn't impossible. Ever heard of the Hardy–Weinberg principle? That's basic biology.
For a theory to be an actual theory in science it has to be testable and observable. If not then it is just an assumption. You can't test or observe the origin of the universe.
You forgot "falsifiable." You also put too much emphasis on observable, as this is optional. For example, we know much about Dark Matter without having observed it, because we can make experiments which test for indirect evidence.
Do not change my words to negate them.
Those statements are what you said if we draw the meaning of your language out into the open. It's easy to say silly things when you hide the silliness behind pompous language.
I believe in God the creator of all things.
You believe in an unproven, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption that uses magic.
You believe in alien civilizations to which none have ever been recorded.
I believe in using evidence-based reasoning to solve the great questions.
At least in the Bible we have observed interactions with God on a massive scale.
In Martian Chronicles we have observed that alien life exists upon the surface of Mars, is telepathic, and is susceptible to Varicella.
The bible is not evidence of its own authoritativeness. This is obviously a violation of the basic rules of reasoning.
You have the resurrection, parting of the Red Sea, and the worldwide Flood. All of these events have been witnessed and observed by the people who lived through it.
Actually not. None of those things have occurred. They are merely recorded in the bible, but since you use the bible as evidence for itself, that is why you think those events happened despite being fundamentally impossible.
Water conforms to its surface, it cannot be magically divided without defying gravity. People cannot rise from the dead after brain death and neural degeneration. A worldwide flood cannot have happened because there is insufficient water on Earth, and all life would die afterwards.
On a personal note: Stop watching Syfy and start researching real astronomy.
You must be very young to use that word, "syfy" when it was always called "science fiction." Anyway, I do not believe you have a foot to stand on after just telling me that you believe in zombies and magical floods.
Those are not mechanisms. They are assertions with no depth behind them. Examples of mechanisms are evolution by natural selection, thermodynamics, genetics, etc. These all contain elaborately documented, tested and insightful mechanisms.
Mechanisms aren't required when the creator is working outside of the universe. Just like the mechanisms for building a car aren't contained in the car itself. As for everything you mentioned, it's quite possible that God invented all of those things. Once again, like a car manufacturer builds the electrical and mechanical systems of a car--both are quite complex.
Look up the burden of proof. It is the established position in science that life's needs are not unique to Earth. You are making a claim that negates this established position, and therefore must substantiate your claim.
The burden of proof is still on you, and you have yet to supply it. All the exosolar planets I've heard and read about are quite different from Earth. The closest thing would be Kepler-10b, which is only 1.5 Earth radii, but the temperature of the surface is a sweltering 1833 K. The next might be COROT-7b at 1.5 Earth radii as well, and it's also around 2000 K, not to mention eight times as massive. And both of those not-close planets are around 500 light years away.
Gliese 581 c and d are in that zone at their star, and the star is a mere 20.3 light years from us, out of a universe billions of light years across.
Gliese 581 c has never been directly observed, but has more than 5 times the mass of Earth, and reports of atmospheric conditions cast doubt on habitability. 851 e is the closest to earth-sized, but it's far too close to the star.
Ever heard of the Hardy–Weinberg principle? That's basic biology.
Please enlighten me.
You believe in an unproven, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption that uses magic
It's easy to say God uses magic as we can't understand Him. Just like the parts of the car probably think (if they were sentient) that the car manufacturing plant is magic, as there's nothing on the car that could do what the plant could do.
The bible is not evidence of its own authoritativeness. This is obviously a violation of the basic rules of reasoning.
And why not? Much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is history. Historical text. Normally historians love text that old that tells what happened. It's called 'primary source'. As for the parting of the Red Sea, it wasn't 'magic'. The Bible clearly states that God used wind to do it. And science has actually confirmed that under the right circumstances, wind can push water significantly.
And there is enough water on Earth to completely cover the land--if the land was flattened a bit. Okay, a lot a bit. But what's to say the pre-flood Earth wasn't quite flat? Certainly something like a worldwide flood would change the landscape. Maybe the flood was what set the tectonic plates in motion, causing the modern mountains to rise up out of the water.
You must be very young to use that word, "syfy" when it was always called "science fiction."
There is a name for what you're doing. It's called Argumentum ad Hominem. Syfy is actuall a channel on TV. Judging by his grammar and writing skill, I'd say that he's actually a well-educated adult, or at least a well-educated young adult. I've noticed that you've made more spelling errors than he has.
Anyway, I do not believe you have a foot to stand on after just telling me that you believe in zombies and magical floods.
I've covered the 'magic' part. As for zombies, people raised from the dead aren't zombies. Zombies are mindless living-dead creatures. People God has raised are ex-dead people. In the New Testament, which is an amazing Primary Source, has recorded several people coming back to life through God's power. That you refuse to believe historical text is quite disappointing.
Mechanisms aren't required when the creator is working outside of the universe.
So you have no answers and are touting ignorance in their place. Just like I said you were doing.
If you have no answers to offer that increase our insight about nature, then just keep your mouth shut on the topic and let people who care about truth answer the big questions. Because, you have no answers. You just have ignorance masquerading as knowledge. You are only answering a question with more questions.
Just like the mechanisms for building a car aren't contained in the car itself.
This is a broken analogy. When figuring out how a car works, one does not say "Jim made it by speaking it into existence" and leave that as the answer. You reverse-engineer the components and discover their physics.
Also, don't say "Well, we can always ask Jim how the car was made" because you cannot do that with god. Remember that god is defined to be supernatural. That means any alleged divine revelations or communications can never be shown to have come from god, which means that any voices you hear can't be shown to be anything more than mental illness. You'll also note, to continue the metaphor, that no holy book has ever contained any knowledge about the universe that was ahead of the era the book was written in and that instead we find people reading modern insights into holy verses (which is the opposite of a prediction).
The burden of proof is still on you, and you have yet to supply it. All the exosolar planets I've heard and read about are quite different from Earth. The closest thing would be Kepler-10b, which is only 1.5 Earth radii, but the temperature of the surface is a sweltering 1833 K. The next might be COROT-7b at 1.5 Earth radii as well, and it's also around 2000 K, not to mention eight times as massive. And both of those not-close planets are around 500 light years away.
I already answered this.
Gliese 581 c has never been directly observed, but has more than 5 times the mass of Earth, and reports of atmospheric conditions cast doubt on habitability. 851 e is the closest to earth-sized, but it's far too close to the star.
A heavy earth would not be inhospitable to life. It is within the habitable zone, however.
Please enlighten me.
Under certain conditions equilibrium can be achieved in allele frequencies, thus ending evolution.
It's easy to say God uses magic as we can't understand Him. Just like the parts of the car probably think (if they were sentient) that the car manufacturing plant is magic, as there's nothing on the car that could do what the plant could do.
When you call something supernatural, that is the same thing as magic. If you cannot claim to understand god, then why would you propose it as an explanation? Why would anyone propose something that they say will never be understood as an answer to a question? You're just parroting beliefs at this point if you have no understanding.
And why not? Much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is history. Historical text. Normally historians love text that old that tells what happened. It's called 'primary source'. As for the parting of the Red Sea, it wasn't 'magic'. The Bible clearly states that God used wind to do it. And science has actually confirmed that under the right circumstances, wind can push water significantly.
Using a book to prove itself is circular. The bible claims that god exists, then claims its writings as proof (those allegedly historical writings), and THEN claims that it can be trusted because it is the word of god (inerrant). This is circular reasoning.
Also, if you have enough wind to push the massive bulk of a sea in half, you have enough wind to tear apart anyone who walks in the path of that divided water.
And there is enough water on Earth to completely cover the land--if the land was flattened a bit. Okay, a lot a bit. But what's to say the pre-flood Earth wasn't quite flat? Certainly something like a worldwide flood would change the landscape. Maybe the flood was what set the tectonic plates in motion, causing the modern mountains to rise up out of the water.
The nature of water is that it will conform to the surface it fills. That means, if there isn't enough water to cover Earth now, there never was. It also means that if the Earth was covered in water, the water would have no place to go. A flat earth is not indicated in the geological record, as our highest mountains are millions of years old, not thousands.
There is a name for what you're doing. It's called Argumentum ad Hominem.
Actually not. I wasn't using youth as an attack on his argument.
Syfy is actuall a channel on TV. Judging by his grammar and writing skill, I'd say that he's actually a well-educated adult, or at least a well-educated young adult. I've noticed that you've made more spelling errors than he has.
Yes, and it was part of a trend in today's youth to repackage Sci-Fi as syfy for trendiness. Also, I use British spelling which is a different, but correct, system.
I've covered the 'magic' part. As for zombies, people raised from the dead aren't zombies. Zombies are mindless living-dead creatures. People God has raised are ex-dead people.
Zombie was a bit of a misnomer, but you're right that they would be undead. Still a silly thing to believe in, magical undead walking the earth and ascending into the sky.
In the New Testament, which is an amazing Primary Source, has recorded several people coming back to life through God's power. That you refuse to believe historical text is quite disappointing.
It is not biologically possible for the dead to resurrect once the brain decomposes past a certain point (if you've been dead for hours or days, you're reached it). If you try to raise a person this decomposed back to life, you will indeed have a zombie because they will not retain any identity.
The bible is not a credible document, neither is the New Testament. You cannot use the bible to justify itself. Now, if we had multiple credible historic reports of dead walking the earth, that would certainly warrant further research.
I have no qualms with finding the physics of the universe. I actually love it! I'm all for reverse-engineering the parts of the car to find how and why they work. But the answer to the origins of the universe might not be in there, just like the origins of the car aren't actually in the car itself.
Under certain conditions equilibrium can be achieved in allele frequencies, thus ending evolution.
But then Yellowstone erupts, changing the environment and it throws off the equilibrium. Once a creature stops adapting and changing, it dies. Michael Crichton (yes, a fiction author, but lots of good research) wrote a book on it. It's quite good. It's called The Lost World. You should read it, if only for the amazing plot-line.
The bible claims that god exists, then claims its writings as proof (those allegedly historical writings), and THEN claims that it can be trusted because it is the word of god
The OT is an observation of events, most likely passed down word-of-mouth until somebody got around to writing them down (and no, it probably wasn't Moses, despite popular belief). That those events happen to show the existence of God doesn't disprove them anymore than the credibility of a history book would be in danger if it mentioned the Holocaust when the world didn't believe it ever happened. That is, of course, an analogy as I'm sure the Holocaust is still believed.
Also, if you have enough wind to push the massive bulk of a sea in half, you have enough wind to tear apart anyone who walks in the path of that divided water.
Or you could have a steady (but quite powerful) wind that allows people to walk on a shallow section of a sea. It's conceivable and has been studied. I believe the number was 67 mph, which is much less powerful than, say, a hurricane.
A flat earth is not indicated in the geological record, as our highest mountains are millions of years old, not thousands.
Honestly, just out of curiosity, how do we know the mountains are millions of years old? Surely they can't use carbon, as the rocks weren't living. Or did they use the same process that dated fresh rocks from Mt. St. Hellens to be a quite old? Or did they assume that the strata layers have been deposited the same rate forever?
Wouldn't it be possible that a massive flood set down the layers before the mountains came up?
Yes, and it was part of a trend in today's youth to repackage Sci-Fi as syfy for trendiness. Also, I use British spelling which is a different, but correct, system.
But there's no harm in saying you watch channel 59, is there? So why is there harm in calling channel 59 by it's name: SyFy?
And, semi-honestly, do the British spell 'civilization' with an 's' instead of a 'z'?
It is not biologically possible for the dead to resurrect once the brain decomposes past a certain point
It is also not physically possible to make a bag weighing at least 55 pounds weight 45 pounds, but it happened. It's also not possible to have paint bubble from the ground, and that happened as well. And there's really no point in trying to discredit those stories, as me and my family have witnessed them first-hand.
Or my brother-in-law's friend suddenly being cured totally of cancer, with the medical x-rays to confirm it. Here's him with the tumors, and here's him without any. No treatment in between.
I have no qualms with finding the physics of the universe. I actually love it! I'm all for reverse-engineering the parts of the car to find how and why they work. But the answer to the origins of the universe might not be in there, just like the origins of the car aren't actually in the car itself.
If the origins of the universe forever remain obscure, then that means we will never know the answer. This means that religions cannot claim authority on the matter because they are no more privy to the details of the universe than our scientists.
But then Yellowstone erupts, changing the environment and it throws off the equilibrium. Once a creature stops adapting and changing, it dies. Michael Crichton (yes, a fiction author, but lots of good research) wrote a book on it. It's quite good. It's called The Lost World. You should read it, if only for the amazing plot-line.
I must assume that a species capable of seeding planets and solar systems with life is more than capable of regulating its own evolution, and in fact halting it.
We have technology which makes us uniquely able to combat environmental changes.
The OT is an observation of events, most likely passed down word-of-mouth until somebody got around to writing them down (and no, it probably wasn't Moses, despite popular belief). That those events happen to show the existence of God doesn't disprove them anymore than the credibility of a history book would be in danger if it mentioned the Holocaust when the world didn't believe it ever happened. That is, of course, an analogy as I'm sure the Holocaust is still believed.
It does not change the claims made within it that its texts are divinely inspired, its claims about god, etc. You cannot rely on a single document to prove itself. Contrary to your example, we have multiple history texts, and we have pieces of concentration camps and the German war machine in museums.
Or you could have a steady (but quite powerful) wind that allows people to walk on a shallow section of a sea. It's conceivable and has been studied. I believe the number was 67 mph, which is much less powerful than, say, a hurricane.
We're talking about a sea, not a marsh or pond. The waters would not part without an extreme amount of force to push such a bulk of water (thousands of tons of it) aside.
Honestly, just out of curiosity, how do we know the mountains are millions of years old? Surely they can't use carbon, as the rocks weren't living. Or did they use the same process that dated fresh rocks from Mt. St. Hellens to be a quite old? Or did they assume that the strata layers have been deposited the same rate forever?
There are a whole variety of ways to date rock and mountains. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, for example measuring a sedimentary layer based on its deposit rate is accurate provided the rate is correct, then there are index fossils which can provide clues about age. Radiometric dating is very reliable when done correctly and there are many different isotopes to test for. That is why it is common to use several different dating methods.
Wouldn't it be possible that a massive flood set down the layers before the mountains came up?
No. It does not account for the complexity of our geographical features. When a deluge deposits layers, they are sorted by density, and the layers we have are not fixed this way (for example the fossil distribution would require all fossils on one layer, but they are scattered across geographic time based on age).
But there's no harm in saying you watch channel 59, is there? So why is there harm in calling channel 59 by it's name: SyFy?
It was a meaningless comment, I think you take it too seriously.
And, semi-honestly, do the British spell 'civilization' with an 's' instead of a 'z'?
Yes.
It is also not physically possible to make a bag weighing at least 55 pounds weight 45 pounds, but it happened. It's also not possible to have paint bubble from the ground, and that happened as well. And there's really no point in trying to discredit those stories, as me and my family have witnessed them first-hand.
Or my brother-in-law's friend suddenly being cured totally of cancer, with the medical x-rays to confirm it. Here's him with the tumors, and here's him without any. No treatment in between.
Weight scales can malfunction, human error can occur. A tank of paint disposed of by burial could rupture, or someone lazy could have dumped it there. Cancer does go into spontaneous remission.
That is not how science works. Theories never become laws. Theories are models designed to explain and predict observations and data. They incorporate laws into their framework. Laws are simple descriptions of nature, which are conditionally true.
Theories do become laws. All the scientific laws we know were once theorized at one point. This applies to gravity and thermodynamics as well and many others.
Everything is based upon assumptions. It is impossible to reason or conjecture or use logic without making assumptions. Mathematics uses assumptions, we call them axioms. You'd better try making an actual case for yourself rather than stating reality.
Your assumptions for the origin of the universe is built upon previous untestable and unobservable assumptions. There gets a point where all you have is assumptions upon assumptions i.e. Big Bang. Mathematical assumptions are proven. Secular origin theories are not proven.
Science tests its assumptions. That is what separates it from religion, which makes assumptions and calls it dogma, never to be questioned.
Testing is part of the scientific method this is true. Religion has been tested and continue to do so. You may not believe the Bible, but the books written in it have been proven to have been written by those who claimed to witness the events.
The telescopes allow us to see back in time, to the first moments of the universe's existence
The debate would be to just how far back is that time. That is following the assumption that the triangulation of astronomical distances are correct. These distances can't be verified. We take the observations of our Sun and apply that to other stars in the universe. Scientists build theories on the formation of our solar system then apply that to the universe. They do that when they can't prove how our solar system formed!! A theory plus a theory doesn't equal a law. Manipulating physical laws to build your theories doesn't prove it. If anything it shows just how far off you really are.
and the particle accelerators exist to test hypotheses about the formation of matter from its most basic parts.
This is to test how the particles interact with each other, this does not show how matter was created.
Scientists do not claim to know what caused the big bang, they only suggest possibilities, and they also admit that it is a very difficult problem to solve.
Those scientists claim to know what caused it. But they do recognize (some of them) that the absurdity of a spontaneous expansion of space from a primordial dense energy/matter combination. This is a untestable and unobservable phenomenon. That does not qualify it as actual science.
I will repeat that, since you like to assume knowledge where you have none: nobody knows what caused the universe. Including yourself.
That's where you are wrong. I take the inspired word of God on absolute authority. You claim that I can't know the truth. I claim that I do because of the many prophets of God. I believe the inspired words of these men are divinely established to record what God has revealed to us. That and the many eyewitnesses in the Bible, as well as extrabiblical testimony.
Those are not mechanisms. They are assertions with no depth behind them. Examples of mechanisms are evolution by natural selection, thermodynamics, genetics, etc. These all contain elaborately documented, tested and insightful mechanisms.
If God created all matter, energy, and time then in fact He did create those physical laws. The observations of thermodynamics, genetics, and natural selection are all within the natural sciences. However, evolution has not and will never be observable or testable as is the fundamentals of genetics would have to be completely violated for it to occur.
Look up the burden of proof. It is the established position in science that life's needs are not unique to Earth. You are making a claim that negates this established position, and therefore must substantiate your claim.
A statistical analysis based on the unit of one is not valid. We know of our planet and what its individual complexities are. All of our documentation and research of life is directly related to our planet. Spectroscopy can't determine if water exists on another planet. The fact that no other life exists in our solar system should negate a lot of possibilities within the universe. The calculations for life in the universe is just that, they are calculations based on our unique and individual planet. They have no substantial proof. When 90% of our universe is unknown then such assumptions are absurd. Furthermore the established position is highly debated among your secular scientists. Most scientists don't believe there is life out there.
It is a reasonable deduction based on the qualities of our planet, and how common that is in our massive universe.
The qualities of our planet are significant and isolated.
What makes Earth unique?
Water, carbon based life forms, its atmosphere, temperature, and the human race.
Distance from the sun? Gliese 581 c and d are in that zone at their star, and the star is a mere 20.3 light years from us, out of a universe billions of light years across.
Mars and Venus are within the habitable zone in our system, yet there is no life there. Proximity doesn't determine life, there are many more factors that need to be addressed. Also what type of star is in their system? It's a red dwarf with a M3V spectral class. This means usually a very old star, except the fact that it lies fairly close to us. Our Sun of course if of the G class. There are many problems with your assumption that any of its planets could harbor life.
A direct measurement of the radius cannot be taken because, viewed from Earth, the planet does not transit Astronomical transit
The term transit or astronomical transit has three meanings in astronomy: A transit is the astronomical event that occurs when one celestial body appears to move across the face of another celestial body, as seen by an observer at some particular vantage point. A transit occurs when a celestial...
its sun. With a minimum mass of roughly five times Earth—or one third that of Neptune—Gliese 581 c orbits just inside of the habitable zoneHabitable zone
In astronomy, the habitable zone is the distance from a star where an Earth-like planet can maintain liquid water on its surface and Earth-like life. The habitable zone is the intersection of two regions that must both be favorable to life; one within a planetary system, and the other within a...
of its parent star. The mean blackbody surface temperature has been estimated to lie between −3 °C (for a Venus-like albedoAlbedo
The albedo of an object is a measure of how strongly it reflects light from light sources such as the Sun. It is therefore a more specific form of the term reflectivity. Albedo is defined as the ratio of total-reflected to incident electromagnetic radiation. It is a unitless measure indicative of...
) and 40 °C (for an Earth-like albedo), however, the temperatures could be much higher (about 500 degrees Celsius) due to a runaway greenhouse effect akin to that of VenusVenus
Venus is the second planet from the Sun, orbiting it every 224.7 Earth days. The planet is named after Venus, the Roman goddess of love and beauty. After the Moon, it is the brightest natural object in the night sky, reaching an apparent magnitude of −4.6, bright enough to cast shadows...
. Some astronomers believe the system may have undergone planetary migrationPlanetary migration
Planetary migration occurs when a planet or other stellar satellite interacts with a disk of gas or planetesimals, resulting in the alteration of the satellite's orbital parameters, especially its semi-major axis...
and Gliese 581 c may have formed beyond the frost lineFrost line (astrophysics)
In astronomy or planetary science, the frost line, also known as the snow line or ice line, refers to a particular distance in the solar nebula from the central protosun where it is cool enough for hydrogen compounds such as water, ammonia, and methane to condense into solid ice grains. Depending...
, with a composition similar to icy bodies like GanymedeGanymede (moon)
Ganymede is a satellite of Jupiter and the largest satellite in the Solar System. It is the seventh moon and third Galilean satellite outward from Jupiter. Completing an orbit in roughly seven days, Ganymede participates in a 1:2:4 orbital resonance with the moons Europa and Io, respectively...
. Gliese 581 c completes a full orbit in just under 13 days.
Being that close to its star would cause massive tidal shifts in the planet. This would be a very volcanic terrain. Not to mention the formation of the star and planets would have robbed most of the 'organic' producing material (according to secular theories).
Compositional elements? Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, etc. are common elements in the universe, which are not exclusive to Earth.
I know we see them in Red Giants, does that mean you think life exists there?
That is why I said that it MAY be a problem. It isn't certain, however what worries me is the asteroid belt. High-gravity objects passing could draw an asteroid into our path.
That is your assumption of what could happen. But you should know the enormous amount of space that is out there.
Ever heard of the Hardy–Weinberg principle? That's basic biology.
That's a principle not a law. You can't cite an assumptuous theory with another.
You forgot "falsifiable." You also put too much emphasis on observable, as this is optional. For example, we know much about Dark Matter without having observed it, because we can make experiments which test for indirect evidence
You are right falsifiable is very important but that falls under testable. You are wrong about dark matter (a made up concept to explain errors in theories). We can't test dark matter at all. What we do is observe the interactions we believe it has with other objects. We can only assume its mass and maybe velocity.
Those statements are what you said if we draw the meaning of your language out into the open. It's easy to say silly things when you hide the silliness behind pompous language.
Kind of like terraforming? You aren't drawing meanings, you are imposing your interpretations.
You believe in an unproven, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption that uses magic.
That sounds like the Big Bang.
I believe in using evidence-based reasoning to solve the great questions.
You mean assumption based guesses to deny the truth.
In Martian Chronicles we have observed that alien life exists upon the surface of Mars, is telepathic, and is susceptible to Varicella.
Ha! You have some seriously crazy ideas.
The bible is not evidence of its own authoritativeness. This is obviously a violation of the basic rules of reasoning.
No it isn't the universe testifies about the universe right?
Actually not. None of those things have occurred. They are merely recorded in the bible, but since you use the bible as evidence for itself, that is why you think those events happened despite being fundamentally impossible.
Water conforms to its surface, it cannot be magically divided without defying gravity. People cannot rise from the dead after brain death and neural degeneration. A worldwide flood cannot have happened because there is insufficient water on Earth, and all life would die afterwards.
Miracles are impossible in natural science. But they are not impossible to God. Water can and has been manipulated by the Creator. Jesus rose from the dead because He is Emmanuel (God with us). And the ark preserved the different species and kinds for re-population.
You must be very young to use that word, "syfy" when it was always called "science fiction." Anyway, I do not believe you have a foot to stand on after just telling me that you believe in zombies and magical floods.
Is that not what the network is called now? Do you refer to Germany as Prussia? Or do you use the latent name? A zombie is still dead through the fictitious virus. Jesus is risen the flesh on Him is as alive as it was before His Crucification. A worldwide flood is not impossible. We have billions of dead things buried in mud everywhere. If that water was still here then we would still be flooded. You need to look at the deep sea trenches and ice caps to see where that water receded.
Theories do become laws. All the scientific laws we know were once theorized at one point. This applies to gravity and thermodynamics as well and many others.
You are equivocating the meaning of theory into the casual one, which is hypothesis, in order to justify your blatant misunderstanding of scientific methodology.
Your assumptions for the origin of the universe is built upon previous untestable and unobservable assumptions. There gets a point where all you have is assumptions upon assumptions i.e. Big Bang. Mathematical assumptions are proven. Secular origin theories are not proven.
You did not make a case for yourself. You just repeated yourself without a deeper understanding of what an assumption is, and then asserted that scientific theories are unproven.
Testing is part of the scientific method this is true. Religion has been tested and continue to do so. You may not believe the Bible, but the books written in it have been proven to have been written by those who claimed to witness the events.
Religion is not tested. It is a matter of faith. It begins with you believing just for the sake of it, and ends with you believing just for the sake of it.
The bible cannot be used to prove itself, either. And a minor correction: the new testament accounts were written decades after the fact, if it even happened.
The debate would be to just how far back is that time.
Before the first stars, when there were just dense, high energies.
That is following the assumption that the triangulation of astronomical distances are correct. These distances can't be verified.
If you're not going to address the argument itself but just use innuendo to instill doubt to the minds of the lesser educated, why are you here?
The cosmic distance ladder (also known as the Extragalactic Distance Scale) is the succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects. A real direct distance measurement to an astronomical object is only possible for those objects that are "close enough" (within about a thousand parsecs) to Earth. The techniques for determining distances to more distant objects are all based on various measured correlations between methods that work at close distances with methods that work at larger distances. Several methods rely on a standard candle, which is an astronomical object that has a known luminosity.
The ladder analogy arises because no one technique can measure distances at all ranges encountered in astronomy. Instead, one method can be used to measure nearby distances, a second can be used to measure nearby to intermediate distances, and so on. Each rung of the ladder provides information that can be used to determine the distances at the next higher rung.
We take the observations of our Sun and apply that to other stars in the universe. Scientists build theories on the formation of our solar system then apply that to the universe.
You never heard of symmetry? Also, we can observe the formation of stars, their deaths, etc. by observing deep space with out telescopes.
They do that when they can't prove how our solar system formed!!
You never heard of nebular hypothesis and accretion?
In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System. There is evidence that it was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg.[1][2] Originally applied only to our own Solar System, this method of planetary system formation is now thought to be at work throughout the universe.[3] The widely accepted modern variant of the nebular hypothesis is Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) or simply Solar Nebular Model.[4]
A theory plus a theory doesn't equal a law. Manipulating physical laws to build your theories doesn't prove it. If anything it shows just how far off you really are.
This is to test how the particles interact with each other, this does not show how matter was created.
Particle accelerators break down matter and they form new matter. They they test theories on the composition of primordial matter, and attempt to verify hypotheses about the early universe and the formation of matter at that time.
Those scientists claim to know what caused it. But they do recognize (some of them) that the absurdity of a spontaneous expansion of space from a primordial dense energy/matter combination. This is a untestable and unobservable phenomenon. That does not qualify it as actual science.
You hardly understand the scientific process, and now you want to debunk quantum mechanics? Talk about brazen. Also, despite how authoritative some scientists are, their opinion on the cause of the big bang is not the same as their research. You should know better.
One other thing, people who live in tissue paper houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lack of explanation for the universe is magic words.
That's where you are wrong. I take the inspired word of God on absolute authority.
No you don't. You take the word of man as the asserted word of god. Be honest with yourself. If there is a god, it is not your god, because this universe is infinitely more complex than anything dreamt up in the bible.
You claim that I can't know the truth.
I know that you cannot know the truth.
Reading mythology is not a form of science.
I claim that I do because of the many prophets of God. I believe the inspired words of these men are divinely established to record what God has revealed to us. That and the many eyewitnesses in the Bible, as well as extrabiblical testimony.
I don't care what you claim. I could claim that Harry Potter is an accurate assessment of reality, and therefore witches must exist who battle evil. It wouldn't matter. What matters is whether I can support my claims. You cannot.
Islamic scholars make the same claims as you, so do certain Hindu scholars.
If God created all matter, energy, and time then in fact He did create those physical laws.
I don't care about your assumptions. I asked for a mechanism. If you are going to assert that god used magic words to create the universe, provide a detailed account of how the creation of the universe happened, precisely how those words worked, what words they were, the physics of it all. If you are going to pretend that creationism is science, then you'd better provide the science of magic. Biblical stories are not applicable. I'm talking about detailed models, mechanisms, data.
However, evolution has not and will never be observable or testable as is the fundamentals of genetics would have to be completely violated for it to occur.
Didn't I just send you this report a week or so ago?
How can you make such blatantly false statements? Do you not blush at your audacity?
A statistical analysis based on the unit of one is not valid.
That is not the position. The position is that we know from Earth how life could form. We know from cosmology the distribution and quantities of the elements. It is not a statistical analysis of one planet, but of space itself. Other solar systems, stars, etc.
The calculations for life in the universe is just that, they are calculations based on our unique and individual planet. They have no substantial proof. When 90% of our universe is unknown then such assumptions are absurd.
So now you are alleging that life could take up forms besides those of Earth. That's good for my position, because if we just use the chemical composition of Earth life as a factor in what conditions to expect for alien life, that narrows the search since we need specific solar ranges, atmospheres, chemicals, etc. If you're saying that Earth represents JUST ONE possible way that life could form, that means you acknowledge other ways that life could form, which means that the solar range may be broader, the dependence on liquid water not so critical, the atmosphere composition less specific, etc. Thanks for supporting my case.
Water, carbon based life forms, its atmosphere, temperature, and the human race.
The team determined the planet, GJ 1214b, is either blanketed with a thin layer of water steam or surrounded by a thick layer of high clouds. If the former, the planet itself would have an icy composition. If the latter, the planet would be rocky or similar to the composition of Neptune, though much smaller.
"This is the first super-Earth known to have an atmosphere," said Jacob Bean, a NASA Sagan Fellow and astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "But even with these new measurements, we can't say yet what that atmosphere is made of. This world is being very shy and veiling its true nature from us."
As for the human race, we know how it evolved and we have a better idea of the origin of life, and both are not special to Earth. They just require self-replicating molecules and time.
Mars and Venus are within the habitable zone in our system, yet there is no life there. Proximity doesn't determine life, there are many more factors that need to be addressed. Also what type of star is in their system? It's a red dwarf with a M3V spectral class. This means usually a very old star, except the fact that it lies fairly close to us. Our Sun of course if of the G class. There are many problems with your assumption that any of its planets could harbor life.
The point was that a mere 20.3 LY away a candidate planet was spotted. We keep finding new candidate planets, and they are not so far away. Imagine how populated the universe must be, of planets outside out range of view. Then imagine that just a few of them need liquid water, an atmosphere, and common chemicals to begin abiogenesis.
Being that close to its star would cause massive tidal shifts in the planet. This would be a very volcanic terrain. Not to mention the formation of the star and planets would have robbed most of the 'organic' producing material (according to secular theories).
Early Earth was very volcanic and extremely uninhabitable. Planets have stages.
That's a principle not a law. You can't cite an assumptuous theory with another.
Did you bother to read it? It's mathematical.
You are right falsifiable is very important but that falls under testable. You are wrong about dark matter (a made up concept to explain errors in theories). We can't test dark matter at all. What we do is observe the interactions we believe it has with other objects. We can only assume its mass and maybe velocity.
Dark matter is evidenced by gravitational and cosmic background radiation anomalies. It is an example of using theory to find indirect evidence of something. If you have a problem with it, make a case. Don't just spout innuendos that you don't understand.
That sounds like the Big Bang.
Only an ignorant person would say such a thing. Try reading about it.
I realise that being as deeply religious as you are requires denial of basic science, but at least do your homework.
You mean assumption based guesses to deny the truth.
Are you talking about Christianity again?
No it isn't the universe testifies about the universe right?
The universe does not testify.
Miracles are impossible in natural science. But they are not impossible to God. Water can and has been manipulated by the Creator. Jesus rose from the dead because He is Emmanuel (God with us). And the ark preserved the different species and kinds for re-population.
I'll just replace your language with its real meaning so you can spot the errors:
Miracles are impossible in the universe, by definition. But god is defined to be magical. Water can and has been manipulated by magic. Jesus rose from the dead because of magic. And the ark preserved the different species and kinds for re-population with magic.
I'll also address the last bit: a flooded Earth would be unable to host life after the waters are magiked away. All life, including bacteria, plants, sealife and riverlife would perish. This is because all life has its own range of temperatures, moisture, saline concentration, etc. that it can live in. A worldwide flood would merge those conditions into one which is inhospitable to all life. Ark or not, all life would perish. Also, life cannot inbreed to repopulate. Inbreeding causes severe problems to animal fitness.
Is that not what the network is called now? Do you refer to Germany as Prussia? Or do you use the latent name?
I call it Deutschland. I also use the original names for the elements; Kalium, Plumbum, Hydragyrum, Argentum, Wolfram, Natrium, Cuprum, Aurum, Stibium, Stannum, Ferrum etc. I like old things.
A zombie is still dead through the fictitious virus. Jesus is risen the flesh on Him is as alive as it was before His Crucification. A worldwide flood is not impossible. We have billions of dead things buried in mud everywhere. If that water was still here then we would still be flooded. You need to look at the deep sea trenches and ice caps to see where that water receded.
I misspoke, I meant undead. Jesus is your undead saviour. I guess we need a better way to kill holy men that keeps them dead. I wonder if that could be a sales pitch for Hydrogen Cyanide: "Kills men dead and keeps them that way."
I already explained why a worldwide flood could not happen. It was an oral story passed on many thousands of years ago which the biblical authors exaggerated because that's the nature of storytelling for morals.
There is not enough water on Earth to flood it. Frozen water does not recede, it expands because water crystalises, so icecaps with this much water would expand to cover the world even deeper in ice. There isn't enough water in the icecaps to come close to flooding the Earth. A worldwide deluge would kill everything with no survival afterwords, it would be a dead planet. We are talking about so much water that it would rise miles into the air, on every point upon Earth. These figures are huge, and you could not hide the water, because fluids conform to their surface. Water does not compress. A wooden ark could not hold every species on Earth. If you say that it held "kinds" then you imply that evolution by natural selection is a fact, while denying the constraints of genetics which do not allow small populations to inbreed for fitness.
See how much you need to deny basic reality to believe your silly mythology?
You are equivocating the meaning of theory into the casual one, which is hypothesis, in order to justify your blatant misunderstanding of scientific methodology.
Well let's see you make a hypothesis to test your theory. This is a basic part of the scientific method. Where is the misunderstanding?
You did not make a case for yourself. You just repeated yourself without a deeper understanding of what an assumption is, and then asserted that scientific theories are unproven.
Your assumptions are not provable. We all assume before we actually know. To be able to know you must be able to prove by factual evidence. Not assumptuous evidence.
Definition of ASSUMPTION
1a : the taking up of a person into heaven b capitalized : August 15 observed in commemoration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary
2: a taking to or upon oneself
3: the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something
4: arrogance, pretension
5a : an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted
2a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
3archaic : sexual intercourse
4a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learning
Why can't it? Like I said before we study the universe to verify what the universe is doing. We compare what is in the Bible but not only the books in them also extrabiblical references as well. Your logic is we can't use fossils to explain fossils.
Before the first stars, when there were just dense, high energies.
Even in your own theory (Big Bang) we shouldn't see any proximity of matter in the universe. Especially if space itself is constantly expanding. If the universe has been expanding since 15 billion years, then why are we seeing gravitational collisions between galaxies. If that first rapid expanse occurred how would matter ever had combined with other matter.
If you're not going to address the argument itself but just use innuendo to instill doubt to the minds of the lesser educated, why are you here?
Well these distances rely on the red shift to figure its recessional velocity. Knowing its recessional velocity we can determine its distance from us. The problem this poses is the amount of unseen matter in the universe (secular theory). There is no way to accurately detect gravitational lensing on average stars outside our own galaxy. We only recently discovered this problem with the double Quasar. Which is a very luminous and extremely high energy event. Other stellar occurrences would be extremely difficult to observe as most of what is known is simply their composition. There is just too many stars to individually monitor for repeated occurrences. And as the distance increases so would the chance for interference. Not to mention gravity stretching the light from all of the dark matter we can't detect. You see then how the variables need to be accounted for?
You never heard of symmetry? Also, we can observe the formation of stars, their deaths, etc. by observing deep space with out telescopes.
You can't impose that when you have one example to go on. And the one example is not an observable event. This isn't operational science but purely theoretical.
You never heard of nebular hypothesis and accretion?
I have heard of it, but I have never seen it.
Particle accelerators break down matter and they form new matter
I will stop you there, it is not new matter. The same electrons, protons, and neutrons are recycled to make different particles. They can't defy the law of conservation of mass and energy.
You hardly understand the scientific process, and now you want to debunk quantum mechanics? Talk about brazen. Also, despite how authoritative some scientists are, their opinion on the cause of the big bang is not the same as their research. You should know better.
Only the made up instances of quantum occurrences. When their research doesn't coincide with the supported model then they are completely ignored. Evolutionists themselves hinder scientific progress because they limit their ideas to such exorbitant amount of time.
One other thing, people who live in tissue paper houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lack of explanation for the universe is magic words.
My explanation is the account in scripture. I believe God a supernatural being created all that is in the universe. You believe that matter/energy came into existence...? That's right through nothing!! That or you are stupid enough to believe it always existed and violate both laws of thermodynamics. Especially because ever trade off with energy always loses an amount.
No you don't. You take the word of man as the asserted word of god. Be honest with yourself. If there is a god, it is not your god, because this universe is infinitely more complex than anything dreamt up in the bible
It is the inspired word of God. That is a fact you have no proof to dispute. Tell me what do you think the Bible says about the universe. Quote some scripture.
Jeremiah 10:12
12 It is he who made the earth by his power,
who established the world by his wisdom,
and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.
I know that you cannot know the truth.
Reading mythology is not a form of science.
You mean like science fiction? Terraforming and Martians.
Your assumptions are not provable. We all assume before we actually know. To be able to know you must be able to prove by factual evidence. Not assumptuous evidence.
Again, I'm waiting for an actual argument instead of your assertion that the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are wrong.
Why can't it? Like I said before we study the universe to verify what the universe is doing. We compare what is in the Bible but not only the books in them also extrabiblical references as well. Your logic is we can't use fossils to explain fossils.
You can't because it's circular. Your argument for god becomes "God exists because the bible says god exist and we can trust the bible because it says it is god's word."
You need extrabiblical evidence and material.
On those other subjects, fossils do not claims about themselves, and the universe doesn't proclaim anything. You are confusing investigation of a subject with using that subject to verify itself.
Even in your own theory (Big Bang) we shouldn't see any proximity of matter in the universe. Especially if space itself is constantly expanding. If the universe has been expanding since 15 billion years, then why are we seeing gravitational collisions between galaxies. If that first rapid expanse occurred how would matter ever had combined with other matter.
Gravity draws matter together. If it didn't exist, then your prediction would be correct.
Well these distances rely on the red shift to figure its recessional velocity. Knowing its recessional velocity we can determine its distance from us. The problem this poses is the amount of unseen matter in the universe (secular theory). There is no way to accurately detect gravitational lensing on average stars outside our own galaxy. We only recently discovered this problem with the double Quasar. Which is a very luminous and extremely high energy event. Other stellar occurrences would be extremely difficult to observe as most of what is known is simply their composition. There is just too many stars to individually monitor for repeated occurrences. And as the distance increases so would the chance for interference. Not to mention gravity stretching the light from all of the dark matter we can't detect. You see then how the variables need to be accounted for?
That is why we have many different methods to measure distance, and each one has its prescribed limitations and variables accounted for. Your claim only works if we assume we have just one tool in our kit, which is simplistic and doesn't account for modern knowledge.
You can't impose that when you have one example to go on. And the one example is not an observable event. This isn't operational science but purely theoretical.
Symmetry supersedes those scientific laws that you are so enamoured by. It is derived from math and explains, essentially, that physics must operate the same everywhere in the universe, and at any time. It also explains the conservation laws.
We see dying stars, newly born stars, indeed all sorts of phenomena just by observing space. That is how we learn about stellar evolution, and how we test those theories.
I have heard of it, but I have never seen it.
Try looking at the Hubble telescope photos some day. There are many examples of stars forming, of nebulae condensing, etc.
I will stop you there, it is not new matter. The same electrons, protons, and neutrons are recycled to make different particles. They can't defy the law of conservation of mass and energy.
My language was not precise: They break down matter and form new kinds of matter with it.
Only the made up instances of quantum occurrences. When their research doesn't coincide with the supported model then they are completely ignored. Evolutionists themselves hinder scientific progress because they limit their ideas to such exorbitant amount of time.
Biologists use a theory that has been refined for over a century. The claims it makes exist because of the evidence leading to those conclusions. You should know better, but instead you deny a fundamental piece of science because you have faith in something written by men over two thousand years ago. Have some context for your bold claims.
The simple fact is that we have observed animals and bacteria evolve. We have observed new mutations that benefit populations. What haven't we observed? God. Magic. Prayer working. A flat Earth (biblical claim). A fixed Earth (biblical claim). People walking on water. Animals popping into existence from nothing (creationism).
You have no place to criticise biology and science when your beliefs are absurd and laughable.
My explanation is the account in scripture. I believe God a supernatural being created all that is in the universe. You believe that matter/energy came into existence...? That's right through nothing!! That or you are stupid enough to believe it always existed and violate both laws of thermodynamics. Especially because ever trade off with energy always loses an amount.
You believe in a text written over two thousand years ago, by man. You believe that text's claim that it is inspired by a god which it claims exists. That is the truth of the matter. You have not established that god exists, or that the text is correct. You have only your belief in it. Belief that flies in the face of modern evidence and methodology. You believe in a document that explains how to sacrifice animals to appease a god. That claims men can live in the belly of a giant fish. That says that women came from a rib (actually the baculum). That says magic words can create things from nothing.
Then you have the gall to talk about my assumptions as if I am the one making absurd claims that defy nature and reality. That is known as projection. My claims are not absurd, neither are my assumptions, but you are projecting your absurdity onto me as a defense mechanism. Learn your place. You have no business calling other people stupid or absurd when you believe in talking snakes and literal hocus pocus.
The facts are that I gave you two possible answers being investigated which describe how our universe may have come into being. This is a very recondite subject, well beyond your education, and one of the few subjects that I have difficulty understanding, which is saying something because I am hardly ever challenged. That you dismiss it out of hand without bothering to learn about it, says volumes of your ignorance and arrogance.
It is the inspired word of God. That is a fact you have no proof to dispute. Tell me what do you think the Bible says about the universe. Quote some scripture.
No. It claims to be the inspired word of an assumed god. See the difference? Harry Potter claims to be an account of a young wizard in Hogwarts. Martian Chronicles claims to be an account of our exploration and conquest of Mars. You made a puerile mistake in confusing a claim with a fact.
Of course I can't dispute that claim, it is an unfalsifiable one. Remember what I told you about science (aka knowledge) and falsifiability? What, don't tell me you automatically believed it because it cannot be proven false? That's funny. I cannot prove or dispute the claim that leprechauns exist. Do you believe in them? How about fairies? Monsters under the bed?
Jeremiah 10:12
12 It is he who made the earth by his power,
who established the world by his wisdom,
and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.
Yeah, so? It's talking about the firmament. In biblical cosmology the Earth is surrounded by the universe which is a dome-like structure of firmament. Oh, also the Earth is flat and fixed. The dome has windows which let in water. Read Psalm, Job, 1 Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew and Revelation. I believe even Genesis mentions the windows of heaven.
You mean like science fiction? Terraforming and Martians.
Martian Chronicles is a book I read, used to illustrate the point about believing silly things in books. Like gods.
I gave you these links earlier to explain your error.
You have not shown me an error. You can't prove your origin theory and your frustration proves an admittance of that fact.
Again, I'm waiting for an actual argument instead of your assertion that the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are wrong.
If you want me to go point by point to show you the error of these theories then bring them up to me. If not then they are far too long to get into here. Challenge me with a point if you have one. If not then your argument has the same perceived substance as mine.
You can't because it's circular. Your argument for god becomes "God exists because the bible says god exist and we can trust the bible because it says it is god's word."
It is through faith that I claim this position. I believe in God and what He has revealed to us. I believe in His supernatural being. I believe this in faith and I don't hide that fact. If you refuse to even consider that existence then that is your choice. This doesn't change the fact that thousands of people claim to have witnessed the accounts in the Bible. You say it can't verify itself, but where else should it be recorded. The Bible is the compilation of 66 books written from the first one (Genesis) over four thousand years in the past. What other religious text has lasted as long and followed so fervently? You ignore it because you refuse to believe, and trust me that doesn't make you right. You can't disprove the accounts in the Bible, you have thousands of witnesses who saw the accounts. The miracles were special instances so of course they don't follow natural science. To assume they would be restrained by those laws is ignorance.
You need extrabiblical evidence and material.
And there is the evidence. Here are a few about Jesus.
1.Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
A."Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
2.Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
A.Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
i.There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
3.Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
A."Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
4.Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
A.Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
B.Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."
5.Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
A."Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
6.Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
A."On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
i.Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
ii.The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.
iii.Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
7.Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
A."They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
i.Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
8.The Talmud
A."On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
i.Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
ii.Luke 22:1-2, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
iii.This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
9.Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
A."The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
i.Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
ii.Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.
On those other subjects, fossils do not claims about themselves, and the universe doesn't proclaim anything. You are confusing investigation of a subject with using that subject to verify itself.
I didn't mean testify in the literal sense. How do we learn about the universe, through observing it. How do we understand fossils, by studying the fossils. The only assumptions you make about fossils is by what you observe about them.
Gravity draws matter together. If it didn't exist, then your prediction would be correct
But if that original dense matter/energy undertook rapid expulsion, and we see that the universe is still expanding in all directions. Gravity alone would not draw that matter to other matter. We are not at critical mass even today. So how do you suppose that matter would be able to attract to one another? If space itself was under going rapid expulsion? All matter separating in every direction concurrently. Gravity doesn't hold the universe in place today. That is why dark matter/energy was hypothesized. If Gravity was powerful enough to suspend the expanding space then we would never had expanded in the first place. We would still be constrained to that primordial matter/energy composite. You see then the problem with your theory?
That is why we have many different methods to measure distance, and each one has its prescribed limitations and variables accounted for. Your claim only works if we assume we have just one tool in our kit, which is simplistic and doesn't account for modern knowledge.
All of the ways of determining distance require mass and the speed of light. That mass is directly related by the luminosity of the star in question. Lensing has not been fully understood yet. That lensing would directly affect the luminosity of the celestial body. Because at such immense distances the bending of light between it and that dark matter could be very significant. If it takes a twin Quasar (the most energetic phenomenon known today) to discover this, then what other instances has this effected our astrometry. Can you say for certain?
Symmetry supersedes those scientific laws that you are so enamoured by. It is derived from math and explains, essentially, that physics must operate the same everywhere in the universe, and at any time. It also explains the conservation laws.
The operational physics absolutely, although that changes especially near black holes. There is far too many unknowns in the universe to believe it is completely symmetrical.
We see dying stars, newly born stars, indeed all sorts of phenomena just by observing space. That is how we learn about stellar evolution, and how we test those theories.
We observe a minute fraction of time within that stars evolution to make such claims as millions if not billions of years. Perhaps the fact that it is observable within the few decades we have had the technology shows just how rapid a stars life cycle can be.
Biologists use a theory that has been refined for over a century. The claims it makes exist because of the evidence leading to those conclusions. You should know better, but instead you deny a fundamental piece of science because you have faith in something written by men over two thousand years ago. Have some context for your bold claims.
It's the evidence that they apply to the assumption. The Bible is much older then you think. I have already addressed your ignorance.
The simple fact is that we have observed animals and bacteria evolve. We have observed new mutations that benefit populations.
A beneficial mutation is not evolution. It is damage in the DNA that causes bacteria to lose a venerability to certain threats. This does not create new genetic material that is capable of going from ape to man. Or even to change the basic genetics of the test subject.
You have no place to criticise biology and science when your beliefs are absurd and laughable.
I believe in a supernatural transcendent God. You believe nothing created something. And then you restrain yourselves to natural laws and fail right out the gate because of the origin theory.
You have not shown me an error. You can't prove your origin theory and your frustration proves an admittance of that fact.
If you bothered to read them, you would understand that your knowledge of scientific nomenclature is wrong.
If you want me to go point by point to show you the error of these theories then bring them up to me. If not then they are far too long to get into here. Challenge me with a point if you have one. If not then your argument has the same perceived substance as mine.
I perceive that you are wasting time. You have no convincing argument against these theories, and that is why your lack of argument has been one focused on instilling doubt rather than presenting a solid case for yourself. It is also why you still make no argument.
It is through faith that I claim this position.
So you believe it just because you want to. No reasoning, no knowledge, just the need to believe something happens to be wrong.
I believe in God and what He has revealed to us.
You believe in a god and what some authors claim he revealed.
I believe in His supernatural being.
So you believe in magic.
I believe this in faith and I don't hide that fact.
Of course you do. When pressed you will say that you believe as you do because there is evidence of it. But that is a lie. When you believe because of faith, there is no evidence, just blind belief.
If you refuse to even consider that existence then that is your choice.
I don't dispute that you have faith.
This doesn't change the fact that thousands of people claim to have witnessed the accounts in the Bible.
Those are biblical accounts. Not extrabiblical ones. To use an analogy, I can claim that hundreds of people saw Harry Potter use his magic, it's all in the book. Indeed his classmates, his friends, relatives, etc. have all witnessed his incredible feats. How can you deny his magic as fact? There are hundreds of witnesses.
You say it can't verify itself, but where else should it be recorded.
Outside of the bible. If we saw an encyclopedia which mentioned Harry Potter in a nonfiction account, that may warrant research. If we saw newspapers reporting on magic used by the young Wizard, that would raise some eyebrows.
What counts as strong evidence however is not testimony. Physical evidence, mechanisms that could explain testimony, etc.
The Bible is the compilation of 66 books written from the first one (Genesis) over four thousand years in the past. What other religious text has lasted as long and followed so fervently?
Seriously? Bhagavad Gītā (भगवद् गीता) is between 2000 to 5000 years old depending on scholarly method of ascertaining age. Analects (論語) were written around 2500 years ago. Veda (वेद) were assembled around 3000 years ago. Upanishad (उपनिषद्) is almost 3000 years old. The Old Testament (תּוֹרָה, נְבִיאִים, כְּתוּבִים) is as much as 3000 years old.
You ignore it because you refuse to believe, and trust me that doesn't make you right.
I don't believe it because I require evidence and reason. It isn't enough for someone to insist that I believe "just because" (which is what faith is). Look at the position you are in. Don't you feel awful that you just have to accept something as true because an authority told you so? How strange that must be, to be forced to admit that you must take your beliefs on faith, because you have nothing better to convince you. How difficult it must be when pressed, because your position is indefensible. You have NO defense, you just believe.
Then to tell me I refuse to accept your beliefs, like that is some flaw on my part. How strange is that? Did you know that I am the President of Nigeria? Why don't you believe me? It just takes a little faith.
You can't disprove the accounts in the Bible,
You can't disprove that I am the president of Nigeria. You can't disprove that there are reptilian alien hybrids in Washington, who camouflage themselves and conspire to enslave us. How many things that can't be disproven do you not believe?
you have thousands of witnesses who saw the accounts.
In Martian Chronicles there were millions of witnesses who saw the ruins of Martian Civilisation. How can you deny the testimony of these witnesses in Martian Chronicles?
The miracles were special instances so of course they don't follow natural science.
If they don't follow the laws of the universe then that should tell you they are impossible. Impossible things do not happen, by definition. In other words, every time the bible proclaims a miracle, you know it just lied to you. Because miracles fundamentally cannot happen.
To assume they would be restrained by those laws is ignorance.
It's called using reason, and not being gullible. Of course, if you can prove that the laws of the universe can be abrogated at will, then you have a Nobel prize awaiting you.
And there is the evidence. Here are a few about Jesus.
I saw nothing supernatural there. Jesus appeared to some people after his death? This has happened to hysterical or otherwise deluded people before. It's not magic, but a combination of suggestibility, delusion, and wishful thinking.
An eclipse happened? Or it didn't. If it did happen, Jesus was not crucified in Passover, and eclipses are natural things. If it didn't happen, the historians were mistaken because a solar eclipse couldn't occur during Passover.
You're making huge claims about the world and universe, so you are required to furnish proof of biblical claims, like physical proof of a flood, that life was created from nothing, that men can be raised from the dead, etc. I'm not asking for denialism, or falsified evidence which permeates creationism.
I didn't mean testify in the literal sense. How do we learn about the universe, through observing it. How do we understand fossils, by studying the fossils. The only assumptions you make about fossils is by what you observe about them.
Right. So what's the problem?
But if that original dense matter/energy undertook rapid expulsion, and we see that the universe is still expanding in all directions. Gravity alone would not draw that matter to other matter. We are not at critical mass even today. So how do you suppose that matter would be able to attract to one another? If space itself was under going rapid expulsion?
Because in our universe there is no objective reference frame. While space expands, everything isn't expanding from some point, it is all relative to points within itself. This causes the effect that there is perceptibly no expansion of space. It is like the speed of Earth. The Earth travels at around 30km/s, and I've seen figures for the Sun traveling around the Milky way at around 200+km/s. Why aren't you traveling at this speed when you stand still? It has to do with reference frames.
Gravity doesn't hold the universe in place today. That is why dark matter/energy was hypothesized. If Gravity was powerful enough to suspend the expanding space then we would never had expanded in the first place. We would still be constrained to that primordial matter/energy composite. You see then the problem with your theory?
I see that you have some misunderstandings. Gravity isn't supposed to suspend expanding space, as that doesn't even make sense, since it only acts on matter, not space. Dark matter was hypothesized to account for some specific errors in measurement when observing the mass and gravity interactions of distant celestial bodies. For an inexplicable reason, certain bodies behave more massively than they are. It was hypothesized that matter must exist which doesn't absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation. This is dark matter.
All of the ways of determining distance require mass and the speed of light. That mass is directly related by the luminosity of the star in question. Lensing has not been fully understood yet. That lensing would directly affect the luminosity of the celestial body. Because at such immense distances the bending of light between it and that dark matter could be very significant. If it takes a twin Quasar (the most energetic phenomenon known today) to discover this, then what other instances has this effected our astrometry. Can you say for certain?
On these matters I trust the experts, because they make a living examining these methods and know them better than I do. I examined those methods and they looked systematic and reliable, because each method has a specific purpose and range of expected use.
In other words, if you have these big questions, ask an expert, because he is paid for a living to ask those very questions and more than likely already has at some point before improving methodology.
The operational physics absolutely, although that changes especially near black holes. There is far too many unknowns in the universe to believe it is completely symmetrical.
That is only if black holes can be maintained in physics. Loop-Quantum Gravity seems to suggest that there aren't singularities as was thought under General Relativity.
We observe a minute fraction of time within that stars evolution to make such claims as millions if not billions of years. Perhaps the fact that it is observable within the few decades we have had the technology shows just how rapid a stars life cycle can be.
There is an uncountable number of stars in the universe, even of galaxies. We can make these observations because we have a huge display of all kinds of stars before us.
A beneficial mutation is not evolution.
Yes it is. When it passes onto the population, that is evolution.
How do you think we got corn? Beneficial mutations to a simple grass.
It is damage in the DNA that causes bacteria to lose a venerability to certain threats.
It is a mutation that may confer an altered metabolism, which is a step towards totally new metabolic processes. We saw this with the long-term E. coli experiments.
This does not create new genetic material that is capable of going from ape to man. Or even to change the basic genetics of the test subject.
This is just a point of dogma which you memorised to keep you ignorant. Novel mutations change metabolism, if these are beneficial they are preserved and passed on. Causing evolution. Given thousands, or millions of years, or even billions, you have bacteria that become protozoa, plants, and animals. You have bacteria that evolve the ability to use citrate. You have grasses and weeds that become Corn and Rye. Millions of iterations of small steps causes a bacteria to turn into an amoeba. Millions more cause it to turn into a multicellular animal.
I believe in a supernatural transcendent God.
You believe in magic.
You believe nothing created something. And then you restrain yourselves to natural laws and fail right out the gate because of the origin theory.
I believe in using reason, which gives us many insights to answer the big questions, which you continue to deny because of your faith in magic.
I'm going to jump in on this argument, starting with a few observations. First, I've noticed that this started off small, and with time each argument grows in length until one could probably write a short book about it.
Second: Mr. Aveskde, you said, "Prove it. I follow parsimony, you do not." As I recall, you brought up the argument that there are tons of other planets like Earth. Due to the burden of proof, you are the one that has to prove it.
You did not negate my statement. There are billions of billions of planets out there. Life seems to just require the right solar distance, time, liquid water, and organic compounds. These are common things in the universe.
Once again, there is little proof of this. With all of the solar and exosolar planets we've found, none of them come even remotely close to meeting the requirements for Earth-like life.
What you actually said was:
My answer is the authority of primitive man (they invented your god, after all). They were not there when the universe began, but I would rather trust in their account than some scientists.
What you said, if we actually follow your assumptions, was:
My answer is magic. I would rather trust in magic than reason.
Slippery slope, or something like that. Here's a fact: no human was around at the beginning of the universe. There is no written records from anywhere around that time. The big bang is a theory supported by some evidence, but it's still a theory, and in the end you still have to have faith that it's true. I really don't want to go into the 'does god exist or not' argument, as it really has little to do with the idea of space exploration, but I'd say that God also has some evidence going for him.
You have no more proof that primitive man invented god than you do that the big bang happened. To turn your belief-centered reasoning back on itself, I'll hit you with a phrase similar to yours.
"What you actually said was:
My answer is the authority of quite-possibly damned heathens. They were not there when the universe began, but I'd rather trust in their account than the Almighty Creator and Ruler of the universe."
Second: Mr. Aveskde, you said, "Prove it. I follow parsimony, you do not." As I recall, you brought up the argument that there are tons of other planets like Earth. Due to the burden of proof, you are the one that has to prove it.
I really wish that people understood how the burden of proof works. When circumstances are equal, the one making positive and negative claims has to back them up. When there are unequal positions, the one on the fringe has to back his claims up, because the established ideas have the majority of evidence in their favour.
It is established in cosmology and astronomy that planetary formation is natural, and commonplace due to accretion. It is established that the elements for planets like Earth are not unique to it, and many are quite common. It is established that stars form naturally and commonly.
All the conditions in this universe are ripe for the formation of uncountable planets. A fraction of those will be within the habitable zone. A fraction of those will have liquid water, and atmosphere formation. When dealing with large numbers, it makes claims that the earth is unique sound specious. Therefore I put it to you, same as him, what makes Earth unique in the universe, unable to be created elsewhere?
Once again, there is little proof of this. With all of the solar and exosolar planets we've found, none of them come even remotely close to meeting the requirements for Earth-like life.
We've barely sampled the cosmos. What you're saying is like the man who puts a cup into the ocean, comes out with no whales, and concludes that they do not exist in the waters. Already we have spotted Gliese 581 d, which has the potential to be an earth-like planet. There is no reason to think we won't find more, and that eventually we may find ways to get more data about those planets.
Slippery slope, or something like that.
No it isn't. It is a replacement of his pompous language with the underlying message in plain text.
Here's a fact: no human was around at the beginning of the universe. There is no written records from anywhere around that time.
There are photographic records from that period. Our telescopes do not merely see great distances from us, they can see back in time, on the order of billions of years. The early universe is observed by measuring Cosmic Background Radiation.
The big bang is a theory supported by some evidence, but it's still a theory, and in the end you still have to have faith that it's true.
It is the only theory that explains Cosmic Background Radiation. Odd how religious people will have faith in things which are supported only by emotions but won't trust that which is supported by evidence. Selective scepticism, really.
I really don't want to go into the 'does god exist or not' argument, as it really has little to do with the idea of space exploration, but I'd say that God also has some evidence going for him.
There is none, actually. Every single claim for the existence of god has either been shown to be wrong, has a natural explanation, or is an outright fabrication. This makes perfect sense because religious people have defined god to be supernatural, which means that in addition to making their god unfalsifiable (so they can always believe in him), their god can never have evidence. That's the double-edged blade of supernatural beliefs.
You have no more proof that primitive man invented god than you do that the big bang happened. To turn your belief-centered reasoning back on itself, I'll hit you with a phrase similar to yours.
I have no proof? Have you ever studied a single religion besides the one you were raised to believe in? Have you never studied ancient and extinct religions? To make a claim like yours one has to be completely oblivious to foreign cultures.
Just try studying other religions, and their cultures, and you'll see that they are limitless creative constructs with no common points about their gods.
"What you actually said was:
My answer is the authority of quite-possibly damned heathens. They were not there when the universe began, but I'd rather trust in their account than the Almighty Creator and Ruler of the universe."
Just food for thought.
That is a non-sequitur. There is nothing that demonstrates or could demonstrate that an alleged "Almighty Creator and Ruler of the Universe" is communicating with us. Therefore you cannot claim that kind of authority.
When dealing with large numbers, it makes claims that the earth is unique sound specious.
I would agree. But I'm going to believe evidence, and so far it's come up shy. Yes, we've only dipped our exploratory cup into the ocean of the universe, but I will be skeptical until we find another habitable planet. Yes, it will take a long time, and the math does show that it's possible, but statistical probabilities don't always hold true against reality.
There are photographic records from that period. Our telescopes do not merely see great distances from us, they can see back in time, on the order of billions of years. The early universe is observed by measuring Cosmic Background Radiation.
Our telescopes can't sea anywhere near the Big Bang. And the cosmic background radiation might be a residue effect of "Let there be light."
Odd how religious people will have faith in things which are supported only by emotions but won't trust that which is supported by evidence. Selective scepticism, really.
How's this? When traveling on a mission trip to Indiana, Peru (not Peru, Indiana), we were limited to a single personal checked bag. The other slot was taken up by things like medicine for the villages we would visit, all packed into massive 45-pound bags (as they couldn't exceed 50 lbs due to a price bump in the cost, and we were quite poor).
The main group had gone left Salt Lake City for Atlanta, leaving only four of us with six medicine bags. One of our people was having passport troubles, while the other was helping him. In the end, the one guy couldn't come with us. So we divided that 45-pound bag into the five other 45-pound bags, and they all still weighed 45-pounds.
Or when my sister's mission trip found a well of house paint bubbling up from the ground when they ran out while fixing an Appalachian house.
Seems like evidence to me.
Have you ever studied a single religion besides the one you were raised to believe in? Have you never studied ancient and extinct religions? To make a claim like yours one has to be completely oblivious to foreign cultures.
I'm not claiming that religion is infallable. I'm claiming that God exists. There is a big difference between the two, just as there is a big difference between God's will and what people say God's will is (e.g. the Crusades). Religion in often invented by humans, usually for the purpose of controlling other humans.
There is nothing that demonstrates or could demonstrate that an alleged "Almighty Creator and Ruler of the Universe" is communicating with us.
Interesting. You say nothing could demonstrate the existence of God? You are so adamant and resigned that absolutely nothing could do it? What if Jesus came back in the Second Advent, with his army of angels and the trumpets blaring? Would you not be convinced then, or would you search for a natural explanation?
I would agree. But I'm going to believe evidence, and so far it's come up shy.
If you believe evidence then you must accept that planets are common and earthlike ones are uncommon but not unique. That is what the indirect evidence suggests.
Yes, we've only dipped our exploratory cup into the ocean of the universe, but I will be skeptical until we find another habitable planet. Yes, it will take a long time, and the math does show that it's possible, but statistical probabilities don't always hold true against reality.
It sounds to me like you just don't want to accept that you aren't unique in the universe.
Our telescopes can't sea anywhere near the Big Bang. And the cosmic background radiation might be a residue effect of "Let there be light."
We see the cosmic background radiation which is residue from the early big bang, before the first stars.
Don't make bare assertions to fit your prejudices.
How's this? When traveling on a mission trip to Indiana, Peru (not Peru, Indiana), we were limited to a single personal checked bag. The other slot was taken up by things like medicine for the villages we would visit, all packed into massive 45-pound bags (as they couldn't exceed 50 lbs due to a price bump in the cost, and we were quite poor).
The main group had gone left Salt Lake City for Atlanta, leaving only four of us with six medicine bags. One of our people was having passport troubles, while the other was helping him. In the end, the one guy couldn't come with us. So we divided that 45-pound bag into the five other 45-pound bags, and they all still weighed 45-pounds.
Or when my sister's mission trip found a well of house paint bubbling up from the ground when they ran out while fixing an Appalachian house.
Seems like evidence to me.
Like I said, emotional evidence.
I'm not claiming that religion is infallable. I'm claiming that God exists. There is a big difference between the two, just as there is a big difference between God's will and what people say God's will is (e.g. the Crusades). Religion in often invented by humans, usually for the purpose of controlling other humans.
If religion is a human invention, then god must be as well, as it is a religious concept with no external evidence.
Interesting. You say nothing could demonstrate the existence of God? You are so adamant and resigned that absolutely nothing could do it? What if Jesus came back in the Second Advent, with his army of angels and the trumpets blaring? Would you not be convinced then, or would you search for a natural explanation?
A supernatural thing cannot be evidenced. Because they are defined to be outside the boundaries of nature, no natural evidence (your senses, the world, whatever) can be used to validate their existence as supernatural entities. It can only evaluate effects of their existence upon the natural universe.
This is the burden you took when you decided to place your faith in the supernatural. You chose to abandon the possibility of ever having proof or evidence.
If you believe evidence then you must accept that planets are common and earthlike ones are uncommon but not unique. That is what the indirect evidence suggests.
Planets are common, yes. But still, as of yet, we haven't found another earth-like one. The indirect evidence is statistical math, which also fails to apply to casinos and weather.
It sounds to me like you just don't want to accept that you aren't unique in the universe.
I'll accept it when there's evidence to do so. As of right now, there is none. So it seems that you're more based on faith (at least in this regard) than I am.
Like I said, emotional evidence.
How is that emotional evidence? It's bleedin' physical! Did you even read what I said? You're arguing that the supernatural doesn't exist. I give an example that cannot be explained naturally. Fifty-five pound bags cannot weight 45 pounds. That's a fact. But it did. That's physical evidence for a supernatural.
Same goes for paint bubbling out of the ground. None of it is emotional. It's physical.
Sounds like you just don't want to accept that.
If religion is a human invention, then god must be as well, as it is a religious concept with no external evidence.
No. The Constitution of the US provides set rules with which to rule a country. In the 200+ years we've been doing so, there have been dozens of views on how to interpret the document. These views are not originated by those that wrote the constitution, but are the product of people since that time.
But that doesn't mean that the Constitution, or it's writers, are a product of people since it was written. If I suddenly decided that those who wrote the Constitution didn't exist, that it was written by people in the early 1900s, than there would be no external evidence for them. I could easily discredit everything written about them as just being fantasies of a confused culture. Nobody talks to them nowadays, thus severing all evidence.
Except God does talk to people today. Imagine if you will you were able to take pair of HAM radios, some battery packs for power, and a buddy, back to the 1400s. Your buddy goes off somewhere, but you keep in contact with the radios.
Nobody would believe that your buddy exists. You're using a level of communication that's beyond the science of the day. But just because it wasn't physically and scientifically possible at the time, doesn't make it impossible.
Because they are defined to be outside the boundaries of nature, no natural evidence (your senses, the world, whatever) can be used to validate their existence as supernatural entities.
What about natural evidences that cannot be explained naturally. Like if gravity turned off all the sudden. Or something smaller, like a mountain getting up and jumping into the ocean.
Planets are common, yes. But still, as of yet, we haven't found another earth-like one. The indirect evidence is statistical math, which also fails to apply to casinos and weather.
Again, if you have cause to believe that Earth is unique, I implore you to share it.
I'll accept it when there's evidence to do so. As of right now, there is none. So it seems that you're more based on faith (at least in this regard) than I am.
Like I said, the indirect evidence is overwhelming. Also you never made a case for the Earth being unique.
How is that emotional evidence? It's bleedin' physical! Did you even read what I said?
Sorry, I meant emotional justification. I misspoke.
You're arguing that the supernatural doesn't exist. I give an example that cannot be explained naturally. Fifty-five pound bags cannot weight 45 pounds. That's a fact. But it did. That's physical evidence for a supernatural.
The supernatural is by definition beyond the scope of the natural. Nothing natural can justify it because it does not play by the laws of nature, and in some definitions (which I despise), logic itself.
Same goes for paint bubbling out of the ground. None of it is emotional. It's physical.
Sounds like you just don't want to accept that.
Paint on the ground inexplicably, or unusually heavy bags, do not follow into god. It simply doesn't follow.
No. The Constitution of the US provides set rules with which to rule a country. In the 200+ years we've been doing so, there have been dozens of views on how to interpret the document. These views are not originated by those that wrote the constitution, but are the product of people since that time.
Correct. We know that because they left around extra-constitutional evidence of themselves. This is not the case with the bible.
But that doesn't mean that the Constitution, or it's writers, are a product of people since it was written. If I suddenly decided that those who wrote the Constitution didn't exist, that it was written by people in the early 1900s, than there would be no external evidence for them. I could easily discredit everything written about them as just being fantasies of a confused culture. Nobody talks to them nowadays, thus severing all evidence.
That is because there is evidence of them outside the constitution. If nobody knew of them outside of it, your questioning would be justified.
Except God does talk to people today. Imagine if you will you were able to take pair of HAM radios, some battery packs for power, and a buddy, back to the 1400s. Your buddy goes off somewhere, but you keep in contact with the radios.
Nobody would believe that your buddy exists. You're using a level of communication that's beyond the science of the day. But just because it wasn't physically and scientifically possible at the time, doesn't make it impossible.
It's not a matter of being so advanced we cannot explain it. It is a matter of definition: gods are defined to be above nature, and in some cases above logic. When you define an object like this, it cannot be understood or followed using natural laws (or in the rare cases, which I mentioned, logic).
What about natural evidences that cannot be explained naturally. Like if gravity turned off all the sudden. Or something smaller, like a mountain getting up and jumping into the ocean.
We'd be left twiddling our thumbs, unable to explain it. We simply have no method for evaluating the supernatural, if it even exists.
Manned missions to space impose a huge amount of risk on the astronauts who travel to space. Apart from the expenditure of money, a travel to space also risks the human life. The human beings who travel in space have to face harsh conditions and challenge themselves to adapt to unfriendly environment. Unmanned missions and those using robots to explore space are a solution to risking the human life. But robots mean another new technology, thus incurring added costs.
What seems to take us by surprise may land us in trouble. We may find something in space that is lethal to life on Earth. We may discover something that is extremely harmful for the living beings on Earth. Space exploration may invite some dangerous microorganisms that may exist in space. The extraterrestrial beings may actually prove dangerous for human life.
Space exploration can mean a major leap for mankind but it is also criticized as not having achieved any major scientific breakthroughs. Public interest can serve as the determinant factor in judging the suitability of space exploration. It may not be wise to splurge on space exploration if other basic needs are being ignored or left unfulfilled.
One of the most important cons of space exploration is the money spent in the research. The money that is spent on space exploration can rather be spent to reduce poverty in the underdeveloped countries. The national wealth can rather be channelized towards the betterment of the downtrodden lot of the society. Space exploration involves both astronomy and space technology. It requires a huge amount of money to be spent on the journey to space. Some believe that the money can be diverted towards the poor. When many cannot even meet their basic needs of life, is it right to spend on space exploration?
Space exploration has provided the drive and the excuse to develop technologies which will and have allowed for a more sustainable solution to poverty in some countries. Unless Money towards space exploration would be going towards another research agency specialized towards solving poverty all which would happen is welfare, a temporary solution.
Humans seeking to save the body that dies are trying to out do God by thinking they are saving the body forgetting the soul. The human living on mars when the sun explodes is only going to have a limited time on mars even if they are successful,and the ultimate end will be freezing to death,and losing their soul only relying on human intellect,and not on God.
now imsure imwrong and im sure america wouldnt sped so much on it if i wasnt. but as far as im cocerned we dont reallygain anything from space exploration, and feal free to correct me on that point but i really cant see what benifitsus about someone bringing us some moon rock. i mean i can see some of the benifits of space ie satalites etc but what are the realbenifits of eploration?
With this kinda recession and problems and issues up to neck I find it quite an expense to pay any attention there. There has to be a certain amount of investment but not something insane which is done usually. The World is need of solutions that involve attention as well as finance.
