Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite the hopefully bold claim, this does not even cause atheism to yawn and scratch its' butt.
"as Metaxas writes, scientists who have re-worked the latest information say any rational mind must conclude there simply had to be an intelligent design behind the creation of earth."
The rest of it seems to quotemine remarks about revised 'early estimates' and takes it upon himself to claim that this means ..." Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.”
The 'goldilocks zone' and similar arguments are not new. There are counter arguments. The evidence for the formation of the earth and the development of life - it needed several lucky accidents to give us a chance - argues against a 'designer' being involved. It is also a factor that theism often falls into the trap of supposing that we were planned, and everything had to be arranged to suit us. In fact, we rather suit what happened to happen - like the puddle amazingly fits the hole that was put there to accommodate it.
Perhaps more discussion, but this is neither a new nor lockdown argument, though it is one of the better ones for Goddunnit. Not that this is saying much.
Despite the hopefully bold claim, this does not even cause atheism to yawn and scratch its' butt.
"as Metaxas writes, scientists who have re-worked the latest information say any rational mind must conclude there simply had to be an intelligent design behind the creation of earth."
The rest of it seems to quotemine remarks about revised 'early estimates' and takes it upon himself to claim that this means ..." Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.â€
The 'goldilocks zone' and similar arguments are not new. There are counter arguments. The evidence for the formation of the earth and the development of life - it needed several lucky accidents to give us a chance - argues against a 'designer' being involved. It is also a factor that theism often falls into the trap of supposing that we were planned, and everything had to be arranged to suit us. In fact, we rather suit what happened to happen - like the puddle amazingly fits the hole that was put there to accommodate it.
Perhaps more discussion, but this is neither a new nor lockdown argument, though it is one of the better ones for Goddunnit. Not that this is saying much.
In our Galaxy there are estimated to be 8.8 billion earth sized planets in the habitable zones around stars. Ref There are estimated to be upwards of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, the part where its light has had time to reach us. Ref That multiplies out to something like a thousand billion billion earth size planets in habitable zones. That’s 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them. Jupiter type planets, needed for asteroid eating, also seem to be rather common. Ref
What are the odds against Earth NOT happening by chance? Astronomical!
Yes. It had to happen somewhere. It may seem incredibly lucky that we are here on just to right planet for life, but somebody had to be. I sometimes think what are the odd against me being here typing posts rather than a coolie slaving in the rice fields of Qin China or toting Quioia in Inca Peru. it had to be someone.
No, Metaxas essentially makes the same tired argument about fine-tuning as Bebe and others. Note that the consensus of science is that the universe is NOT fine-tuned for life, but that life is fine-tuned for the universe by evolution.
In our Galaxy there are estimated to be 8.8 billion earth sized planets in the habitable zones around stars. Ref There are estimated to be upwards of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, the part where its light has had time to reach us. Ref That multiplies out to something like a thousand billion billion earth size planets in habitable zones. That’s 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them. Jupiter type planets, needed for asteroid eating, also seem to be rather common. Ref
What are the odds against Earth NOT happening by chance? Astronomical!
Oooh! Oooh! Also...our sun is not one of the more common star variants. The most common variant of star are red dwarfs. Also they last longer...so there'd be plenty of time for life to form on planets orbiting them.
Life is here anyway.
Red dwarf stars, or M dwarfs, have recently been hailed as the best places to discover alien life. They are by far the most common stars in our galaxy, making up 75 percent of all stars. They are also the longest-lived-they can burn for trillions of years, far longer than the ten-billion-years lifespan of our Sun. What's more, nearly all of them may have a planet in the habitable zone. Young Red Dwarf Stars could Host Habitable Worlds
Oooh! Oooh! Also...our sun is not one of the more common star variants. The most common variant of star are red dwarfs. Also they last longer...so there'd be plenty of time for life to form on planets orbiting them.
Life is here anyway.
Red dwarf stars, or M dwarfs, have recently been hailed as the best places to discover alien life. They are by far the most common stars in our galaxy, making up 75 percent of all stars. They are also the longest-lived-they can burn for trillions of years, far longer than the ten-billion-years lifespan of our Sun. What's more, nearly all of them may have a planet in the habitable zone. Young Red Dwarf Stars could Host Habitable Worlds
Very interesting! Too bad Robert Forward is no longer with us. He wrote stories about life on a neutron star! I wonder what he might have done with red dwarf planets.
I didn't read your link, but science DOES prove God, the Bible teaches Evolution, the big bang, where the moon came from and how it came to be one with the Earth.
The Evolution of the Temple going from animal skins to human skins says a great deal, and the comings and goings of the Temple teaches a progressive evolution how a human evolves into a son of God.
Can't comment because it requires a login / subscription to the Wall Street Journal. However, since an invisible personal god is not a falsifiable hypothesis, there is no way science could prove it anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
